Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317222 — State of repair at 1 Wilson Road, Dairy Flat, RD 2, Dairy Flat 0792

Decided 9 March 2026 · Published 9 March 2026 · Application 5317222

Tenant favoured

State of repair
Leaks
Mould
Smoke alarms
Healthy homes

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Tenant favoured

From published order

Location

Dairy Flat

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

M Pollak

Dispute themes

Award balance

Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.

Gross award: $25,822.20
Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant: $25,822.20

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards for application 5317222 — net $25,822.20 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: Failure to maintain- Dishwasher

Amount: $1,752.85
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- Dishwasher

Compensation: Cost of healthy homes assessment report

Amount: $160.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Cost of healthy homes assessment report

Compensation: Failure to maintain- chimney and fireplace

Amount: $1,168.57
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- chimney and fireplace

Compensation: Failure to maintain- mould on ceilings

Amount: $3,005.71
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- mould on ceilings

Compensation: Failure to maintain- hole in internal and external wall

Amount: $3,757.14
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- hole in internal and external wall

Compensation: Failure to maintain- window and door framing issues

Amount: $2,921.43
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- window and door framing issues

Compensation: Failure to maintain- bathroom fan

Amount: $221.43
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- bathroom fan

Compensation: Reimburse cost of water pump

Amount: $1,168.50
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Reimburse cost of water pump

Compensation: Reimburse cost of a tank of water

Amount: $320.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Reimburse cost of a tank of water

Compensation: Failure to maintain watertank

Amount: $244.29
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain watertank

Compensation: Failure to maintain- leak in downstairs bedroom

Amount: $4,508.57
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- leak in downstairs bedroom

Compensation: Failure to maintain- oven/stove

Amount: $1,765.71
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- oven/stove

Compensation: Smoke alarm regulation breach

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Smoke alarm regulation breach

Exemplary damages: Breach of s45(1)(b) and (bb) RTA obligations

Amount: $2,400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of s45(1)(b) and (bb) RTA obligations

Compensation: Failure to provide statutorily required information in tenancy agreements- s13A RTA

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to provide statutorily required information in tenancy agreements- s13A RTA

Compensation: Failure to keep business records- s30 RTA

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to keep business records- s30 RTA

Compensation: Failure to provide requested HHS info within 21 days

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to provide requested HHS info within 21 days

Compensation-Bond not lodged

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Bond not lodged

Filing fee reimbursement

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

Net award

Tenant $25,822.20

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $25,822.20

Dismissed claims

Rent Arrears — Should the tenancy be terminated, and possession returned to the landlord?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Replace Smoke Alarms Exemplary damages Filing Fee Rent arrears

Order

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 22 March 2026: a. Leak in downstairs bedroom to be investigated by a qualified contractor, leak fully remediated and all water damage fully repaired. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, including the source of the leak identified and remediated, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; b. Install new dishwasher. Landlord to give the tenant a $15.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until a new dishwasher is installed and fully operational; c. Rotten interior and exterior wall in the small entranceway to the downstairs bedroom to be investigated by a qualified contractor, leak(s) fully remediated and all water damage to the interior and exterior walls fully remediated. Landlord to give the tenant a $25.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, including the source of the leak identified and remediated, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; d. Chimney to be swept by a professional chimney sweep. Landlord to give the tenant $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the chimney has been swept; e. Bricks around the fireplace to be investigated and repaired/replaced. Landlord to give the tenant $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; f. Seal around fireplace glass door to be repaired or replaced. Landlord to give the tenant $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; g. Mould on ceilings throughout the premise to be cleaned by a mould treatment specialist. Landlord to give the tenant a $20.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; h. Rot around windows and doors joinery to be investigated by a qualified builder and remediated. Landlord to give the tenant a $15.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; i. Two-bedroom windows that are screwed shut from the inside to be investigated by a qualified builder and remediated. Landlord to give the tenant a $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, and the issue fully resolved; j. A new oven and stove to be installed and be fully functional. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; k. Healthy homes complaint photoelectric smoke alarms to be installed throughout the premise so that there is one within 3 meters of each bedroom door and on every level of the house. All installed smoke alarms to have batteries, be tested and be fully functional. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; l. The premise must be brought up to healthy homes compliance standard for all five healthy homes standards in accordance with the Panda Healthy Homes Assessment Report dated 16 December 2025. Landlord to give the tenant a $200.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; m. The landlord must construct accurate rent records and provide them to the tenant. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; n. The full bond must be lodged with the Bond Centre. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the bond has been lodged and proof provided to the tenant.
If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 1 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $80,000.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
Sujendra Sharma must pay Tammy Brassey $25,822.20 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended a case management conference with Adjudicator Kan on 17 October 2025 and a hearing on 3 February 2026. The matter was adjourned twice, on 27 November 2025 and 19 December 2025, due to the landlord’s work commitments preventing him from attending the hearing and him being unable to brief a representative in time for the scheduled hearings.
The tenant has applied for work orders, compensation, general damages, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has made a late cross application, on 7 January 2026, for rent arrears, compensation, general damages, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. 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.
In summary, 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. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. However, section 109(2) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

Are there rent arrears owing?

The landlord says the tenant owes him rent arrears of $1,710.06 to 28 December 2025.
The tenant agrees that she has not paid her rent in full and on time because the landlord has breached so many of his Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 based obligations to her as a tenant and continues to do so.
The tenant undertook to recommence paying $620.00 rent per week from 6 March 2026, conditional upon the landlord having complied with all the work orders she sought at the 3 February 2026 hearing. The tenant has updated the Tribunal on 6 March 2026 that none of the work orders agreed upon by the landlord at the hearing have been complied with.
At the hearing, the landlord did not provide accurate rent records in the required format and the tenant disprove the amount the landlord stated was owing.
I am not satisfied that the rent records are accurate. The Tribunal cannot award rent arrears unless it is certain the landlord has proven the amount sought is owing and the tenant has not disproven the rent records produced. The claim is dismissed.

Should the tenancy be terminated, and possession returned to the landlord?

The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy in accordance with s55(1)(a) of the RTA because he says the rent was 21 days or more in rent arrears on the date he filed his application, being 7 January 2026.
The rent records produced are inaccurate and the landlord has been unable to prove that the rent was in arrears of 21 or more days on 7 January 2026. The claim is dismissed.

Should the tenant pay the landlord for costs of clearing rubbish out of the yard?

The landlord says there is lots of junk and rubbish in the yard that needs to be removed, after the tenant refused to do so, and seeks compensation of $5,000.00.
The landlord has not provided any evidence of the rubbish/junk in the yard, nor a receipt for the $5,000.00 he claims it has cost him to have it removed.
.A landlord cannot be compensated for a loss he has not incurred nor can he be compensated for a tenant breach he has not proven on the balance of probabilities.
The claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to hear it. Should the Tribunal compensate the landlord for the loss of his life insurance policy valued at $700,000.00?
The Tenancy Tribunal is statutorily barred from hearing claims for more than a total of $100,00.00. This claim well exceeds that limit. If a claim exceeds this amount, it must be filed through the District Court.
Additionally, the Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear any life insurance related claims. There are no breaches by a tenant in the RTA that could give rise to such a claim.
The claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to hear it. Should the Tribunal compensate the landlord for stress and unwanted financial pressure valued at $100,000.00?
The Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear any landlord claims for stress or financial pressure.
A landlord is running a business when he/she/it rents out a premise and is expected to manage the tenancy in accordance with his obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and all associated statues and regulations. This includes, but is not limited to, meeting all his s45(1) of the RTA obligations to ensure the premise in repaired and maintained to a reasonable standard in all the circumstances and that the premise complies with all the healthy homes standards and smoke alarm regulations.
There is no provision in the RTA that provides a remedy for landlord stress or any financial pressure a landlord experiences as a result of choosing to rent out a premise to a tenant. A landlord is expected to have sufficient funds to cover the costs associated with complying with the RTA during the period the landlord is renting the premise to a tenant.
The claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to hear it. Should the Tribunal compensate the landlord for the tenant running a business from the rental premise?
The landlord asserts the tenant is running a business from the rental premise without his permission and he wants compensation for her breach of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord has not provided any evidence of the tenant running a business from her home nor that she required his permission to do so. He was unable to show me the provision in the tenancy agreement he says the tenant had breached.
The tenant denies running a business from her home.
In New Zealand, a tenant can run a business from a rental property, but the premise must be primarily used for residential purposes. Written permission from the landlord is generally required if a tenant is running a full business operation from the premise, such as a medical practice or massage therapy practice or nail salon or hair salon or the like. The tenant would also need to ensure the business complied with local council zoning, bylaws, and did not impact the landlord's insurance. A tenant does not need consent from a landlord to administer a business from a rental premise e.g do the accounts, or to use the premise as a base from which to go to or from a work site, such as may be the case in a gardening business where a tenant may keep a work van and equipment stored at home that he/she/they take to clients premises each day. It is of note that low- impact, home-office based businesses (e.g. online retail, consulting) do not require landlord consent whereas businesses involving significant numbers of clients coming and going from the premise, or significant amounts of inventory being kept on the premise, are more likely to require landlord consent.
The landlord was not clear about the nature of the business he says the tenant is running from the premise, nor why he considers the tenant requires his permission to run any such business form home.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed for failure to provide evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Does the tenant require a landlord’s permission to have a flatmate?
The tenant is legally entitled to have a flatmate without obtaining the landlord’s permission, so long as she does not exceed to maximum number of occupants provided for in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord has not produced any evidence that the tenant has exceed the number of occupants provided for in either of the two tenancy agreements signed by the parties, during the tenancy. I do not appear to have complete copies of these two agreements, or these two agreements did not record that specific information. I am not sure from the evidence provided which one is true.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed for failure to provide evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. TENANT’S CLAIMS Work Orders Sought
The tenant has proven the landlord has committed a number of beaches of his obligations under the RTA and she wants these problems fixed.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds, the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 22 March 2026: a. Leak in downstairs bedroom to be investigated by a qualified contractor, leak fully remediated and all water damage fully repaired. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, including the source of the leak identified and remediated, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; b. Install new dishwasher. Landlord to give the tenant a $15.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until a new dishwasher is installed and fully operational; c. Rotten interior and exterior wall in the small entranceway to the downstairs bedroom to be investigated by a qualified contractor, leak(s) fully remediated and all water damage to the interior and exterior walls fully remediated. Landlord to give the tenant a $25.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, including the source of the leak identified and remediated, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; d. Chimney to be swept by a professional chimney sweep. Landlord to give the tenant $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the chimney has been swept; e. Bricks around the fireplace to be investigated and repaired/replaced. Landlord to give the tenant $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; f. Seal around fireplace glass door to be repaired or replaced. Landlord to give the tenant $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; g. Mould on ceilings throughout the premise to be cleaned by a mould treatment specialist. Landlord to give the tenant a $20.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; h. Rot around windows and doors joinery to be investigated by a qualified builder and remediated. Landlord to give the tenant a $15.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; i. Two-bedroom windows that are screwed shut from the inside to be investigated by a qualified builder and remediated. Landlord to give the tenant a $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, and the issue fully resolved; j. A new oven and stove to be installed and be fully functional. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; k. Healthy homes complaint photoelectric smoke alarms to be installed throughout the premise so that there is one within 3 meters of each bedroom door and on every level of the house. All installed smoke alarms to have batteries, be tested and be fully functional. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; l. The premise must be brought up to healthy homes compliance standard for all five healthy homes standards in accordance with the Panda Healthy Homes Assessment Report dated 16 December 2025. Landlord to give the tenant a $200.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; m. The landlord must construct accurate rent records and provide them to the tenant. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; n. The full bond must be lodged with the Bond Centre. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the bond has been lodged and proof provided to the tenant.
If the landlord fails to comply with the orders set out in paragraph [45]and Order 1 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $80,000.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond within the required statutory timeframes?

The tenant claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord confirmed that he knew that bonds for residential tenancies must be lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received and that he had not done so because: a. He and his wife did not remember if they had lodged the bond or not; b. He had not lodged it because the tenant was behind on rent and thought he would use it to offset rent arrears because she had told him he could do so in a text message dated 20 May 2022 and that he did so but forgot to record the transaction on the rent summary.
The RTA is clear, all landlords must lodge the tenant’s bond with Tenancy Services/the Bond Centre within 23 working days of receiving it.
The landlord confirmed it did not do so.
The tenancy commenced on 9 October 2018. The tenant’s agreement for the landlord to use the $1,710.00 bond to offset rent arrears in May 2022 was not within these 23 working days after receiving the bond from the tenant.
Tenancy Services has confirmed it has no record of a bond for this address or this tenant.
I find that the landlords have intentionally committed an unlawful act when they failed to lodge the bond with Tenancy Services Bond Centre within 23 working days from the date, they received the bond, being 9 October 2018. Further, the tenant has issued 14-day notices requiring the landlord to remedy this breach on 26/09/2204 and 01/08/2025 and then in her application filed 5 August 2025.The landlord has still not lodged the bond or accounted for it in the rent records and then came seeking $1,710.00 rent arrears from the tenant and termination of her tenancy for unproven rent breaches. This claim indicates that the landlord decided not to use to bond to offset rent arrears it says are owing, despite the tenant’s agreement to it doing so. The evidence suggests it still did not lodge the bond after, more likely than not, making that decision.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Landlords are required to understand their responsibilities to tenants, and I am satisfied the landlord should have reasonably known that the bond had to be submitted to the Bond Centre within 23 days after their receipt of it. The obligations placed on a landlord to put the bond into the Bond Centre on trust for the tenant is an obligation the Tribunal takes seriously. The bond is owned by the tenant, until the parties agree that all or part of the bond can be paid to the landlord to cover proven debts.
I find it would be just to require the landlords to pay exemplary damages to the tenant because: a. The landlords intentionally held on to the bond and did not submit it to the Bond Centre for over 7 years and 4 months since the tenancy commenced and the bond was paid by the tenant; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting the bond money that has been placed in it on trust for the tenant’s benefit, unless it is proven the tenant owes the landlord a debt that both parties agree can be paid by the Bond Centre to the landlord or on order from the Tribunal. The tenant’s money was not protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for a total period of 7 years and 4 months between 9 October 2018 to 8 March 2026 and it should have been; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations pay the bond received into the Bond Centre promptly for the protection of both parties’ interests.
However, s109(2) statutorily bars me from from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it has been more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025) that this breach occurred.
I find that this intentional disregard for the RTA and the protections it affords tenants warrants an award of general damages of $1,000.00 and make that award to the tenant for this breach. Has the landlord breached his section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) obligations to the tenant?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to his attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is 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”. 1 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15].
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA states that a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A.
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
Breaching any of these s45(1) obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain
The tenant gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to his attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances.
The landlord repeatedly confirmed that he had not investigated and repaired defects with the property brought to his attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. His justification for these breaches of s45(1) of the RTA are: 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. a. The tenant has not paid her rent, and he has been unable to fund the repairs and maintenance required as a result. This allegation has remained unproven during this hearing; and b. He lost his job on 3 December 2025 and has not had the financial capacity to meet his s45(1)of the RTA obligations to the tenant. This does not explain the numerous breaches of his s45(1) of the RTA breaches prior to that date. A. Dishwasher
The tenant confirmed, after the first year of tenancy, the dishwasher stopped working and that she first raised this issue in writing on 11 December 2023 in a 14-day notice to remedy. She also produced an email she sent to the landlord on 24 August 2025, informing the landlord the dishwasher still not working. The landlord never responded to either.
At the 3 February 2026 hearing, the landlord committed to getting a new dishwasher installed within the next 2 weeks. The tenant confirmed on Friday 6 March 2026 that he had not done so.
I am satisfied the landlord has intentionally committed an unlawful act.
I find the tenant should receive a rent rebate of $15 per week for the period she lived with this loss of amenity, and the stress and convenience she suffered from 11 December 2023 to 8 March 2026 (116 weeks 6 days) being a rent rebate of $1,752.85.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $50.00 per week for the period 12 July 2022 to 18 August 2023 (57 weeks and 3 days). being a rent rebate of $2,871.42 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). B. House foundation sinking- ground goes straight into the bedroom making the foundations are illegal
The tenant confirmed that after she received the heathy homes assessment report from Panda Solutions, in December 2025, she became aware of structural issues with the premise and that the foundation is sinking and the ground now does straight into the ground.
The tenant confirmed that she had not provided the landlord with a copy of the Panda Solutions report and had not raised this issue with the landlord as at the date of 3 February 2026 hearing.
A landlord cannot address an issue it does not know about and that a tenant cannot prove it has raised with the landlord.
This claim is dismissed for a failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant did prove that she paid $160.00 for the report that shows the premise fails to meet all the healthy homes’ standards. I award the tenant $160.00 compensation for the commissioning of the report to obtain healthy homes information the landlord should have supplied to the tenant in the tenancy agreement and on her request but did not. C. Chimney and fireplace
The tenant confirmed the premise’s only source of heating is a tiled fireplace with glass door and flue up to the ceiling.
The photographic evidence provided by the tenant shows there are no fire bricks around the hearth, the glass door does not have rope seal intact and the chimney has not been cleaned or swept since the tenancy commenced on 9 October 2018.
The landlord claims he had the chimney swept 3 to 4 years ago. He did not provide a receipt for this or any other evidence to support his claim.
Chimneys should generally be cleaned and inspected at least once a year to remove creosote, prevent chimney fires, and satisfy insurance requirements. If the fireplace or wood burner is used heavily, daily, or burns unseasoned wood, it may require cleaning twice per season (or roughly every 1–2 cords of wood).
The tenant has proven she issued the landlord with 14-day notices to remedy the chimney and tile issues on 11/12/23, 1/8/25 and 24/8 2025. The photographic evidence provided proves the landlord had still not addressed these issues by Friday 6 March 2026.
The landlord had nothing to say in his defence about this breach.
I find he has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $10.00 per week for the period 11 December 2023 to 8 March 2026 (116 weeks and 6 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $1,168.57ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). D. Mould
The tenant provided photographic of extensive black mould on the ceilings in the kitchen, upstairs bedroom and hallway. She also proved she had issued 14-day notices to remedy this issue on 21/4/23, 27/7/23 and 24/8/25 and that the landlord had not addressed the issue at the date of the hearing and has followed up the Tribunal to confirm that by 5:00pm on Friday 6 March 2026 this issue had still not been addressed.
The landlord doesn’t deny this and accepts the ventilation and draught issues need to be addressed at the property that are causing the mould. He stated that the black mould would be treated after that remedial work was been done.
I find the landlord has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $20.00 per week for the period 24 April 2023 to 8 March 2026 (150 weeks and 2 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $3,005.71 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). E. Rotten interior and exterior walls
The tenant provided photographic of a rotten internal wall in the small entrance way by the entrance to the downstairs bedroom. She states this damage is from water flooding down the stairs that has rotted the wall to the extent you can put your hand through the hole to outside.
The landlord says the tenant did inform him about this issue and that it is an easy fix. He also confirmed that he has not yet been over to fix it, despite knowing of it at least since the tenant’s application on 5 August 2025.
The tenant produced a text message that proves she raised this issue with the landlord on 24 April 2023 and she confirmed to the Tribunal that it had still not been addressed by 5:00pm on Friday 6 March 2026.
The landlord says he is struggling financially as the tenant is not paying her rent in full and on time and he has struggled to make ends meet and to pay for maintenance including these rotten walls.
I find the landlord has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $25.00 per week for the period 24 April 2023 to 8 March 2026 (150 weeks and 2 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $3,757.14 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). F. Rotten window and door frames that will not close properly or are screwed shut a. The tenant provided photographic of two bedrooms upstairs where two windows are screwed shut from outside. One was done when she arrived and the other one, she nailed shut (around December 2023 after it kept coming open and banging because of so many holes in the joinery. She proved she issued a 14-day notice about these windows on 11 December 2023; and b. Rotten framing around the upstairs lounge door on to the deck; and c. Four windows and a door that have smashed due to flying open in the wind; d. The kitchen window frame rotting from outside; e. The downstairs door rotting around its framing due to ongoing leaks.
The landlord had nothing to say in his defence about these breaches.
I find he has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $25.00 per week for the period 11 December 2023 to 8 March 2026 (116 weeks and 6 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $2,921.23 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). G. Bathroom and kitchen extractor fans
The tenant provided the Panda Solutions Healthy Home report that confirmed the bathroom fan was not compliant in December 2025, but the kitchen extractor fans was compliant.
The tenant sent two 14-day notices to the landlord about the extractor fan issues on 1 and 24 August 2025.
The tenant confirmed the bathroom fan was fixed in around 3 January 2025 but says the kitchen extractor fan is still faulty.
The landlord confirmed he sent an electrician to look at bathroom fan, rangehood and oven on 23 October 2025 and had a text message from his electrician that confirmed he had checked the range hood, it was working, and it may be an intermittent problem that was not present when he was investigating it.
The tenant says the kitchen extractor fan has never really worked. The lights work but no fan goes on.
Based on the electrician’s text message and the Panda Solutions healthy homes assessment report, I find that the tenant has not produced enough evidence on the balance of probabilities to prove the kitchen extractor fan is not working and the landlord has disproven this claim. I also find the tenant has proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to fix the bathroom extractor fan from 1 August 2025 to 3 January 2026.
I find the landlord has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $10.00 per week for the period 1 August 2025 to 3 January 2026 (22 weeks and 1 day) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $221.43 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). H. Water pump and water tank leak
The tenant claims the water tank was leaking prior to pump breaking down, that she notified the landlord on 18 June 2025 that the pump was broken, and the tank had been leaking for a while. The landlord said he would reimburse tenant for the water but did not.
The tenant provided evidence: a. The water pump stopped working for six weeks and two days, from 18 June 2025 to 14 August 2025, leaving the tenant without running wate; b. The tenant’s family paid $1,16.50 for a new water pump; c. The tenant paid $320.00 for a tank of water after a leak in the tank depleted it fully; d. The new pump was installed on 14 August 2025.
The landlord says he did not have enough time to have the pump fixed. He says he did not get the Facebook message on 18 June 2025 and by the time he got the text message from the tenant on 24 June 2025 she had already been a few days without water.
The tenant confirmed on 25 June 225, she saw a new pump on trade me and told the landlord she was going to purchase it and have it installed. The landlord confirmed he asked her about the size of the pump, and was told it was bigger than current one.
The pump turned out to be faulty, so the tenant told the landlord that it has not been replaced. On 1 August 2025, the landlord says he got a quote for replacing the pump at a cost of $700.00. The landlord did not know what happened after that.
The tenant still had no water after 1 August 2025, so engaged a contractor to replace the pump and fix the leak at a cost of $1,168.50. She notified the landlord on 14 August 2025 that the pump had been replaced and the leak fixed. He confirmed that he would not accept the plumbers 1 August 2025 quote and that he cancelled his plumber the same day.
I find the landlord has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive: a. A rent rebate of $30.00 per week for the period 18 June 2025 to14 August 2025 (8 weeks and 1 day) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $244.29 ordered; b. $1,168.50 compensation for the cost of the water pump; and c. $320.00 compensation for the tank of water.
I am satisfied it would also be just to also require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages for this because: a. The tenant suffered a loss of amenity stress and inconvenience caused by this breach when the landlord knew of these issues and did not take reasonable steps to investigate and remedy them in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances; b. The tenant also suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind him of his obligations under the RTA to no avail ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for the bathroom related breach will be addressed at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breaches section of this Order. I. Leak in downstairs bedroom and broken downpipe
The tenant provided photographic of the water damage caused by a leak that was discovered on 21 April 2023 after a broken downpipe failed and caused a rotten wall in stairwell. This led to a bedroom leak from 1 June 2024. The tenant proved she reported the downpipe issue on 21 April 2023, but nothing was done to investigate or remediate the issue.
The tenant gave evidence that every time it rained heavily thereafter the gutters overflow and because the foundation are below ground level, it floods outside the door downstairs and floods into the downstairs room.
The tenant proved she has issued 14-day notices about these issues and sent emails to the landlord on 26 September 2024, June/July 2025, and 24 August 2025.
The landlord says he got some text messages in June/July 2025 about the leak and got a plumber to come and investigate and remediate the leak issue. A few weeks after this issue was raised, the landlord says he got a plumber in to try and fix the issue with the leaks under the house. He says the plumber repaired a piece of down piping with a hole in it. The tenant gave evidence the landlord did not pay contractor, so he did not come back and finish the job.
The landlord says after the plumber had been he had not had any contact from the tenant about the ongoing leak and was not aware this was still a problem. The tenant proved she had messaged the landlord on 24 August 2025 and the issues have still not been resolved as at 5:00pm on 6 March 2026.
I find the landlord has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $30.00 per week for the period 21 April 2023 to 8 March 2026 (150 weeks and 2 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $4,508.57 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). J. Oven and stover
The tenant says the oven and cooktop stopped working in August 2024. She emailed the landlord, but no longer has access to these emails due to broken phone.
She proved she first raised in writing on 26 September 2024 in a 14-day notice to remedy and again in another 14-day notice on 1 August 2025.
The parties confirmed a new oven/stove was installed on 12 November 2025 after telling the tenant for years that the only way this can be sorted is to purchase a new one herself and deduct from rent arrears.
I find he has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $30.00 per week for the period 26 September 2024 to 12 November 2025 (58 weeks and 6 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $1,765.71 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025).

Did the landlord breach the smoke alarm regulations?

Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA states the landlord “shall comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A”.
The tenant claims the rental premise had no compliant or working smoke alarms when she moved in, and none have been installed by the landlord during the tenancy. She provided photographic evidence that proves this.
The tenant also says when she told the landlord there were no smoke alarms, he told her it was her responsibility to purchase and install the smoke alarms required to make the premise compliant.
The tenant described the premise as a two-storey house with two bedrooms upstairs and one downstairs. She says she purchased one smoke alarm and installed it upstairs but could not afford to purchase any more. She has not been reimbursed for the cost of the smoke alarm purchase and I could not reimburse the cost to her as I was not provided with a receipt.
Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) website, www.fire.org, confirms both landlords and tenants take some responsible for smoke alarms as follows: a. Landlords must ensure smoke alarms: i. are working at the start of each new tenancy; ii. remain in working order during the tenancy; and iii. That are not working are replaced with photoelectric smoke alarms. b. Tenants must: i. not damage, remove, or disconnect a smoke alarm; ii. replace dead batteries during the tenancy if there are older-style smoke alarms with replaceable batteries; and iii. let the landlord know if there are any problems with the smoke alarms as soon as possible.
The Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 healthy hoes report confirms there were no compliant smoke alarms when it carried out its assessment and that two were required to ensure that there was one within 3 metres of each bedroom door.
I am satisfied that the tenant has proven that the landlord failed to ensure the rental premise was fitted with working smoke alarms that meet the regulatory requirements referred to in the RTA.
I find that the tenant should be awarded compensation for the breach of the landlord’s obligations to provide smoking smoke alarms and award compensation of $500.00 for the landlord’s blatant disregard of the smoke alarm regulations and the tenant’s safety.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). Failure to meet buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premise
The tenant says the landlord failed to meet his obligations under s45(1)(c) of the RTA as the premise did not meet the building and health and safety related laws that apply to residential tenancies.
I note that the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 only applies to contractors that are working on the premise in unsafe conditions and not to person living in a premise.
The tenant says the premise did not meet the building code and building standards as the foundation has sunk and the building now sits below ground level and that causes leaks and water damage in the house.
The tenant says the healthy homes inspection raised this breach with her when he conducted the healthy homes assessment, but there is nothing about this in the Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 report.
Regulation 7(2) of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) states: There shall be in each kitchen or kitchenette— (a) an approved sink with a tap connected to an adequate supply of potable water; and (b) adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food, both by boiling and by baking.
The tenant has proven the premise had no means of baking or boiling from 24 September 2024 to 12 November 2025 and that there was no water for the kitchen sink from 18 June 2025 to 14 August 2025. Therefore, I am satisfied that the landlord was in breach of this obligation. The tenant has already received compensation for these breaches under her failure to maintain claims. The tenant should not receive additional compensation because these breaches fall under two different categories of breach. I have considered the duality of breach when awarding compensation under the failure to maintain sections of this Order, above.
Regulation 9(2)of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) states: Every bathroom shall contain an approved bath or shower with an adequate supply of wholesome water. Adequate means of heating water shall be provided.
The tenant has proven the premise had no water for the bathroom from 18 June 2025 to 14 August 2025. Therefore, I am satisfied that the landlord was in breach of this obligation. The tenant has already received compensation for this breach under her failure to maintain claims. The tenant should not receive additional compensation because this breach falls under two different categories of breach. I have considered the duality of breach when awarding compensation under the failure to maintain sections of this Order, above.
Regulation 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) states: Every house shall be free from dampness.
The tenant has proven the premise has leaks and water damage, ventilation issues and draught stopping issues that have led the house to be damp and mouldy. The tenant has already received compensation for these breach under her failure to maintain claims. The tenant should not receive additional compensation because these breaches fall under two different categories of breach. I have considered the duality of the breaches when awarding compensation under the failure to maintain sections of this Order, above.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). Failure to meet healthy homes standards
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. 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 ii. 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. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenant has had two tenancy agreements during her tenancy. The first was commenced on 9 October 2018 and the second commenced on 18 June 2024. Therefore, the landlord had until 1 July 2025 to comply with the healthy homes’ standards under the first tenancy agreement and 120 days from the commencement of the second tenancy agreement, being Wednesday 16 October 2024.
When the tenant informed the landlord, she had engaged Panda Solutions to assess the premise against the healthy homes standards and that it did not fully comply with any of them, he said this is all new to him and he had not had time to go and check that the house is all compliant. He told the tenant he would call Panda Solutions to see if they can remediate the issues highlighted. He has not done so to date. A. Insulation
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 healthy homes assessment report records “the underfloor insulation has met minimum thickness, but some areas are missing. Need to be topped up to satisfy requirements of code NZS 4246:2016” and that the premise is “non-compliant with the insulation standard.”
The tenant’s claim has been proven by an independent third party.
The tenant became aware of this breach on 16 December 2025, within 12 months of her application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Therefore, exemplary damages can be considered. I am however, not satisfied that this breach was known by the landlord or an intentional breach. Therefore, I cannot award any exemplary damages for this breach. B. Heating
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the heating standard.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
There must be one or more fixed heaters that can directly heat the main living room.
The main living room is the largest room that is used for general, everyday living – for example a lounge, family room or dining room.
Heater(s) must be fixed (not portable) and must be at least 1.5 kW in heating capacity and meet the minimum heating capacity needed for the main living room. There are several options to calculate the heating capacity required for the main living room.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant has proven that the only source of heating for the premise is a closed fireplace that was not fit for purpose due to the chimney not having been cleaned, the glass door not sealing properly and there being no fire bricks around the hearth from the start of the tenancy.
Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 healthy homes assessment report records “Heating-existing fireplace heating capacity unable to be determined. Need to add heating devices to mee t capacity requirements or check manufacturers or council records for the heating capacity of the fireplace. Requires 7kW of heating capacity. Heaters installed before 1 July 2019, each have to have a minimum heating greater than 2.4kW, meet the general requirements for heaters and have combined capacity that is at least 80 per cent of what is required. 80% of 7kW is
6kW”.
The tenant’s claim has been proven by an independent third party.
The tenant became aware of this breach on 16 December 2025, within 12 months of her application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Therefore, exemplary damages can be considered.
In this case I have determined the landlord has committed an intentional unlawful act by failing to ensure the premise met the heating standard by the earlier compliance date. He was well aware the fireplace was not usable in its current condition, as the tenant had repeatedly raised this with him.
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.
Considering those factors, I am satisfied it would also be just to also require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages for this because: a. The tenant suffered a loss of amenity stress and inconvenience caused by this breach when the landlord knew of this issue and did not take reasonable steps to ensure the premise met the heating standard by Wednesday 16 October 2024; b. The tenant also suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind him of his obligations under the healthy homes’ standards to no avail ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the breach; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their healthy homes standards obligations.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for the bathroom related breach will be addressed at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breaches section of this Order. C. Ventilation
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the ventilation standard.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 healthy homes assessment report records the bbathroom extractor fan was non-compliant on the date of the assessment and the tenant has proven the bathroom extractor fan did not work from 1 August 2025 to 3 January 2026. Therefore, on Wednesday 16 October 2024, the premise did not meet the ventilation standard.
The tenant became aware of this breach on 1 August 2025, within 12 months of her application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Therefore, exemplary damages can be considered.
In this case I have determined the landlord has committed an intentional unlawful act by failing to ensure the premise met the ventilation standard by the earlier compliance date. He was well aware the bathroom extractor fan was not compliant, as the tenant had repeatedly raised this with him.
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.
Considering those factors, I am satisfied it would also be just to also require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages for this because: a. The tenant suffered a loss of amenity stress and inconvenience caused by this breach when the landlord knew of this issue and did not take reasonable steps to ensure the premise met the heating standard by Wednesday 16 October 2024; b. The tenant also suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind him of his obligations under the healthy homes’ standards to no avail ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the breach; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their healthy homes standards obligations.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for the bathroom related breach will be addressed at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breaches section of this Order. D. Draught Stopping
The tenant claims the landlord has failed to comply with the 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.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 healthy homes assessment report records the following draught stopping standard breaches: a. Ceiling is cracked; b. Ceiling hatch is missing; c. Gaps present around both the front and back doors allowing draughts; d. Two holes on the external wall; e. Window handles are broken and one window stay (support bracket) is damaged; f. One window is poorly fitted, and need to be fixed; g. Multiple window gaps exceeding 3mm, resulting air leak; and h. Mould present
Therefore, on Wednesday 16 October 2024, the premise did not meet the ventilation standard.
The tenant became aware of these breaches are various times during the tenancy from 21 April 2023 to 6 March 2026, outside of the 12-month period prior to her application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Therefore, exemplary damages cannot be considered, even though I am satisfied the landlord was aware of these breaches and intentionally failed to address them (Refer to s109(2)(a) of the RTA). The tenant has received compensation for these breaches in the repair and maintenance breach section of this order. E. Moisture Ingress and Drainage
The tenant claims the landlord has failed to comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard.
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 if it is reasonably practical to do so.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 healthy homes assessment report records: a. “Ground moisture barrier and drainage- gutters loose and downpipes cracked- GMB has parts missing- Need to install to meet the specifications in NZS4246:2016”; and b. Guttering is loose and needs to be fixed; and c. One downpipe is cracked and needs to be fixed.
Further the tenant has proven in her repair and maintenance claims that she has raised these issues with the landlord on 21 April 2023 and the issues have still not been addressed by to 8 March 2026.
Therefore, I am satisfied that on Wednesday 16 October 2024, the premise did not meet the ventilation standard.
The tenant became aware of the breach of the ground moisture barrier on 16 December 2025, within 12 months of her application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Therefore, exemplary damages can be considered. However, she became aware of the other moisture ingress and drainage issues on 21 April 2023, outside of the 12-month period before her application to the Tenancy Tribunal.
In this case I have determined the landlord has committed unlawful act by failing to ensure the premise met the moisture ingress and drainage standards by the earlier compliance date. He should have been aware the premise had to be fully compliant by Wednesday 16 October 2024 and took no seps to ensure it was.
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.
Considering those factors, I am not satisfied it would also be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages for this because the tenant has not proven on the balance of probabilities that this breach was intentional.
The tenant has received compensation for the other drainage and moisture ingress issues in the repair and maintenance section of this Order above. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed one intentional breach of s45(1)(b) and two of s45(1)(bb) of the RTA that resulted in the tenant living conditions that were unhealthy and that she experienced considerable periods of stress, inconvenience, and loss of the amenity the tenant was paying rent to enjoy. The landlord did not offer any rent relief to the tenant at these times.
I find the landlord has committed these three unlawful acts intentionally.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenant many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $2,400.00 exemplary damages to the tenant, being one third of the maximum penalty available. Failure to keep proper business records
The tenant claims the landlord has not kept records of rent and bond paid.
A landlord must keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant. See section 30(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 30(2) and Schedule 1A RTA).
The tenant has proven the rent records are inaccurate. They show the tenant has paid $12,783.00 in rent since 8 January 2025 when the rent payments on the ledger add up to $15,388.00.
The tenant has also produced text messages to the landlord seeking a copy of the rent ledger during the tenancy and none were ever provided to the tenant. They say things such as: a. Tenant: “Can you please send me the original tenancy agreement and the tenant ledger (proof of all payments) including missed payments and $ that should have being taken off for things I fixed around the house etc. Thanks” b. Landlord: “I am not going back that many years as I have not got time and I paid you for things that you fixed ok. I’m sick and tired of all this to be really honest with you. I never had this problem with anyone before. You are having major problems paying full rent and its time you did something about it and did it urgently too. Thank you.” c. Landlord “...from the beginning of this year I have given you the breakdown already. Lets sort that out ok. I’m not going to let this go on for another month. Yu haven paid full rent for 7 months now and any other landlord would have kicked you out by now and believe me im on the verge of doing that. I felt sorry for you for too long now.”
The landlord also stated he had increased the rent lawfully to $630.00 via a text message dated 30 November 2021. This text confirms the rent is going up to $630.00 per week from 29 January 2022. The landlord could not explain why the new agreement in 2024 has $620.00 in it. The tenant proved the phone number the landlord sent this text message to was 0220963757 and that this was not her phone number in 2021 or ever. The tenant says the first she knew of this issue was when the landlord sent her a rent ledger on 29 July 2025 showing the rent as $630.00 per week back dated to 8 January 2025.
The rent records have also not accounted for payment of the bond at the start of the tenancy nor whether it has been used to cover two weeks rent arrears in May 2022 .
Proper business records mean records that are orderly, to a high standard 6 , and contemporaneous with payments made by the tenant 7 .
I find the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has failed to keep accurate business records that are of a high standard, in accordance with s30 of the RTA, and he has committed an unlawful act. e 6 Kumar v Capper NZTT Auckland TT1004/90, 12 March 1991 at [8]. 7 Brown v Steele [2002] DCR 338 at [19].
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord intentionally failed to retain accurate business records to a high standard and that it would be just to require the landlord to pay a general damages/compensatory sum of $300.00 because I am statutorily barred from awarding exemplary damages under s109(2) of the RTA and: a. The landlord should have reasonably known that it is required by law to keep accurate business records that allows it to provide the tenant with accurate rent summaries in a reasonable timeframe, and it did not. b. The tenant is entitled to rely on accurate business records being kept by their landlord for 7 years so that they can be assured their rent payments are being accounted for accurately and they can seek confirmation of how much rent they owe or have overpaid at any given time; c. t is in the interests of the tenant to receive general damages for the landlords’ breach. Did the landlord provide the statutorily required healthy homes, smoke alarm, insurance information and bond information in the tenancy agreement?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 13A(1A), 13A(1CA) and 13A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1A) the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord that describes whether or not there is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, any insulation installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises and the details of the location, type, and condition of all insulation that is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises.
Under s13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the five healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions. These five standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping. This provision also requires the landlord to record how many smoke alarms are in the premise, when the smoke alarms were last tested and when they expire.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
If the landlord is unable to provide some or all the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 13A(2) states the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement the following information about insurance of the premises: (a)if the premises are not insured, a statement that they are not insured; and (b)if the premises are insured, a statement— (i)setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and (ii)informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request (except that the statement need not inform the tenant of this if the landlord has already provided to the tenant a copy of the policy in accordance with section 45(2B) or 66J(5)).
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) and/or 13A(2) of the RTA obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant received two tenancy agreements during the tenancy. Tenancy agreement one
The first tenancy agreement commenced on 9 October 2018.
From 1 July 2019, landlords were required to sign a statement of intent to comply with healthy homes standards in new or varied tenancy agreements.
From 1 December 2020, landlord had to include a statement of their current level of compliance of the healthy homes’ standards in new or varied tenancy agreements.
An insulation statement has been legally required in all new, varied, or renewed tenancy agreements in New Zealand since 1 July 2016. This statement had to outline the location, type, and condition of the ceiling and underfloor insulation.
All rental properties were required to have ceiling and underfloor insulation installed by 1 July 2019.
Smoke alarm information has been mandatory in all New Zealand tenancy agreements since 1 July 2016. The law requires that all residential rental properties are fitted with working, compliant smoke alarms (long-life photoelectric) and that landlords include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement confirming this.
Insurance information became a mandatory requirement in New Zealand tenancy agreements for all new, varied, or renewed tenancies from August 27, 2019. Under the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2019, landlords must disclose if the property is insured, the excess amount, and provide a statement that insurance policies are available upon request.
Bond information, including the specific amount charged, has been a required component of written tenancy agreements in New Zealand since the RTA came into force in 1986.
Therefore, the first tenancy agreement failed to provide an insulation statement, smoke alarm and insurance information and the amount of bond charges and receipted but was not required to contain any of the other healthy homes’ standards related information. Tenancy agreement two
The second tenancy agreement commenced on 18 June 2024.
The second tenancy agreement was required to have all the current statutory required heathy homes information, insurance and bond information. It failed to contain: a. HHS compliance statement; b. HHS detailed compliance information; c. Smoke alarm information; d. Insurance information; e. Information on the amount of any general bond (refer to s13A(1)(i) of the RTA);
As such, the tenant had no idea, whether the premises were fully healthy homes compliant, whether any exemptions applied to the premises, whether there were smoke alarm(s) that were compliant with statutory requirements and whether the landlord had insurance that limited the tenant’s liability for costs associated with any careless or deliberate damages to the premise.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, pursuant to section 13A(1F)(a) of the RTA, the Tribunal may award up to a maximum of $750.00 in exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements and smoke alarm information prescribed by sections 13A(1A),13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, or the insurance information prescribed by s13A(2) of the RTA or the bond information prescribed by s13A(1)(i) of the RTA in the second tenancy agreement but I am statutorily barred from awarding exemplary damages for the 18 June 2024 agreement breaches as this breach was more than 12 months prior to the tenant’s 5 August 2025 application to the Tribunal.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a general damage/compensatory sum of $300.00 compensation because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known that he is required by to provide the tenants with healthy homes, smoke alarm, insurance and bond information with a written tenancy agreement b. The tenant is entitled to rely on her statutory right to receive information about: i. whether the premise was healthy homes compliant and if it wasn’t, was it exempt from these requirements; ii. whether the premise has compliant smoke alarms, where they are located, when they were last tested and when they expire; and iii. If the landlord has tenant insurance that covers tenant related damage to the premise, what the policy covers and the excess that applies; iv. The amount of bond charged and received from the tenant. c. t is in the interests of the tenants to receive compensation for the landlords’ breach.

Did the landlord provide the tenant with the healthy homes information requested?

Under section 123A(1AC) of the RTA, a landlord must provide requested healthy homes information within 21 days. Failure to comply without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act.
The tenant asked for healthy homes information in June 2024, when the landlord provided her with the second tenancy agreement, but she never received it, so had her own assessment and report done on 16 December 2025.
I am satisfied the evidence proves the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the requested healthy homes information. I am statutorily barred from awarding exemplary damages for the 18 June 2024 request not being fulfilled within 21 days as this breach was more than 12 months prior to the tenant’s 5 August 2025 application to the Tribunal.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a general damage/compensatory sum of $300.00 compensation because the tenant continued to have doubts about the premise’s level of compliance but had to engage a third-party assessor to confirm her suspicions because the landlord refused to obtain and provide the requested information. Did the landlord unlawfully increase the tenant’s rent on 18 June 2024?
The tenant claims the landlord unlawfully increased her rent from $570.00 to $620.00 on18 June 2024 , the date she and the landlord signed new tenancy agreement took effect, but that he did not provide her with the required statutorily notice of the rent increase.
The landlord did not have to give the tenant 60 days’ notice of a rent increase if both parties agree to the new rent and sign a new tenancy agreement that starts from the date of the new rental rate.
The landlord’s issuance of the new tenancy agreement on 18 June 2024 varied the rent payable to $620.00.
The claim is dismissed for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because Tammy Brassey has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in its claims. I dismissed its application for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded in its proceedings and I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord significant recidivist breaches of the terms of the tenancy agreement, its statutory obligations to the tenant and its conduct during the tenancy.
The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

State of repair Leaks Mould Smoke alarms Healthy homes Dairy Flat

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s0220963757, s1, s102(4), s109, s109(2), s109(3), s11, s120C, s123A(1AC), s13(1), s138A, s138B(5), s13A, s13A(1), s13A(11F), s13A(1A), s13A(1B), s13A(1CA), s13A(1F), s13A(2), s16, s162, s19(1), s19(2), s1947, s2, s2016, s2019, s21, s214, s218, s30, s30(1), s30(2), s4, s4246, s45(1), s45(1A), s45(2B), s5, s55(1), s6, s78(1), s78(2), s78(2AAB), s7kW, s98

Key findings

Dispute theme: state of repair
Dispute theme: healthy homes
Dispute theme: mould

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5317222?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be

How much money was awarded in case 5317222?

Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Cost of healthy homes…: $160.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to keep busine…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain wa…: $244.29 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- b…: $221.43 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- c…: $1,168.57 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- D…: $1,752.85 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- h…: $3,757.14 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- l…: $4,508.57 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- m…: $3,005.71 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- o…: $1,765.71 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- w…: $2,921.43 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide req…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide sta…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimburse cost of a ta…: $320.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimburse cost of wate…: $1,168.50 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317222?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Leaks, Mould, Smoke alarms, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317222?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13245160-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317222 — State of repair at 1 Wilson Road, Dairy Flat, RD 2, Dairy Flat 0792

Decided 9 March 2026 · Published 9 March 2026 · Application 5317222

Tenant favoured

State of repair
Leaks
Mould
Smoke alarms
Healthy homes

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Tenant favoured

From published order

Location

Dairy Flat

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

M Pollak

Dispute themes

Award balance

Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.

Gross award: $25,822.20
Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant: $25,822.20

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards for application 5317222 — net $25,822.20 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: Failure to maintain- Dishwasher

Amount: $1,752.85
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- Dishwasher

Compensation: Cost of healthy homes assessment report

Amount: $160.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Cost of healthy homes assessment report

Compensation: Failure to maintain- chimney and fireplace

Amount: $1,168.57
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- chimney and fireplace

Compensation: Failure to maintain- mould on ceilings

Amount: $3,005.71
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- mould on ceilings

Compensation: Failure to maintain- hole in internal and external wall

Amount: $3,757.14
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- hole in internal and external wall

Compensation: Failure to maintain- window and door framing issues

Amount: $2,921.43
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- window and door framing issues

Compensation: Failure to maintain- bathroom fan

Amount: $221.43
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- bathroom fan

Compensation: Reimburse cost of water pump

Amount: $1,168.50
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Reimburse cost of water pump

Compensation: Reimburse cost of a tank of water

Amount: $320.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Reimburse cost of a tank of water

Compensation: Failure to maintain watertank

Amount: $244.29
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain watertank

Compensation: Failure to maintain- leak in downstairs bedroom

Amount: $4,508.57
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- leak in downstairs bedroom

Compensation: Failure to maintain- oven/stove

Amount: $1,765.71
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- oven/stove

Compensation: Smoke alarm regulation breach

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Smoke alarm regulation breach

Exemplary damages: Breach of s45(1)(b) and (bb) RTA obligations

Amount: $2,400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of s45(1)(b) and (bb) RTA obligations

Compensation: Failure to provide statutorily required information in tenancy agreements- s13A RTA

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to provide statutorily required information in tenancy agreements- s13A RTA

Compensation: Failure to keep business records- s30 RTA

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to keep business records- s30 RTA

Compensation: Failure to provide requested HHS info within 21 days

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to provide requested HHS info within 21 days

Compensation-Bond not lodged

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Bond not lodged

Filing fee reimbursement

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

Net award

Tenant $25,822.20

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $25,822.20

Dismissed claims

Rent Arrears — Should the tenancy be terminated, and possession returned to the landlord?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Replace Smoke Alarms Exemplary damages Filing Fee Rent arrears

Order

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 22 March 2026: a. Leak in downstairs bedroom to be investigated by a qualified contractor, leak fully remediated and all water damage fully repaired. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, including the source of the leak identified and remediated, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; b. Install new dishwasher. Landlord to give the tenant a $15.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until a new dishwasher is installed and fully operational; c. Rotten interior and exterior wall in the small entranceway to the downstairs bedroom to be investigated by a qualified contractor, leak(s) fully remediated and all water damage to the interior and exterior walls fully remediated. Landlord to give the tenant a $25.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, including the source of the leak identified and remediated, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; d. Chimney to be swept by a professional chimney sweep. Landlord to give the tenant $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the chimney has been swept; e. Bricks around the fireplace to be investigated and repaired/replaced. Landlord to give the tenant $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; f. Seal around fireplace glass door to be repaired or replaced. Landlord to give the tenant $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; g. Mould on ceilings throughout the premise to be cleaned by a mould treatment specialist. Landlord to give the tenant a $20.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; h. Rot around windows and doors joinery to be investigated by a qualified builder and remediated. Landlord to give the tenant a $15.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; i. Two-bedroom windows that are screwed shut from the inside to be investigated by a qualified builder and remediated. Landlord to give the tenant a $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, and the issue fully resolved; j. A new oven and stove to be installed and be fully functional. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; k. Healthy homes complaint photoelectric smoke alarms to be installed throughout the premise so that there is one within 3 meters of each bedroom door and on every level of the house. All installed smoke alarms to have batteries, be tested and be fully functional. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; l. The premise must be brought up to healthy homes compliance standard for all five healthy homes standards in accordance with the Panda Healthy Homes Assessment Report dated 16 December 2025. Landlord to give the tenant a $200.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; m. The landlord must construct accurate rent records and provide them to the tenant. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; n. The full bond must be lodged with the Bond Centre. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the bond has been lodged and proof provided to the tenant.
If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 1 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $80,000.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
Sujendra Sharma must pay Tammy Brassey $25,822.20 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended a case management conference with Adjudicator Kan on 17 October 2025 and a hearing on 3 February 2026. The matter was adjourned twice, on 27 November 2025 and 19 December 2025, due to the landlord’s work commitments preventing him from attending the hearing and him being unable to brief a representative in time for the scheduled hearings.
The tenant has applied for work orders, compensation, general damages, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has made a late cross application, on 7 January 2026, for rent arrears, compensation, general damages, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. 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.
In summary, 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. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. However, section 109(2) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

Are there rent arrears owing?

The landlord says the tenant owes him rent arrears of $1,710.06 to 28 December 2025.
The tenant agrees that she has not paid her rent in full and on time because the landlord has breached so many of his Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 based obligations to her as a tenant and continues to do so.
The tenant undertook to recommence paying $620.00 rent per week from 6 March 2026, conditional upon the landlord having complied with all the work orders she sought at the 3 February 2026 hearing. The tenant has updated the Tribunal on 6 March 2026 that none of the work orders agreed upon by the landlord at the hearing have been complied with.
At the hearing, the landlord did not provide accurate rent records in the required format and the tenant disprove the amount the landlord stated was owing.
I am not satisfied that the rent records are accurate. The Tribunal cannot award rent arrears unless it is certain the landlord has proven the amount sought is owing and the tenant has not disproven the rent records produced. The claim is dismissed.

Should the tenancy be terminated, and possession returned to the landlord?

The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy in accordance with s55(1)(a) of the RTA because he says the rent was 21 days or more in rent arrears on the date he filed his application, being 7 January 2026.
The rent records produced are inaccurate and the landlord has been unable to prove that the rent was in arrears of 21 or more days on 7 January 2026. The claim is dismissed.

Should the tenant pay the landlord for costs of clearing rubbish out of the yard?

The landlord says there is lots of junk and rubbish in the yard that needs to be removed, after the tenant refused to do so, and seeks compensation of $5,000.00.
The landlord has not provided any evidence of the rubbish/junk in the yard, nor a receipt for the $5,000.00 he claims it has cost him to have it removed.
.A landlord cannot be compensated for a loss he has not incurred nor can he be compensated for a tenant breach he has not proven on the balance of probabilities.
The claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to hear it. Should the Tribunal compensate the landlord for the loss of his life insurance policy valued at $700,000.00?
The Tenancy Tribunal is statutorily barred from hearing claims for more than a total of $100,00.00. This claim well exceeds that limit. If a claim exceeds this amount, it must be filed through the District Court.
Additionally, the Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear any life insurance related claims. There are no breaches by a tenant in the RTA that could give rise to such a claim.
The claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to hear it. Should the Tribunal compensate the landlord for stress and unwanted financial pressure valued at $100,000.00?
The Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear any landlord claims for stress or financial pressure.
A landlord is running a business when he/she/it rents out a premise and is expected to manage the tenancy in accordance with his obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and all associated statues and regulations. This includes, but is not limited to, meeting all his s45(1) of the RTA obligations to ensure the premise in repaired and maintained to a reasonable standard in all the circumstances and that the premise complies with all the healthy homes standards and smoke alarm regulations.
There is no provision in the RTA that provides a remedy for landlord stress or any financial pressure a landlord experiences as a result of choosing to rent out a premise to a tenant. A landlord is expected to have sufficient funds to cover the costs associated with complying with the RTA during the period the landlord is renting the premise to a tenant.
The claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to hear it. Should the Tribunal compensate the landlord for the tenant running a business from the rental premise?
The landlord asserts the tenant is running a business from the rental premise without his permission and he wants compensation for her breach of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord has not provided any evidence of the tenant running a business from her home nor that she required his permission to do so. He was unable to show me the provision in the tenancy agreement he says the tenant had breached.
The tenant denies running a business from her home.
In New Zealand, a tenant can run a business from a rental property, but the premise must be primarily used for residential purposes. Written permission from the landlord is generally required if a tenant is running a full business operation from the premise, such as a medical practice or massage therapy practice or nail salon or hair salon or the like. The tenant would also need to ensure the business complied with local council zoning, bylaws, and did not impact the landlord's insurance. A tenant does not need consent from a landlord to administer a business from a rental premise e.g do the accounts, or to use the premise as a base from which to go to or from a work site, such as may be the case in a gardening business where a tenant may keep a work van and equipment stored at home that he/she/they take to clients premises each day. It is of note that low- impact, home-office based businesses (e.g. online retail, consulting) do not require landlord consent whereas businesses involving significant numbers of clients coming and going from the premise, or significant amounts of inventory being kept on the premise, are more likely to require landlord consent.
The landlord was not clear about the nature of the business he says the tenant is running from the premise, nor why he considers the tenant requires his permission to run any such business form home.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed for failure to provide evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Does the tenant require a landlord’s permission to have a flatmate?
The tenant is legally entitled to have a flatmate without obtaining the landlord’s permission, so long as she does not exceed to maximum number of occupants provided for in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord has not produced any evidence that the tenant has exceed the number of occupants provided for in either of the two tenancy agreements signed by the parties, during the tenancy. I do not appear to have complete copies of these two agreements, or these two agreements did not record that specific information. I am not sure from the evidence provided which one is true.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed for failure to provide evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. TENANT’S CLAIMS Work Orders Sought
The tenant has proven the landlord has committed a number of beaches of his obligations under the RTA and she wants these problems fixed.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds, the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 22 March 2026: a. Leak in downstairs bedroom to be investigated by a qualified contractor, leak fully remediated and all water damage fully repaired. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, including the source of the leak identified and remediated, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; b. Install new dishwasher. Landlord to give the tenant a $15.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until a new dishwasher is installed and fully operational; c. Rotten interior and exterior wall in the small entranceway to the downstairs bedroom to be investigated by a qualified contractor, leak(s) fully remediated and all water damage to the interior and exterior walls fully remediated. Landlord to give the tenant a $25.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, including the source of the leak identified and remediated, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; d. Chimney to be swept by a professional chimney sweep. Landlord to give the tenant $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the chimney has been swept; e. Bricks around the fireplace to be investigated and repaired/replaced. Landlord to give the tenant $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; f. Seal around fireplace glass door to be repaired or replaced. Landlord to give the tenant $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; g. Mould on ceilings throughout the premise to be cleaned by a mould treatment specialist. Landlord to give the tenant a $20.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; h. Rot around windows and doors joinery to be investigated by a qualified builder and remediated. Landlord to give the tenant a $15.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; i. Two-bedroom windows that are screwed shut from the inside to be investigated by a qualified builder and remediated. Landlord to give the tenant a $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, and the issue fully resolved; j. A new oven and stove to be installed and be fully functional. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; k. Healthy homes complaint photoelectric smoke alarms to be installed throughout the premise so that there is one within 3 meters of each bedroom door and on every level of the house. All installed smoke alarms to have batteries, be tested and be fully functional. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; l. The premise must be brought up to healthy homes compliance standard for all five healthy homes standards in accordance with the Panda Healthy Homes Assessment Report dated 16 December 2025. Landlord to give the tenant a $200.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; m. The landlord must construct accurate rent records and provide them to the tenant. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; n. The full bond must be lodged with the Bond Centre. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the bond has been lodged and proof provided to the tenant.
If the landlord fails to comply with the orders set out in paragraph [45]and Order 1 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $80,000.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond within the required statutory timeframes?

The tenant claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord confirmed that he knew that bonds for residential tenancies must be lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received and that he had not done so because: a. He and his wife did not remember if they had lodged the bond or not; b. He had not lodged it because the tenant was behind on rent and thought he would use it to offset rent arrears because she had told him he could do so in a text message dated 20 May 2022 and that he did so but forgot to record the transaction on the rent summary.
The RTA is clear, all landlords must lodge the tenant’s bond with Tenancy Services/the Bond Centre within 23 working days of receiving it.
The landlord confirmed it did not do so.
The tenancy commenced on 9 October 2018. The tenant’s agreement for the landlord to use the $1,710.00 bond to offset rent arrears in May 2022 was not within these 23 working days after receiving the bond from the tenant.
Tenancy Services has confirmed it has no record of a bond for this address or this tenant.
I find that the landlords have intentionally committed an unlawful act when they failed to lodge the bond with Tenancy Services Bond Centre within 23 working days from the date, they received the bond, being 9 October 2018. Further, the tenant has issued 14-day notices requiring the landlord to remedy this breach on 26/09/2204 and 01/08/2025 and then in her application filed 5 August 2025.The landlord has still not lodged the bond or accounted for it in the rent records and then came seeking $1,710.00 rent arrears from the tenant and termination of her tenancy for unproven rent breaches. This claim indicates that the landlord decided not to use to bond to offset rent arrears it says are owing, despite the tenant’s agreement to it doing so. The evidence suggests it still did not lodge the bond after, more likely than not, making that decision.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Landlords are required to understand their responsibilities to tenants, and I am satisfied the landlord should have reasonably known that the bond had to be submitted to the Bond Centre within 23 days after their receipt of it. The obligations placed on a landlord to put the bond into the Bond Centre on trust for the tenant is an obligation the Tribunal takes seriously. The bond is owned by the tenant, until the parties agree that all or part of the bond can be paid to the landlord to cover proven debts.
I find it would be just to require the landlords to pay exemplary damages to the tenant because: a. The landlords intentionally held on to the bond and did not submit it to the Bond Centre for over 7 years and 4 months since the tenancy commenced and the bond was paid by the tenant; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting the bond money that has been placed in it on trust for the tenant’s benefit, unless it is proven the tenant owes the landlord a debt that both parties agree can be paid by the Bond Centre to the landlord or on order from the Tribunal. The tenant’s money was not protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for a total period of 7 years and 4 months between 9 October 2018 to 8 March 2026 and it should have been; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations pay the bond received into the Bond Centre promptly for the protection of both parties’ interests.
However, s109(2) statutorily bars me from from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it has been more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025) that this breach occurred.
I find that this intentional disregard for the RTA and the protections it affords tenants warrants an award of general damages of $1,000.00 and make that award to the tenant for this breach. Has the landlord breached his section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) obligations to the tenant?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to his attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is 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”. 1 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15].
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA states that a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A.
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
Breaching any of these s45(1) obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain
The tenant gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to his attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances.
The landlord repeatedly confirmed that he had not investigated and repaired defects with the property brought to his attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. His justification for these breaches of s45(1) of the RTA are: 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. a. The tenant has not paid her rent, and he has been unable to fund the repairs and maintenance required as a result. This allegation has remained unproven during this hearing; and b. He lost his job on 3 December 2025 and has not had the financial capacity to meet his s45(1)of the RTA obligations to the tenant. This does not explain the numerous breaches of his s45(1) of the RTA breaches prior to that date. A. Dishwasher
The tenant confirmed, after the first year of tenancy, the dishwasher stopped working and that she first raised this issue in writing on 11 December 2023 in a 14-day notice to remedy. She also produced an email she sent to the landlord on 24 August 2025, informing the landlord the dishwasher still not working. The landlord never responded to either.
At the 3 February 2026 hearing, the landlord committed to getting a new dishwasher installed within the next 2 weeks. The tenant confirmed on Friday 6 March 2026 that he had not done so.
I am satisfied the landlord has intentionally committed an unlawful act.
I find the tenant should receive a rent rebate of $15 per week for the period she lived with this loss of amenity, and the stress and convenience she suffered from 11 December 2023 to 8 March 2026 (116 weeks 6 days) being a rent rebate of $1,752.85.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $50.00 per week for the period 12 July 2022 to 18 August 2023 (57 weeks and 3 days). being a rent rebate of $2,871.42 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). B. House foundation sinking- ground goes straight into the bedroom making the foundations are illegal
The tenant confirmed that after she received the heathy homes assessment report from Panda Solutions, in December 2025, she became aware of structural issues with the premise and that the foundation is sinking and the ground now does straight into the ground.
The tenant confirmed that she had not provided the landlord with a copy of the Panda Solutions report and had not raised this issue with the landlord as at the date of 3 February 2026 hearing.
A landlord cannot address an issue it does not know about and that a tenant cannot prove it has raised with the landlord.
This claim is dismissed for a failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant did prove that she paid $160.00 for the report that shows the premise fails to meet all the healthy homes’ standards. I award the tenant $160.00 compensation for the commissioning of the report to obtain healthy homes information the landlord should have supplied to the tenant in the tenancy agreement and on her request but did not. C. Chimney and fireplace
The tenant confirmed the premise’s only source of heating is a tiled fireplace with glass door and flue up to the ceiling.
The photographic evidence provided by the tenant shows there are no fire bricks around the hearth, the glass door does not have rope seal intact and the chimney has not been cleaned or swept since the tenancy commenced on 9 October 2018.
The landlord claims he had the chimney swept 3 to 4 years ago. He did not provide a receipt for this or any other evidence to support his claim.
Chimneys should generally be cleaned and inspected at least once a year to remove creosote, prevent chimney fires, and satisfy insurance requirements. If the fireplace or wood burner is used heavily, daily, or burns unseasoned wood, it may require cleaning twice per season (or roughly every 1–2 cords of wood).
The tenant has proven she issued the landlord with 14-day notices to remedy the chimney and tile issues on 11/12/23, 1/8/25 and 24/8 2025. The photographic evidence provided proves the landlord had still not addressed these issues by Friday 6 March 2026.
The landlord had nothing to say in his defence about this breach.
I find he has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $10.00 per week for the period 11 December 2023 to 8 March 2026 (116 weeks and 6 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $1,168.57ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). D. Mould
The tenant provided photographic of extensive black mould on the ceilings in the kitchen, upstairs bedroom and hallway. She also proved she had issued 14-day notices to remedy this issue on 21/4/23, 27/7/23 and 24/8/25 and that the landlord had not addressed the issue at the date of the hearing and has followed up the Tribunal to confirm that by 5:00pm on Friday 6 March 2026 this issue had still not been addressed.
The landlord doesn’t deny this and accepts the ventilation and draught issues need to be addressed at the property that are causing the mould. He stated that the black mould would be treated after that remedial work was been done.
I find the landlord has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $20.00 per week for the period 24 April 2023 to 8 March 2026 (150 weeks and 2 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $3,005.71 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). E. Rotten interior and exterior walls
The tenant provided photographic of a rotten internal wall in the small entrance way by the entrance to the downstairs bedroom. She states this damage is from water flooding down the stairs that has rotted the wall to the extent you can put your hand through the hole to outside.
The landlord says the tenant did inform him about this issue and that it is an easy fix. He also confirmed that he has not yet been over to fix it, despite knowing of it at least since the tenant’s application on 5 August 2025.
The tenant produced a text message that proves she raised this issue with the landlord on 24 April 2023 and she confirmed to the Tribunal that it had still not been addressed by 5:00pm on Friday 6 March 2026.
The landlord says he is struggling financially as the tenant is not paying her rent in full and on time and he has struggled to make ends meet and to pay for maintenance including these rotten walls.
I find the landlord has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $25.00 per week for the period 24 April 2023 to 8 March 2026 (150 weeks and 2 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $3,757.14 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). F. Rotten window and door frames that will not close properly or are screwed shut a. The tenant provided photographic of two bedrooms upstairs where two windows are screwed shut from outside. One was done when she arrived and the other one, she nailed shut (around December 2023 after it kept coming open and banging because of so many holes in the joinery. She proved she issued a 14-day notice about these windows on 11 December 2023; and b. Rotten framing around the upstairs lounge door on to the deck; and c. Four windows and a door that have smashed due to flying open in the wind; d. The kitchen window frame rotting from outside; e. The downstairs door rotting around its framing due to ongoing leaks.
The landlord had nothing to say in his defence about these breaches.
I find he has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $25.00 per week for the period 11 December 2023 to 8 March 2026 (116 weeks and 6 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $2,921.23 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). G. Bathroom and kitchen extractor fans
The tenant provided the Panda Solutions Healthy Home report that confirmed the bathroom fan was not compliant in December 2025, but the kitchen extractor fans was compliant.
The tenant sent two 14-day notices to the landlord about the extractor fan issues on 1 and 24 August 2025.
The tenant confirmed the bathroom fan was fixed in around 3 January 2025 but says the kitchen extractor fan is still faulty.
The landlord confirmed he sent an electrician to look at bathroom fan, rangehood and oven on 23 October 2025 and had a text message from his electrician that confirmed he had checked the range hood, it was working, and it may be an intermittent problem that was not present when he was investigating it.
The tenant says the kitchen extractor fan has never really worked. The lights work but no fan goes on.
Based on the electrician’s text message and the Panda Solutions healthy homes assessment report, I find that the tenant has not produced enough evidence on the balance of probabilities to prove the kitchen extractor fan is not working and the landlord has disproven this claim. I also find the tenant has proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to fix the bathroom extractor fan from 1 August 2025 to 3 January 2026.
I find the landlord has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $10.00 per week for the period 1 August 2025 to 3 January 2026 (22 weeks and 1 day) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $221.43 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). H. Water pump and water tank leak
The tenant claims the water tank was leaking prior to pump breaking down, that she notified the landlord on 18 June 2025 that the pump was broken, and the tank had been leaking for a while. The landlord said he would reimburse tenant for the water but did not.
The tenant provided evidence: a. The water pump stopped working for six weeks and two days, from 18 June 2025 to 14 August 2025, leaving the tenant without running wate; b. The tenant’s family paid $1,16.50 for a new water pump; c. The tenant paid $320.00 for a tank of water after a leak in the tank depleted it fully; d. The new pump was installed on 14 August 2025.
The landlord says he did not have enough time to have the pump fixed. He says he did not get the Facebook message on 18 June 2025 and by the time he got the text message from the tenant on 24 June 2025 she had already been a few days without water.
The tenant confirmed on 25 June 225, she saw a new pump on trade me and told the landlord she was going to purchase it and have it installed. The landlord confirmed he asked her about the size of the pump, and was told it was bigger than current one.
The pump turned out to be faulty, so the tenant told the landlord that it has not been replaced. On 1 August 2025, the landlord says he got a quote for replacing the pump at a cost of $700.00. The landlord did not know what happened after that.
The tenant still had no water after 1 August 2025, so engaged a contractor to replace the pump and fix the leak at a cost of $1,168.50. She notified the landlord on 14 August 2025 that the pump had been replaced and the leak fixed. He confirmed that he would not accept the plumbers 1 August 2025 quote and that he cancelled his plumber the same day.
I find the landlord has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive: a. A rent rebate of $30.00 per week for the period 18 June 2025 to14 August 2025 (8 weeks and 1 day) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $244.29 ordered; b. $1,168.50 compensation for the cost of the water pump; and c. $320.00 compensation for the tank of water.
I am satisfied it would also be just to also require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages for this because: a. The tenant suffered a loss of amenity stress and inconvenience caused by this breach when the landlord knew of these issues and did not take reasonable steps to investigate and remedy them in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances; b. The tenant also suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind him of his obligations under the RTA to no avail ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for the bathroom related breach will be addressed at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breaches section of this Order. I. Leak in downstairs bedroom and broken downpipe
The tenant provided photographic of the water damage caused by a leak that was discovered on 21 April 2023 after a broken downpipe failed and caused a rotten wall in stairwell. This led to a bedroom leak from 1 June 2024. The tenant proved she reported the downpipe issue on 21 April 2023, but nothing was done to investigate or remediate the issue.
The tenant gave evidence that every time it rained heavily thereafter the gutters overflow and because the foundation are below ground level, it floods outside the door downstairs and floods into the downstairs room.
The tenant proved she has issued 14-day notices about these issues and sent emails to the landlord on 26 September 2024, June/July 2025, and 24 August 2025.
The landlord says he got some text messages in June/July 2025 about the leak and got a plumber to come and investigate and remediate the leak issue. A few weeks after this issue was raised, the landlord says he got a plumber in to try and fix the issue with the leaks under the house. He says the plumber repaired a piece of down piping with a hole in it. The tenant gave evidence the landlord did not pay contractor, so he did not come back and finish the job.
The landlord says after the plumber had been he had not had any contact from the tenant about the ongoing leak and was not aware this was still a problem. The tenant proved she had messaged the landlord on 24 August 2025 and the issues have still not been resolved as at 5:00pm on 6 March 2026.
I find the landlord has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $30.00 per week for the period 21 April 2023 to 8 March 2026 (150 weeks and 2 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $4,508.57 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). J. Oven and stover
The tenant says the oven and cooktop stopped working in August 2024. She emailed the landlord, but no longer has access to these emails due to broken phone.
She proved she first raised in writing on 26 September 2024 in a 14-day notice to remedy and again in another 14-day notice on 1 August 2025.
The parties confirmed a new oven/stove was installed on 12 November 2025 after telling the tenant for years that the only way this can be sorted is to purchase a new one herself and deduct from rent arrears.
I find he has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $30.00 per week for the period 26 September 2024 to 12 November 2025 (58 weeks and 6 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $1,765.71 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025).

Did the landlord breach the smoke alarm regulations?

Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA states the landlord “shall comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A”.
The tenant claims the rental premise had no compliant or working smoke alarms when she moved in, and none have been installed by the landlord during the tenancy. She provided photographic evidence that proves this.
The tenant also says when she told the landlord there were no smoke alarms, he told her it was her responsibility to purchase and install the smoke alarms required to make the premise compliant.
The tenant described the premise as a two-storey house with two bedrooms upstairs and one downstairs. She says she purchased one smoke alarm and installed it upstairs but could not afford to purchase any more. She has not been reimbursed for the cost of the smoke alarm purchase and I could not reimburse the cost to her as I was not provided with a receipt.
Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) website, www.fire.org, confirms both landlords and tenants take some responsible for smoke alarms as follows: a. Landlords must ensure smoke alarms: i. are working at the start of each new tenancy; ii. remain in working order during the tenancy; and iii. That are not working are replaced with photoelectric smoke alarms. b. Tenants must: i. not damage, remove, or disconnect a smoke alarm; ii. replace dead batteries during the tenancy if there are older-style smoke alarms with replaceable batteries; and iii. let the landlord know if there are any problems with the smoke alarms as soon as possible.
The Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 healthy hoes report confirms there were no compliant smoke alarms when it carried out its assessment and that two were required to ensure that there was one within 3 metres of each bedroom door.
I am satisfied that the tenant has proven that the landlord failed to ensure the rental premise was fitted with working smoke alarms that meet the regulatory requirements referred to in the RTA.
I find that the tenant should be awarded compensation for the breach of the landlord’s obligations to provide smoking smoke alarms and award compensation of $500.00 for the landlord’s blatant disregard of the smoke alarm regulations and the tenant’s safety.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). Failure to meet buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premise
The tenant says the landlord failed to meet his obligations under s45(1)(c) of the RTA as the premise did not meet the building and health and safety related laws that apply to residential tenancies.
I note that the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 only applies to contractors that are working on the premise in unsafe conditions and not to person living in a premise.
The tenant says the premise did not meet the building code and building standards as the foundation has sunk and the building now sits below ground level and that causes leaks and water damage in the house.
The tenant says the healthy homes inspection raised this breach with her when he conducted the healthy homes assessment, but there is nothing about this in the Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 report.
Regulation 7(2) of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) states: There shall be in each kitchen or kitchenette— (a) an approved sink with a tap connected to an adequate supply of potable water; and (b) adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food, both by boiling and by baking.
The tenant has proven the premise had no means of baking or boiling from 24 September 2024 to 12 November 2025 and that there was no water for the kitchen sink from 18 June 2025 to 14 August 2025. Therefore, I am satisfied that the landlord was in breach of this obligation. The tenant has already received compensation for these breaches under her failure to maintain claims. The tenant should not receive additional compensation because these breaches fall under two different categories of breach. I have considered the duality of breach when awarding compensation under the failure to maintain sections of this Order, above.
Regulation 9(2)of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) states: Every bathroom shall contain an approved bath or shower with an adequate supply of wholesome water. Adequate means of heating water shall be provided.
The tenant has proven the premise had no water for the bathroom from 18 June 2025 to 14 August 2025. Therefore, I am satisfied that the landlord was in breach of this obligation. The tenant has already received compensation for this breach under her failure to maintain claims. The tenant should not receive additional compensation because this breach falls under two different categories of breach. I have considered the duality of breach when awarding compensation under the failure to maintain sections of this Order, above.
Regulation 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) states: Every house shall be free from dampness.
The tenant has proven the premise has leaks and water damage, ventilation issues and draught stopping issues that have led the house to be damp and mouldy. The tenant has already received compensation for these breach under her failure to maintain claims. The tenant should not receive additional compensation because these breaches fall under two different categories of breach. I have considered the duality of the breaches when awarding compensation under the failure to maintain sections of this Order, above.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). Failure to meet healthy homes standards
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. 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 ii. 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. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenant has had two tenancy agreements during her tenancy. The first was commenced on 9 October 2018 and the second commenced on 18 June 2024. Therefore, the landlord had until 1 July 2025 to comply with the healthy homes’ standards under the first tenancy agreement and 120 days from the commencement of the second tenancy agreement, being Wednesday 16 October 2024.
When the tenant informed the landlord, she had engaged Panda Solutions to assess the premise against the healthy homes standards and that it did not fully comply with any of them, he said this is all new to him and he had not had time to go and check that the house is all compliant. He told the tenant he would call Panda Solutions to see if they can remediate the issues highlighted. He has not done so to date. A. Insulation
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 healthy homes assessment report records “the underfloor insulation has met minimum thickness, but some areas are missing. Need to be topped up to satisfy requirements of code NZS 4246:2016” and that the premise is “non-compliant with the insulation standard.”
The tenant’s claim has been proven by an independent third party.
The tenant became aware of this breach on 16 December 2025, within 12 months of her application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Therefore, exemplary damages can be considered. I am however, not satisfied that this breach was known by the landlord or an intentional breach. Therefore, I cannot award any exemplary damages for this breach. B. Heating
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the heating standard.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
There must be one or more fixed heaters that can directly heat the main living room.
The main living room is the largest room that is used for general, everyday living – for example a lounge, family room or dining room.
Heater(s) must be fixed (not portable) and must be at least 1.5 kW in heating capacity and meet the minimum heating capacity needed for the main living room. There are several options to calculate the heating capacity required for the main living room.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant has proven that the only source of heating for the premise is a closed fireplace that was not fit for purpose due to the chimney not having been cleaned, the glass door not sealing properly and there being no fire bricks around the hearth from the start of the tenancy.
Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 healthy homes assessment report records “Heating-existing fireplace heating capacity unable to be determined. Need to add heating devices to mee t capacity requirements or check manufacturers or council records for the heating capacity of the fireplace. Requires 7kW of heating capacity. Heaters installed before 1 July 2019, each have to have a minimum heating greater than 2.4kW, meet the general requirements for heaters and have combined capacity that is at least 80 per cent of what is required. 80% of 7kW is
6kW”.
The tenant’s claim has been proven by an independent third party.
The tenant became aware of this breach on 16 December 2025, within 12 months of her application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Therefore, exemplary damages can be considered.
In this case I have determined the landlord has committed an intentional unlawful act by failing to ensure the premise met the heating standard by the earlier compliance date. He was well aware the fireplace was not usable in its current condition, as the tenant had repeatedly raised this with him.
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.
Considering those factors, I am satisfied it would also be just to also require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages for this because: a. The tenant suffered a loss of amenity stress and inconvenience caused by this breach when the landlord knew of this issue and did not take reasonable steps to ensure the premise met the heating standard by Wednesday 16 October 2024; b. The tenant also suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind him of his obligations under the healthy homes’ standards to no avail ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the breach; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their healthy homes standards obligations.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for the bathroom related breach will be addressed at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breaches section of this Order. C. Ventilation
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the ventilation standard.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 healthy homes assessment report records the bbathroom extractor fan was non-compliant on the date of the assessment and the tenant has proven the bathroom extractor fan did not work from 1 August 2025 to 3 January 2026. Therefore, on Wednesday 16 October 2024, the premise did not meet the ventilation standard.
The tenant became aware of this breach on 1 August 2025, within 12 months of her application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Therefore, exemplary damages can be considered.
In this case I have determined the landlord has committed an intentional unlawful act by failing to ensure the premise met the ventilation standard by the earlier compliance date. He was well aware the bathroom extractor fan was not compliant, as the tenant had repeatedly raised this with him.
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.
Considering those factors, I am satisfied it would also be just to also require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages for this because: a. The tenant suffered a loss of amenity stress and inconvenience caused by this breach when the landlord knew of this issue and did not take reasonable steps to ensure the premise met the heating standard by Wednesday 16 October 2024; b. The tenant also suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind him of his obligations under the healthy homes’ standards to no avail ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the breach; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their healthy homes standards obligations.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for the bathroom related breach will be addressed at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breaches section of this Order. D. Draught Stopping
The tenant claims the landlord has failed to comply with the 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.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 healthy homes assessment report records the following draught stopping standard breaches: a. Ceiling is cracked; b. Ceiling hatch is missing; c. Gaps present around both the front and back doors allowing draughts; d. Two holes on the external wall; e. Window handles are broken and one window stay (support bracket) is damaged; f. One window is poorly fitted, and need to be fixed; g. Multiple window gaps exceeding 3mm, resulting air leak; and h. Mould present
Therefore, on Wednesday 16 October 2024, the premise did not meet the ventilation standard.
The tenant became aware of these breaches are various times during the tenancy from 21 April 2023 to 6 March 2026, outside of the 12-month period prior to her application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Therefore, exemplary damages cannot be considered, even though I am satisfied the landlord was aware of these breaches and intentionally failed to address them (Refer to s109(2)(a) of the RTA). The tenant has received compensation for these breaches in the repair and maintenance breach section of this order. E. Moisture Ingress and Drainage
The tenant claims the landlord has failed to comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard.
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 if it is reasonably practical to do so.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 healthy homes assessment report records: a. “Ground moisture barrier and drainage- gutters loose and downpipes cracked- GMB has parts missing- Need to install to meet the specifications in NZS4246:2016”; and b. Guttering is loose and needs to be fixed; and c. One downpipe is cracked and needs to be fixed.
Further the tenant has proven in her repair and maintenance claims that she has raised these issues with the landlord on 21 April 2023 and the issues have still not been addressed by to 8 March 2026.
Therefore, I am satisfied that on Wednesday 16 October 2024, the premise did not meet the ventilation standard.
The tenant became aware of the breach of the ground moisture barrier on 16 December 2025, within 12 months of her application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Therefore, exemplary damages can be considered. However, she became aware of the other moisture ingress and drainage issues on 21 April 2023, outside of the 12-month period before her application to the Tenancy Tribunal.
In this case I have determined the landlord has committed unlawful act by failing to ensure the premise met the moisture ingress and drainage standards by the earlier compliance date. He should have been aware the premise had to be fully compliant by Wednesday 16 October 2024 and took no seps to ensure it was.
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.
Considering those factors, I am not satisfied it would also be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages for this because the tenant has not proven on the balance of probabilities that this breach was intentional.
The tenant has received compensation for the other drainage and moisture ingress issues in the repair and maintenance section of this Order above. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed one intentional breach of s45(1)(b) and two of s45(1)(bb) of the RTA that resulted in the tenant living conditions that were unhealthy and that she experienced considerable periods of stress, inconvenience, and loss of the amenity the tenant was paying rent to enjoy. The landlord did not offer any rent relief to the tenant at these times.
I find the landlord has committed these three unlawful acts intentionally.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenant many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $2,400.00 exemplary damages to the tenant, being one third of the maximum penalty available. Failure to keep proper business records
The tenant claims the landlord has not kept records of rent and bond paid.
A landlord must keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant. See section 30(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 30(2) and Schedule 1A RTA).
The tenant has proven the rent records are inaccurate. They show the tenant has paid $12,783.00 in rent since 8 January 2025 when the rent payments on the ledger add up to $15,388.00.
The tenant has also produced text messages to the landlord seeking a copy of the rent ledger during the tenancy and none were ever provided to the tenant. They say things such as: a. Tenant: “Can you please send me the original tenancy agreement and the tenant ledger (proof of all payments) including missed payments and $ that should have being taken off for things I fixed around the house etc. Thanks” b. Landlord: “I am not going back that many years as I have not got time and I paid you for things that you fixed ok. I’m sick and tired of all this to be really honest with you. I never had this problem with anyone before. You are having major problems paying full rent and its time you did something about it and did it urgently too. Thank you.” c. Landlord “...from the beginning of this year I have given you the breakdown already. Lets sort that out ok. I’m not going to let this go on for another month. Yu haven paid full rent for 7 months now and any other landlord would have kicked you out by now and believe me im on the verge of doing that. I felt sorry for you for too long now.”
The landlord also stated he had increased the rent lawfully to $630.00 via a text message dated 30 November 2021. This text confirms the rent is going up to $630.00 per week from 29 January 2022. The landlord could not explain why the new agreement in 2024 has $620.00 in it. The tenant proved the phone number the landlord sent this text message to was 0220963757 and that this was not her phone number in 2021 or ever. The tenant says the first she knew of this issue was when the landlord sent her a rent ledger on 29 July 2025 showing the rent as $630.00 per week back dated to 8 January 2025.
The rent records have also not accounted for payment of the bond at the start of the tenancy nor whether it has been used to cover two weeks rent arrears in May 2022 .
Proper business records mean records that are orderly, to a high standard 6 , and contemporaneous with payments made by the tenant 7 .
I find the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has failed to keep accurate business records that are of a high standard, in accordance with s30 of the RTA, and he has committed an unlawful act. e 6 Kumar v Capper NZTT Auckland TT1004/90, 12 March 1991 at [8]. 7 Brown v Steele [2002] DCR 338 at [19].
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord intentionally failed to retain accurate business records to a high standard and that it would be just to require the landlord to pay a general damages/compensatory sum of $300.00 because I am statutorily barred from awarding exemplary damages under s109(2) of the RTA and: a. The landlord should have reasonably known that it is required by law to keep accurate business records that allows it to provide the tenant with accurate rent summaries in a reasonable timeframe, and it did not. b. The tenant is entitled to rely on accurate business records being kept by their landlord for 7 years so that they can be assured their rent payments are being accounted for accurately and they can seek confirmation of how much rent they owe or have overpaid at any given time; c. t is in the interests of the tenant to receive general damages for the landlords’ breach. Did the landlord provide the statutorily required healthy homes, smoke alarm, insurance information and bond information in the tenancy agreement?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 13A(1A), 13A(1CA) and 13A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1A) the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord that describes whether or not there is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, any insulation installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises and the details of the location, type, and condition of all insulation that is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises.
Under s13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the five healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions. These five standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping. This provision also requires the landlord to record how many smoke alarms are in the premise, when the smoke alarms were last tested and when they expire.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
If the landlord is unable to provide some or all the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 13A(2) states the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement the following information about insurance of the premises: (a)if the premises are not insured, a statement that they are not insured; and (b)if the premises are insured, a statement— (i)setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and (ii)informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request (except that the statement need not inform the tenant of this if the landlord has already provided to the tenant a copy of the policy in accordance with section 45(2B) or 66J(5)).
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) and/or 13A(2) of the RTA obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant received two tenancy agreements during the tenancy. Tenancy agreement one
The first tenancy agreement commenced on 9 October 2018.
From 1 July 2019, landlords were required to sign a statement of intent to comply with healthy homes standards in new or varied tenancy agreements.
From 1 December 2020, landlord had to include a statement of their current level of compliance of the healthy homes’ standards in new or varied tenancy agreements.
An insulation statement has been legally required in all new, varied, or renewed tenancy agreements in New Zealand since 1 July 2016. This statement had to outline the location, type, and condition of the ceiling and underfloor insulation.
All rental properties were required to have ceiling and underfloor insulation installed by 1 July 2019.
Smoke alarm information has been mandatory in all New Zealand tenancy agreements since 1 July 2016. The law requires that all residential rental properties are fitted with working, compliant smoke alarms (long-life photoelectric) and that landlords include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement confirming this.
Insurance information became a mandatory requirement in New Zealand tenancy agreements for all new, varied, or renewed tenancies from August 27, 2019. Under the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2019, landlords must disclose if the property is insured, the excess amount, and provide a statement that insurance policies are available upon request.
Bond information, including the specific amount charged, has been a required component of written tenancy agreements in New Zealand since the RTA came into force in 1986.
Therefore, the first tenancy agreement failed to provide an insulation statement, smoke alarm and insurance information and the amount of bond charges and receipted but was not required to contain any of the other healthy homes’ standards related information. Tenancy agreement two
The second tenancy agreement commenced on 18 June 2024.
The second tenancy agreement was required to have all the current statutory required heathy homes information, insurance and bond information. It failed to contain: a. HHS compliance statement; b. HHS detailed compliance information; c. Smoke alarm information; d. Insurance information; e. Information on the amount of any general bond (refer to s13A(1)(i) of the RTA);
As such, the tenant had no idea, whether the premises were fully healthy homes compliant, whether any exemptions applied to the premises, whether there were smoke alarm(s) that were compliant with statutory requirements and whether the landlord had insurance that limited the tenant’s liability for costs associated with any careless or deliberate damages to the premise.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, pursuant to section 13A(1F)(a) of the RTA, the Tribunal may award up to a maximum of $750.00 in exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements and smoke alarm information prescribed by sections 13A(1A),13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, or the insurance information prescribed by s13A(2) of the RTA or the bond information prescribed by s13A(1)(i) of the RTA in the second tenancy agreement but I am statutorily barred from awarding exemplary damages for the 18 June 2024 agreement breaches as this breach was more than 12 months prior to the tenant’s 5 August 2025 application to the Tribunal.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a general damage/compensatory sum of $300.00 compensation because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known that he is required by to provide the tenants with healthy homes, smoke alarm, insurance and bond information with a written tenancy agreement b. The tenant is entitled to rely on her statutory right to receive information about: i. whether the premise was healthy homes compliant and if it wasn’t, was it exempt from these requirements; ii. whether the premise has compliant smoke alarms, where they are located, when they were last tested and when they expire; and iii. If the landlord has tenant insurance that covers tenant related damage to the premise, what the policy covers and the excess that applies; iv. The amount of bond charged and received from the tenant. c. t is in the interests of the tenants to receive compensation for the landlords’ breach.

Did the landlord provide the tenant with the healthy homes information requested?

Under section 123A(1AC) of the RTA, a landlord must provide requested healthy homes information within 21 days. Failure to comply without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act.
The tenant asked for healthy homes information in June 2024, when the landlord provided her with the second tenancy agreement, but she never received it, so had her own assessment and report done on 16 December 2025.
I am satisfied the evidence proves the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the requested healthy homes information. I am statutorily barred from awarding exemplary damages for the 18 June 2024 request not being fulfilled within 21 days as this breach was more than 12 months prior to the tenant’s 5 August 2025 application to the Tribunal.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a general damage/compensatory sum of $300.00 compensation because the tenant continued to have doubts about the premise’s level of compliance but had to engage a third-party assessor to confirm her suspicions because the landlord refused to obtain and provide the requested information. Did the landlord unlawfully increase the tenant’s rent on 18 June 2024?
The tenant claims the landlord unlawfully increased her rent from $570.00 to $620.00 on18 June 2024 , the date she and the landlord signed new tenancy agreement took effect, but that he did not provide her with the required statutorily notice of the rent increase.
The landlord did not have to give the tenant 60 days’ notice of a rent increase if both parties agree to the new rent and sign a new tenancy agreement that starts from the date of the new rental rate.
The landlord’s issuance of the new tenancy agreement on 18 June 2024 varied the rent payable to $620.00.
The claim is dismissed for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because Tammy Brassey has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in its claims. I dismissed its application for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded in its proceedings and I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord significant recidivist breaches of the terms of the tenancy agreement, its statutory obligations to the tenant and its conduct during the tenancy.
The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

State of repair Leaks Mould Smoke alarms Healthy homes Dairy Flat

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Dispute theme: state of repair
Dispute theme: healthy homes
Dispute theme: mould

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5317222?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be

How much money was awarded in case 5317222?

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317222?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Leaks, Mould, Smoke alarms, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317222?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13245160-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317222 — State of repair at 1 Wilson Road, Dairy Flat, RD 2, Dairy Flat 0792

Decided 9 March 2026 · Published 9 March 2026 · Application 5317222

Tenant favoured

State of repair
Leaks
Mould
Smoke alarms
Healthy homes

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Tenant favoured

From published order

Location

Dairy Flat

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

M Pollak

Dispute themes

Award balance

Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.

Gross award: $25,822.20
Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant: $25,822.20

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards for application 5317222 — net $25,822.20 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: Failure to maintain- Dishwasher

Amount: $1,752.85
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- Dishwasher

Compensation: Cost of healthy homes assessment report

Amount: $160.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Cost of healthy homes assessment report

Compensation: Failure to maintain- chimney and fireplace

Amount: $1,168.57
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- chimney and fireplace

Compensation: Failure to maintain- mould on ceilings

Amount: $3,005.71
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- mould on ceilings

Compensation: Failure to maintain- hole in internal and external wall

Amount: $3,757.14
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- hole in internal and external wall

Compensation: Failure to maintain- window and door framing issues

Amount: $2,921.43
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- window and door framing issues

Compensation: Failure to maintain- bathroom fan

Amount: $221.43
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- bathroom fan

Compensation: Reimburse cost of water pump

Amount: $1,168.50
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Reimburse cost of water pump

Compensation: Reimburse cost of a tank of water

Amount: $320.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Reimburse cost of a tank of water

Compensation: Failure to maintain watertank

Amount: $244.29
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain watertank

Compensation: Failure to maintain- leak in downstairs bedroom

Amount: $4,508.57
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- leak in downstairs bedroom

Compensation: Failure to maintain- oven/stove

Amount: $1,765.71
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- oven/stove

Compensation: Smoke alarm regulation breach

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Smoke alarm regulation breach

Exemplary damages: Breach of s45(1)(b) and (bb) RTA obligations

Amount: $2,400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of s45(1)(b) and (bb) RTA obligations

Compensation: Failure to provide statutorily required information in tenancy agreements- s13A RTA

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to provide statutorily required information in tenancy agreements- s13A RTA

Compensation: Failure to keep business records- s30 RTA

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to keep business records- s30 RTA

Compensation: Failure to provide requested HHS info within 21 days

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to provide requested HHS info within 21 days

Compensation-Bond not lodged

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Bond not lodged

Filing fee reimbursement

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

Net award

Tenant $25,822.20

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $25,822.20

Dismissed claims

Rent Arrears — Should the tenancy be terminated, and possession returned to the landlord?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Replace Smoke Alarms Exemplary damages Filing Fee Rent arrears

Order

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 22 March 2026: a. Leak in downstairs bedroom to be investigated by a qualified contractor, leak fully remediated and all water damage fully repaired. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, including the source of the leak identified and remediated, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; b. Install new dishwasher. Landlord to give the tenant a $15.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until a new dishwasher is installed and fully operational; c. Rotten interior and exterior wall in the small entranceway to the downstairs bedroom to be investigated by a qualified contractor, leak(s) fully remediated and all water damage to the interior and exterior walls fully remediated. Landlord to give the tenant a $25.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, including the source of the leak identified and remediated, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; d. Chimney to be swept by a professional chimney sweep. Landlord to give the tenant $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the chimney has been swept; e. Bricks around the fireplace to be investigated and repaired/replaced. Landlord to give the tenant $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; f. Seal around fireplace glass door to be repaired or replaced. Landlord to give the tenant $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; g. Mould on ceilings throughout the premise to be cleaned by a mould treatment specialist. Landlord to give the tenant a $20.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; h. Rot around windows and doors joinery to be investigated by a qualified builder and remediated. Landlord to give the tenant a $15.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; i. Two-bedroom windows that are screwed shut from the inside to be investigated by a qualified builder and remediated. Landlord to give the tenant a $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, and the issue fully resolved; j. A new oven and stove to be installed and be fully functional. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; k. Healthy homes complaint photoelectric smoke alarms to be installed throughout the premise so that there is one within 3 meters of each bedroom door and on every level of the house. All installed smoke alarms to have batteries, be tested and be fully functional. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; l. The premise must be brought up to healthy homes compliance standard for all five healthy homes standards in accordance with the Panda Healthy Homes Assessment Report dated 16 December 2025. Landlord to give the tenant a $200.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; m. The landlord must construct accurate rent records and provide them to the tenant. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; n. The full bond must be lodged with the Bond Centre. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the bond has been lodged and proof provided to the tenant.
If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 1 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $80,000.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
Sujendra Sharma must pay Tammy Brassey $25,822.20 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended a case management conference with Adjudicator Kan on 17 October 2025 and a hearing on 3 February 2026. The matter was adjourned twice, on 27 November 2025 and 19 December 2025, due to the landlord’s work commitments preventing him from attending the hearing and him being unable to brief a representative in time for the scheduled hearings.
The tenant has applied for work orders, compensation, general damages, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has made a late cross application, on 7 January 2026, for rent arrears, compensation, general damages, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. 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.
In summary, 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. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. However, section 109(2) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

Are there rent arrears owing?

The landlord says the tenant owes him rent arrears of $1,710.06 to 28 December 2025.
The tenant agrees that she has not paid her rent in full and on time because the landlord has breached so many of his Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 based obligations to her as a tenant and continues to do so.
The tenant undertook to recommence paying $620.00 rent per week from 6 March 2026, conditional upon the landlord having complied with all the work orders she sought at the 3 February 2026 hearing. The tenant has updated the Tribunal on 6 March 2026 that none of the work orders agreed upon by the landlord at the hearing have been complied with.
At the hearing, the landlord did not provide accurate rent records in the required format and the tenant disprove the amount the landlord stated was owing.
I am not satisfied that the rent records are accurate. The Tribunal cannot award rent arrears unless it is certain the landlord has proven the amount sought is owing and the tenant has not disproven the rent records produced. The claim is dismissed.

Should the tenancy be terminated, and possession returned to the landlord?

The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy in accordance with s55(1)(a) of the RTA because he says the rent was 21 days or more in rent arrears on the date he filed his application, being 7 January 2026.
The rent records produced are inaccurate and the landlord has been unable to prove that the rent was in arrears of 21 or more days on 7 January 2026. The claim is dismissed.

Should the tenant pay the landlord for costs of clearing rubbish out of the yard?

The landlord says there is lots of junk and rubbish in the yard that needs to be removed, after the tenant refused to do so, and seeks compensation of $5,000.00.
The landlord has not provided any evidence of the rubbish/junk in the yard, nor a receipt for the $5,000.00 he claims it has cost him to have it removed.
.A landlord cannot be compensated for a loss he has not incurred nor can he be compensated for a tenant breach he has not proven on the balance of probabilities.
The claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to hear it. Should the Tribunal compensate the landlord for the loss of his life insurance policy valued at $700,000.00?
The Tenancy Tribunal is statutorily barred from hearing claims for more than a total of $100,00.00. This claim well exceeds that limit. If a claim exceeds this amount, it must be filed through the District Court.
Additionally, the Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear any life insurance related claims. There are no breaches by a tenant in the RTA that could give rise to such a claim.
The claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to hear it. Should the Tribunal compensate the landlord for stress and unwanted financial pressure valued at $100,000.00?
The Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear any landlord claims for stress or financial pressure.
A landlord is running a business when he/she/it rents out a premise and is expected to manage the tenancy in accordance with his obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and all associated statues and regulations. This includes, but is not limited to, meeting all his s45(1) of the RTA obligations to ensure the premise in repaired and maintained to a reasonable standard in all the circumstances and that the premise complies with all the healthy homes standards and smoke alarm regulations.
There is no provision in the RTA that provides a remedy for landlord stress or any financial pressure a landlord experiences as a result of choosing to rent out a premise to a tenant. A landlord is expected to have sufficient funds to cover the costs associated with complying with the RTA during the period the landlord is renting the premise to a tenant.
The claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to hear it. Should the Tribunal compensate the landlord for the tenant running a business from the rental premise?
The landlord asserts the tenant is running a business from the rental premise without his permission and he wants compensation for her breach of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord has not provided any evidence of the tenant running a business from her home nor that she required his permission to do so. He was unable to show me the provision in the tenancy agreement he says the tenant had breached.
The tenant denies running a business from her home.
In New Zealand, a tenant can run a business from a rental property, but the premise must be primarily used for residential purposes. Written permission from the landlord is generally required if a tenant is running a full business operation from the premise, such as a medical practice or massage therapy practice or nail salon or hair salon or the like. The tenant would also need to ensure the business complied with local council zoning, bylaws, and did not impact the landlord's insurance. A tenant does not need consent from a landlord to administer a business from a rental premise e.g do the accounts, or to use the premise as a base from which to go to or from a work site, such as may be the case in a gardening business where a tenant may keep a work van and equipment stored at home that he/she/they take to clients premises each day. It is of note that low- impact, home-office based businesses (e.g. online retail, consulting) do not require landlord consent whereas businesses involving significant numbers of clients coming and going from the premise, or significant amounts of inventory being kept on the premise, are more likely to require landlord consent.
The landlord was not clear about the nature of the business he says the tenant is running from the premise, nor why he considers the tenant requires his permission to run any such business form home.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed for failure to provide evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Does the tenant require a landlord’s permission to have a flatmate?
The tenant is legally entitled to have a flatmate without obtaining the landlord’s permission, so long as she does not exceed to maximum number of occupants provided for in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord has not produced any evidence that the tenant has exceed the number of occupants provided for in either of the two tenancy agreements signed by the parties, during the tenancy. I do not appear to have complete copies of these two agreements, or these two agreements did not record that specific information. I am not sure from the evidence provided which one is true.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed for failure to provide evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. TENANT’S CLAIMS Work Orders Sought
The tenant has proven the landlord has committed a number of beaches of his obligations under the RTA and she wants these problems fixed.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds, the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 22 March 2026: a. Leak in downstairs bedroom to be investigated by a qualified contractor, leak fully remediated and all water damage fully repaired. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, including the source of the leak identified and remediated, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; b. Install new dishwasher. Landlord to give the tenant a $15.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until a new dishwasher is installed and fully operational; c. Rotten interior and exterior wall in the small entranceway to the downstairs bedroom to be investigated by a qualified contractor, leak(s) fully remediated and all water damage to the interior and exterior walls fully remediated. Landlord to give the tenant a $25.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, including the source of the leak identified and remediated, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; d. Chimney to be swept by a professional chimney sweep. Landlord to give the tenant $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the chimney has been swept; e. Bricks around the fireplace to be investigated and repaired/replaced. Landlord to give the tenant $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; f. Seal around fireplace glass door to be repaired or replaced. Landlord to give the tenant $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; g. Mould on ceilings throughout the premise to be cleaned by a mould treatment specialist. Landlord to give the tenant a $20.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; h. Rot around windows and doors joinery to be investigated by a qualified builder and remediated. Landlord to give the tenant a $15.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; i. Two-bedroom windows that are screwed shut from the inside to be investigated by a qualified builder and remediated. Landlord to give the tenant a $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, and the issue fully resolved; j. A new oven and stove to be installed and be fully functional. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; k. Healthy homes complaint photoelectric smoke alarms to be installed throughout the premise so that there is one within 3 meters of each bedroom door and on every level of the house. All installed smoke alarms to have batteries, be tested and be fully functional. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; l. The premise must be brought up to healthy homes compliance standard for all five healthy homes standards in accordance with the Panda Healthy Homes Assessment Report dated 16 December 2025. Landlord to give the tenant a $200.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; m. The landlord must construct accurate rent records and provide them to the tenant. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; n. The full bond must be lodged with the Bond Centre. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the bond has been lodged and proof provided to the tenant.
If the landlord fails to comply with the orders set out in paragraph [45]and Order 1 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $80,000.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond within the required statutory timeframes?

The tenant claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord confirmed that he knew that bonds for residential tenancies must be lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received and that he had not done so because: a. He and his wife did not remember if they had lodged the bond or not; b. He had not lodged it because the tenant was behind on rent and thought he would use it to offset rent arrears because she had told him he could do so in a text message dated 20 May 2022 and that he did so but forgot to record the transaction on the rent summary.
The RTA is clear, all landlords must lodge the tenant’s bond with Tenancy Services/the Bond Centre within 23 working days of receiving it.
The landlord confirmed it did not do so.
The tenancy commenced on 9 October 2018. The tenant’s agreement for the landlord to use the $1,710.00 bond to offset rent arrears in May 2022 was not within these 23 working days after receiving the bond from the tenant.
Tenancy Services has confirmed it has no record of a bond for this address or this tenant.
I find that the landlords have intentionally committed an unlawful act when they failed to lodge the bond with Tenancy Services Bond Centre within 23 working days from the date, they received the bond, being 9 October 2018. Further, the tenant has issued 14-day notices requiring the landlord to remedy this breach on 26/09/2204 and 01/08/2025 and then in her application filed 5 August 2025.The landlord has still not lodged the bond or accounted for it in the rent records and then came seeking $1,710.00 rent arrears from the tenant and termination of her tenancy for unproven rent breaches. This claim indicates that the landlord decided not to use to bond to offset rent arrears it says are owing, despite the tenant’s agreement to it doing so. The evidence suggests it still did not lodge the bond after, more likely than not, making that decision.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Landlords are required to understand their responsibilities to tenants, and I am satisfied the landlord should have reasonably known that the bond had to be submitted to the Bond Centre within 23 days after their receipt of it. The obligations placed on a landlord to put the bond into the Bond Centre on trust for the tenant is an obligation the Tribunal takes seriously. The bond is owned by the tenant, until the parties agree that all or part of the bond can be paid to the landlord to cover proven debts.
I find it would be just to require the landlords to pay exemplary damages to the tenant because: a. The landlords intentionally held on to the bond and did not submit it to the Bond Centre for over 7 years and 4 months since the tenancy commenced and the bond was paid by the tenant; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting the bond money that has been placed in it on trust for the tenant’s benefit, unless it is proven the tenant owes the landlord a debt that both parties agree can be paid by the Bond Centre to the landlord or on order from the Tribunal. The tenant’s money was not protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for a total period of 7 years and 4 months between 9 October 2018 to 8 March 2026 and it should have been; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations pay the bond received into the Bond Centre promptly for the protection of both parties’ interests.
However, s109(2) statutorily bars me from from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it has been more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025) that this breach occurred.
I find that this intentional disregard for the RTA and the protections it affords tenants warrants an award of general damages of $1,000.00 and make that award to the tenant for this breach. Has the landlord breached his section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) obligations to the tenant?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to his attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is 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”. 1 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15].
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA states that a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A.
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
Breaching any of these s45(1) obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain
The tenant gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to his attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances.
The landlord repeatedly confirmed that he had not investigated and repaired defects with the property brought to his attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. His justification for these breaches of s45(1) of the RTA are: 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. a. The tenant has not paid her rent, and he has been unable to fund the repairs and maintenance required as a result. This allegation has remained unproven during this hearing; and b. He lost his job on 3 December 2025 and has not had the financial capacity to meet his s45(1)of the RTA obligations to the tenant. This does not explain the numerous breaches of his s45(1) of the RTA breaches prior to that date. A. Dishwasher
The tenant confirmed, after the first year of tenancy, the dishwasher stopped working and that she first raised this issue in writing on 11 December 2023 in a 14-day notice to remedy. She also produced an email she sent to the landlord on 24 August 2025, informing the landlord the dishwasher still not working. The landlord never responded to either.
At the 3 February 2026 hearing, the landlord committed to getting a new dishwasher installed within the next 2 weeks. The tenant confirmed on Friday 6 March 2026 that he had not done so.
I am satisfied the landlord has intentionally committed an unlawful act.
I find the tenant should receive a rent rebate of $15 per week for the period she lived with this loss of amenity, and the stress and convenience she suffered from 11 December 2023 to 8 March 2026 (116 weeks 6 days) being a rent rebate of $1,752.85.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $50.00 per week for the period 12 July 2022 to 18 August 2023 (57 weeks and 3 days). being a rent rebate of $2,871.42 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). B. House foundation sinking- ground goes straight into the bedroom making the foundations are illegal
The tenant confirmed that after she received the heathy homes assessment report from Panda Solutions, in December 2025, she became aware of structural issues with the premise and that the foundation is sinking and the ground now does straight into the ground.
The tenant confirmed that she had not provided the landlord with a copy of the Panda Solutions report and had not raised this issue with the landlord as at the date of 3 February 2026 hearing.
A landlord cannot address an issue it does not know about and that a tenant cannot prove it has raised with the landlord.
This claim is dismissed for a failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant did prove that she paid $160.00 for the report that shows the premise fails to meet all the healthy homes’ standards. I award the tenant $160.00 compensation for the commissioning of the report to obtain healthy homes information the landlord should have supplied to the tenant in the tenancy agreement and on her request but did not. C. Chimney and fireplace
The tenant confirmed the premise’s only source of heating is a tiled fireplace with glass door and flue up to the ceiling.
The photographic evidence provided by the tenant shows there are no fire bricks around the hearth, the glass door does not have rope seal intact and the chimney has not been cleaned or swept since the tenancy commenced on 9 October 2018.
The landlord claims he had the chimney swept 3 to 4 years ago. He did not provide a receipt for this or any other evidence to support his claim.
Chimneys should generally be cleaned and inspected at least once a year to remove creosote, prevent chimney fires, and satisfy insurance requirements. If the fireplace or wood burner is used heavily, daily, or burns unseasoned wood, it may require cleaning twice per season (or roughly every 1–2 cords of wood).
The tenant has proven she issued the landlord with 14-day notices to remedy the chimney and tile issues on 11/12/23, 1/8/25 and 24/8 2025. The photographic evidence provided proves the landlord had still not addressed these issues by Friday 6 March 2026.
The landlord had nothing to say in his defence about this breach.
I find he has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $10.00 per week for the period 11 December 2023 to 8 March 2026 (116 weeks and 6 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $1,168.57ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). D. Mould
The tenant provided photographic of extensive black mould on the ceilings in the kitchen, upstairs bedroom and hallway. She also proved she had issued 14-day notices to remedy this issue on 21/4/23, 27/7/23 and 24/8/25 and that the landlord had not addressed the issue at the date of the hearing and has followed up the Tribunal to confirm that by 5:00pm on Friday 6 March 2026 this issue had still not been addressed.
The landlord doesn’t deny this and accepts the ventilation and draught issues need to be addressed at the property that are causing the mould. He stated that the black mould would be treated after that remedial work was been done.
I find the landlord has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $20.00 per week for the period 24 April 2023 to 8 March 2026 (150 weeks and 2 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $3,005.71 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). E. Rotten interior and exterior walls
The tenant provided photographic of a rotten internal wall in the small entrance way by the entrance to the downstairs bedroom. She states this damage is from water flooding down the stairs that has rotted the wall to the extent you can put your hand through the hole to outside.
The landlord says the tenant did inform him about this issue and that it is an easy fix. He also confirmed that he has not yet been over to fix it, despite knowing of it at least since the tenant’s application on 5 August 2025.
The tenant produced a text message that proves she raised this issue with the landlord on 24 April 2023 and she confirmed to the Tribunal that it had still not been addressed by 5:00pm on Friday 6 March 2026.
The landlord says he is struggling financially as the tenant is not paying her rent in full and on time and he has struggled to make ends meet and to pay for maintenance including these rotten walls.
I find the landlord has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $25.00 per week for the period 24 April 2023 to 8 March 2026 (150 weeks and 2 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $3,757.14 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). F. Rotten window and door frames that will not close properly or are screwed shut a. The tenant provided photographic of two bedrooms upstairs where two windows are screwed shut from outside. One was done when she arrived and the other one, she nailed shut (around December 2023 after it kept coming open and banging because of so many holes in the joinery. She proved she issued a 14-day notice about these windows on 11 December 2023; and b. Rotten framing around the upstairs lounge door on to the deck; and c. Four windows and a door that have smashed due to flying open in the wind; d. The kitchen window frame rotting from outside; e. The downstairs door rotting around its framing due to ongoing leaks.
The landlord had nothing to say in his defence about these breaches.
I find he has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $25.00 per week for the period 11 December 2023 to 8 March 2026 (116 weeks and 6 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $2,921.23 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). G. Bathroom and kitchen extractor fans
The tenant provided the Panda Solutions Healthy Home report that confirmed the bathroom fan was not compliant in December 2025, but the kitchen extractor fans was compliant.
The tenant sent two 14-day notices to the landlord about the extractor fan issues on 1 and 24 August 2025.
The tenant confirmed the bathroom fan was fixed in around 3 January 2025 but says the kitchen extractor fan is still faulty.
The landlord confirmed he sent an electrician to look at bathroom fan, rangehood and oven on 23 October 2025 and had a text message from his electrician that confirmed he had checked the range hood, it was working, and it may be an intermittent problem that was not present when he was investigating it.
The tenant says the kitchen extractor fan has never really worked. The lights work but no fan goes on.
Based on the electrician’s text message and the Panda Solutions healthy homes assessment report, I find that the tenant has not produced enough evidence on the balance of probabilities to prove the kitchen extractor fan is not working and the landlord has disproven this claim. I also find the tenant has proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to fix the bathroom extractor fan from 1 August 2025 to 3 January 2026.
I find the landlord has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $10.00 per week for the period 1 August 2025 to 3 January 2026 (22 weeks and 1 day) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $221.43 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). H. Water pump and water tank leak
The tenant claims the water tank was leaking prior to pump breaking down, that she notified the landlord on 18 June 2025 that the pump was broken, and the tank had been leaking for a while. The landlord said he would reimburse tenant for the water but did not.
The tenant provided evidence: a. The water pump stopped working for six weeks and two days, from 18 June 2025 to 14 August 2025, leaving the tenant without running wate; b. The tenant’s family paid $1,16.50 for a new water pump; c. The tenant paid $320.00 for a tank of water after a leak in the tank depleted it fully; d. The new pump was installed on 14 August 2025.
The landlord says he did not have enough time to have the pump fixed. He says he did not get the Facebook message on 18 June 2025 and by the time he got the text message from the tenant on 24 June 2025 she had already been a few days without water.
The tenant confirmed on 25 June 225, she saw a new pump on trade me and told the landlord she was going to purchase it and have it installed. The landlord confirmed he asked her about the size of the pump, and was told it was bigger than current one.
The pump turned out to be faulty, so the tenant told the landlord that it has not been replaced. On 1 August 2025, the landlord says he got a quote for replacing the pump at a cost of $700.00. The landlord did not know what happened after that.
The tenant still had no water after 1 August 2025, so engaged a contractor to replace the pump and fix the leak at a cost of $1,168.50. She notified the landlord on 14 August 2025 that the pump had been replaced and the leak fixed. He confirmed that he would not accept the plumbers 1 August 2025 quote and that he cancelled his plumber the same day.
I find the landlord has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive: a. A rent rebate of $30.00 per week for the period 18 June 2025 to14 August 2025 (8 weeks and 1 day) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $244.29 ordered; b. $1,168.50 compensation for the cost of the water pump; and c. $320.00 compensation for the tank of water.
I am satisfied it would also be just to also require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages for this because: a. The tenant suffered a loss of amenity stress and inconvenience caused by this breach when the landlord knew of these issues and did not take reasonable steps to investigate and remedy them in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances; b. The tenant also suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind him of his obligations under the RTA to no avail ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for the bathroom related breach will be addressed at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breaches section of this Order. I. Leak in downstairs bedroom and broken downpipe
The tenant provided photographic of the water damage caused by a leak that was discovered on 21 April 2023 after a broken downpipe failed and caused a rotten wall in stairwell. This led to a bedroom leak from 1 June 2024. The tenant proved she reported the downpipe issue on 21 April 2023, but nothing was done to investigate or remediate the issue.
The tenant gave evidence that every time it rained heavily thereafter the gutters overflow and because the foundation are below ground level, it floods outside the door downstairs and floods into the downstairs room.
The tenant proved she has issued 14-day notices about these issues and sent emails to the landlord on 26 September 2024, June/July 2025, and 24 August 2025.
The landlord says he got some text messages in June/July 2025 about the leak and got a plumber to come and investigate and remediate the leak issue. A few weeks after this issue was raised, the landlord says he got a plumber in to try and fix the issue with the leaks under the house. He says the plumber repaired a piece of down piping with a hole in it. The tenant gave evidence the landlord did not pay contractor, so he did not come back and finish the job.
The landlord says after the plumber had been he had not had any contact from the tenant about the ongoing leak and was not aware this was still a problem. The tenant proved she had messaged the landlord on 24 August 2025 and the issues have still not been resolved as at 5:00pm on 6 March 2026.
I find the landlord has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $30.00 per week for the period 21 April 2023 to 8 March 2026 (150 weeks and 2 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $4,508.57 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). J. Oven and stover
The tenant says the oven and cooktop stopped working in August 2024. She emailed the landlord, but no longer has access to these emails due to broken phone.
She proved she first raised in writing on 26 September 2024 in a 14-day notice to remedy and again in another 14-day notice on 1 August 2025.
The parties confirmed a new oven/stove was installed on 12 November 2025 after telling the tenant for years that the only way this can be sorted is to purchase a new one herself and deduct from rent arrears.
I find he has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $30.00 per week for the period 26 September 2024 to 12 November 2025 (58 weeks and 6 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $1,765.71 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025).

Did the landlord breach the smoke alarm regulations?

Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA states the landlord “shall comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A”.
The tenant claims the rental premise had no compliant or working smoke alarms when she moved in, and none have been installed by the landlord during the tenancy. She provided photographic evidence that proves this.
The tenant also says when she told the landlord there were no smoke alarms, he told her it was her responsibility to purchase and install the smoke alarms required to make the premise compliant.
The tenant described the premise as a two-storey house with two bedrooms upstairs and one downstairs. She says she purchased one smoke alarm and installed it upstairs but could not afford to purchase any more. She has not been reimbursed for the cost of the smoke alarm purchase and I could not reimburse the cost to her as I was not provided with a receipt.
Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) website, www.fire.org, confirms both landlords and tenants take some responsible for smoke alarms as follows: a. Landlords must ensure smoke alarms: i. are working at the start of each new tenancy; ii. remain in working order during the tenancy; and iii. That are not working are replaced with photoelectric smoke alarms. b. Tenants must: i. not damage, remove, or disconnect a smoke alarm; ii. replace dead batteries during the tenancy if there are older-style smoke alarms with replaceable batteries; and iii. let the landlord know if there are any problems with the smoke alarms as soon as possible.
The Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 healthy hoes report confirms there were no compliant smoke alarms when it carried out its assessment and that two were required to ensure that there was one within 3 metres of each bedroom door.
I am satisfied that the tenant has proven that the landlord failed to ensure the rental premise was fitted with working smoke alarms that meet the regulatory requirements referred to in the RTA.
I find that the tenant should be awarded compensation for the breach of the landlord’s obligations to provide smoking smoke alarms and award compensation of $500.00 for the landlord’s blatant disregard of the smoke alarm regulations and the tenant’s safety.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). Failure to meet buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premise
The tenant says the landlord failed to meet his obligations under s45(1)(c) of the RTA as the premise did not meet the building and health and safety related laws that apply to residential tenancies.
I note that the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 only applies to contractors that are working on the premise in unsafe conditions and not to person living in a premise.
The tenant says the premise did not meet the building code and building standards as the foundation has sunk and the building now sits below ground level and that causes leaks and water damage in the house.
The tenant says the healthy homes inspection raised this breach with her when he conducted the healthy homes assessment, but there is nothing about this in the Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 report.
Regulation 7(2) of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) states: There shall be in each kitchen or kitchenette— (a) an approved sink with a tap connected to an adequate supply of potable water; and (b) adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food, both by boiling and by baking.
The tenant has proven the premise had no means of baking or boiling from 24 September 2024 to 12 November 2025 and that there was no water for the kitchen sink from 18 June 2025 to 14 August 2025. Therefore, I am satisfied that the landlord was in breach of this obligation. The tenant has already received compensation for these breaches under her failure to maintain claims. The tenant should not receive additional compensation because these breaches fall under two different categories of breach. I have considered the duality of breach when awarding compensation under the failure to maintain sections of this Order, above.
Regulation 9(2)of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) states: Every bathroom shall contain an approved bath or shower with an adequate supply of wholesome water. Adequate means of heating water shall be provided.
The tenant has proven the premise had no water for the bathroom from 18 June 2025 to 14 August 2025. Therefore, I am satisfied that the landlord was in breach of this obligation. The tenant has already received compensation for this breach under her failure to maintain claims. The tenant should not receive additional compensation because this breach falls under two different categories of breach. I have considered the duality of breach when awarding compensation under the failure to maintain sections of this Order, above.
Regulation 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) states: Every house shall be free from dampness.
The tenant has proven the premise has leaks and water damage, ventilation issues and draught stopping issues that have led the house to be damp and mouldy. The tenant has already received compensation for these breach under her failure to maintain claims. The tenant should not receive additional compensation because these breaches fall under two different categories of breach. I have considered the duality of the breaches when awarding compensation under the failure to maintain sections of this Order, above.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). Failure to meet healthy homes standards
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. 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 ii. 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. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenant has had two tenancy agreements during her tenancy. The first was commenced on 9 October 2018 and the second commenced on 18 June 2024. Therefore, the landlord had until 1 July 2025 to comply with the healthy homes’ standards under the first tenancy agreement and 120 days from the commencement of the second tenancy agreement, being Wednesday 16 October 2024.
When the tenant informed the landlord, she had engaged Panda Solutions to assess the premise against the healthy homes standards and that it did not fully comply with any of them, he said this is all new to him and he had not had time to go and check that the house is all compliant. He told the tenant he would call Panda Solutions to see if they can remediate the issues highlighted. He has not done so to date. A. Insulation
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 healthy homes assessment report records “the underfloor insulation has met minimum thickness, but some areas are missing. Need to be topped up to satisfy requirements of code NZS 4246:2016” and that the premise is “non-compliant with the insulation standard.”
The tenant’s claim has been proven by an independent third party.
The tenant became aware of this breach on 16 December 2025, within 12 months of her application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Therefore, exemplary damages can be considered. I am however, not satisfied that this breach was known by the landlord or an intentional breach. Therefore, I cannot award any exemplary damages for this breach. B. Heating
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the heating standard.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
There must be one or more fixed heaters that can directly heat the main living room.
The main living room is the largest room that is used for general, everyday living – for example a lounge, family room or dining room.
Heater(s) must be fixed (not portable) and must be at least 1.5 kW in heating capacity and meet the minimum heating capacity needed for the main living room. There are several options to calculate the heating capacity required for the main living room.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant has proven that the only source of heating for the premise is a closed fireplace that was not fit for purpose due to the chimney not having been cleaned, the glass door not sealing properly and there being no fire bricks around the hearth from the start of the tenancy.
Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 healthy homes assessment report records “Heating-existing fireplace heating capacity unable to be determined. Need to add heating devices to mee t capacity requirements or check manufacturers or council records for the heating capacity of the fireplace. Requires 7kW of heating capacity. Heaters installed before 1 July 2019, each have to have a minimum heating greater than 2.4kW, meet the general requirements for heaters and have combined capacity that is at least 80 per cent of what is required. 80% of 7kW is
6kW”.
The tenant’s claim has been proven by an independent third party.
The tenant became aware of this breach on 16 December 2025, within 12 months of her application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Therefore, exemplary damages can be considered.
In this case I have determined the landlord has committed an intentional unlawful act by failing to ensure the premise met the heating standard by the earlier compliance date. He was well aware the fireplace was not usable in its current condition, as the tenant had repeatedly raised this with him.
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.
Considering those factors, I am satisfied it would also be just to also require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages for this because: a. The tenant suffered a loss of amenity stress and inconvenience caused by this breach when the landlord knew of this issue and did not take reasonable steps to ensure the premise met the heating standard by Wednesday 16 October 2024; b. The tenant also suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind him of his obligations under the healthy homes’ standards to no avail ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the breach; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their healthy homes standards obligations.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for the bathroom related breach will be addressed at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breaches section of this Order. C. Ventilation
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the ventilation standard.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 healthy homes assessment report records the bbathroom extractor fan was non-compliant on the date of the assessment and the tenant has proven the bathroom extractor fan did not work from 1 August 2025 to 3 January 2026. Therefore, on Wednesday 16 October 2024, the premise did not meet the ventilation standard.
The tenant became aware of this breach on 1 August 2025, within 12 months of her application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Therefore, exemplary damages can be considered.
In this case I have determined the landlord has committed an intentional unlawful act by failing to ensure the premise met the ventilation standard by the earlier compliance date. He was well aware the bathroom extractor fan was not compliant, as the tenant had repeatedly raised this with him.
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.
Considering those factors, I am satisfied it would also be just to also require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages for this because: a. The tenant suffered a loss of amenity stress and inconvenience caused by this breach when the landlord knew of this issue and did not take reasonable steps to ensure the premise met the heating standard by Wednesday 16 October 2024; b. The tenant also suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind him of his obligations under the healthy homes’ standards to no avail ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the breach; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their healthy homes standards obligations.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for the bathroom related breach will be addressed at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breaches section of this Order. D. Draught Stopping
The tenant claims the landlord has failed to comply with the 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.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 healthy homes assessment report records the following draught stopping standard breaches: a. Ceiling is cracked; b. Ceiling hatch is missing; c. Gaps present around both the front and back doors allowing draughts; d. Two holes on the external wall; e. Window handles are broken and one window stay (support bracket) is damaged; f. One window is poorly fitted, and need to be fixed; g. Multiple window gaps exceeding 3mm, resulting air leak; and h. Mould present
Therefore, on Wednesday 16 October 2024, the premise did not meet the ventilation standard.
The tenant became aware of these breaches are various times during the tenancy from 21 April 2023 to 6 March 2026, outside of the 12-month period prior to her application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Therefore, exemplary damages cannot be considered, even though I am satisfied the landlord was aware of these breaches and intentionally failed to address them (Refer to s109(2)(a) of the RTA). The tenant has received compensation for these breaches in the repair and maintenance breach section of this order. E. Moisture Ingress and Drainage
The tenant claims the landlord has failed to comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard.
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 if it is reasonably practical to do so.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 healthy homes assessment report records: a. “Ground moisture barrier and drainage- gutters loose and downpipes cracked- GMB has parts missing- Need to install to meet the specifications in NZS4246:2016”; and b. Guttering is loose and needs to be fixed; and c. One downpipe is cracked and needs to be fixed.
Further the tenant has proven in her repair and maintenance claims that she has raised these issues with the landlord on 21 April 2023 and the issues have still not been addressed by to 8 March 2026.
Therefore, I am satisfied that on Wednesday 16 October 2024, the premise did not meet the ventilation standard.
The tenant became aware of the breach of the ground moisture barrier on 16 December 2025, within 12 months of her application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Therefore, exemplary damages can be considered. However, she became aware of the other moisture ingress and drainage issues on 21 April 2023, outside of the 12-month period before her application to the Tenancy Tribunal.
In this case I have determined the landlord has committed unlawful act by failing to ensure the premise met the moisture ingress and drainage standards by the earlier compliance date. He should have been aware the premise had to be fully compliant by Wednesday 16 October 2024 and took no seps to ensure it was.
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.
Considering those factors, I am not satisfied it would also be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages for this because the tenant has not proven on the balance of probabilities that this breach was intentional.
The tenant has received compensation for the other drainage and moisture ingress issues in the repair and maintenance section of this Order above. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed one intentional breach of s45(1)(b) and two of s45(1)(bb) of the RTA that resulted in the tenant living conditions that were unhealthy and that she experienced considerable periods of stress, inconvenience, and loss of the amenity the tenant was paying rent to enjoy. The landlord did not offer any rent relief to the tenant at these times.
I find the landlord has committed these three unlawful acts intentionally.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenant many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $2,400.00 exemplary damages to the tenant, being one third of the maximum penalty available. Failure to keep proper business records
The tenant claims the landlord has not kept records of rent and bond paid.
A landlord must keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant. See section 30(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 30(2) and Schedule 1A RTA).
The tenant has proven the rent records are inaccurate. They show the tenant has paid $12,783.00 in rent since 8 January 2025 when the rent payments on the ledger add up to $15,388.00.
The tenant has also produced text messages to the landlord seeking a copy of the rent ledger during the tenancy and none were ever provided to the tenant. They say things such as: a. Tenant: “Can you please send me the original tenancy agreement and the tenant ledger (proof of all payments) including missed payments and $ that should have being taken off for things I fixed around the house etc. Thanks” b. Landlord: “I am not going back that many years as I have not got time and I paid you for things that you fixed ok. I’m sick and tired of all this to be really honest with you. I never had this problem with anyone before. You are having major problems paying full rent and its time you did something about it and did it urgently too. Thank you.” c. Landlord “...from the beginning of this year I have given you the breakdown already. Lets sort that out ok. I’m not going to let this go on for another month. Yu haven paid full rent for 7 months now and any other landlord would have kicked you out by now and believe me im on the verge of doing that. I felt sorry for you for too long now.”
The landlord also stated he had increased the rent lawfully to $630.00 via a text message dated 30 November 2021. This text confirms the rent is going up to $630.00 per week from 29 January 2022. The landlord could not explain why the new agreement in 2024 has $620.00 in it. The tenant proved the phone number the landlord sent this text message to was 0220963757 and that this was not her phone number in 2021 or ever. The tenant says the first she knew of this issue was when the landlord sent her a rent ledger on 29 July 2025 showing the rent as $630.00 per week back dated to 8 January 2025.
The rent records have also not accounted for payment of the bond at the start of the tenancy nor whether it has been used to cover two weeks rent arrears in May 2022 .
Proper business records mean records that are orderly, to a high standard 6 , and contemporaneous with payments made by the tenant 7 .
I find the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has failed to keep accurate business records that are of a high standard, in accordance with s30 of the RTA, and he has committed an unlawful act. e 6 Kumar v Capper NZTT Auckland TT1004/90, 12 March 1991 at [8]. 7 Brown v Steele [2002] DCR 338 at [19].
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord intentionally failed to retain accurate business records to a high standard and that it would be just to require the landlord to pay a general damages/compensatory sum of $300.00 because I am statutorily barred from awarding exemplary damages under s109(2) of the RTA and: a. The landlord should have reasonably known that it is required by law to keep accurate business records that allows it to provide the tenant with accurate rent summaries in a reasonable timeframe, and it did not. b. The tenant is entitled to rely on accurate business records being kept by their landlord for 7 years so that they can be assured their rent payments are being accounted for accurately and they can seek confirmation of how much rent they owe or have overpaid at any given time; c. t is in the interests of the tenant to receive general damages for the landlords’ breach. Did the landlord provide the statutorily required healthy homes, smoke alarm, insurance information and bond information in the tenancy agreement?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 13A(1A), 13A(1CA) and 13A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1A) the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord that describes whether or not there is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, any insulation installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises and the details of the location, type, and condition of all insulation that is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises.
Under s13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the five healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions. These five standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping. This provision also requires the landlord to record how many smoke alarms are in the premise, when the smoke alarms were last tested and when they expire.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
If the landlord is unable to provide some or all the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 13A(2) states the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement the following information about insurance of the premises: (a)if the premises are not insured, a statement that they are not insured; and (b)if the premises are insured, a statement— (i)setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and (ii)informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request (except that the statement need not inform the tenant of this if the landlord has already provided to the tenant a copy of the policy in accordance with section 45(2B) or 66J(5)).
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) and/or 13A(2) of the RTA obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant received two tenancy agreements during the tenancy. Tenancy agreement one
The first tenancy agreement commenced on 9 October 2018.
From 1 July 2019, landlords were required to sign a statement of intent to comply with healthy homes standards in new or varied tenancy agreements.
From 1 December 2020, landlord had to include a statement of their current level of compliance of the healthy homes’ standards in new or varied tenancy agreements.
An insulation statement has been legally required in all new, varied, or renewed tenancy agreements in New Zealand since 1 July 2016. This statement had to outline the location, type, and condition of the ceiling and underfloor insulation.
All rental properties were required to have ceiling and underfloor insulation installed by 1 July 2019.
Smoke alarm information has been mandatory in all New Zealand tenancy agreements since 1 July 2016. The law requires that all residential rental properties are fitted with working, compliant smoke alarms (long-life photoelectric) and that landlords include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement confirming this.
Insurance information became a mandatory requirement in New Zealand tenancy agreements for all new, varied, or renewed tenancies from August 27, 2019. Under the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2019, landlords must disclose if the property is insured, the excess amount, and provide a statement that insurance policies are available upon request.
Bond information, including the specific amount charged, has been a required component of written tenancy agreements in New Zealand since the RTA came into force in 1986.
Therefore, the first tenancy agreement failed to provide an insulation statement, smoke alarm and insurance information and the amount of bond charges and receipted but was not required to contain any of the other healthy homes’ standards related information. Tenancy agreement two
The second tenancy agreement commenced on 18 June 2024.
The second tenancy agreement was required to have all the current statutory required heathy homes information, insurance and bond information. It failed to contain: a. HHS compliance statement; b. HHS detailed compliance information; c. Smoke alarm information; d. Insurance information; e. Information on the amount of any general bond (refer to s13A(1)(i) of the RTA);
As such, the tenant had no idea, whether the premises were fully healthy homes compliant, whether any exemptions applied to the premises, whether there were smoke alarm(s) that were compliant with statutory requirements and whether the landlord had insurance that limited the tenant’s liability for costs associated with any careless or deliberate damages to the premise.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, pursuant to section 13A(1F)(a) of the RTA, the Tribunal may award up to a maximum of $750.00 in exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements and smoke alarm information prescribed by sections 13A(1A),13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, or the insurance information prescribed by s13A(2) of the RTA or the bond information prescribed by s13A(1)(i) of the RTA in the second tenancy agreement but I am statutorily barred from awarding exemplary damages for the 18 June 2024 agreement breaches as this breach was more than 12 months prior to the tenant’s 5 August 2025 application to the Tribunal.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a general damage/compensatory sum of $300.00 compensation because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known that he is required by to provide the tenants with healthy homes, smoke alarm, insurance and bond information with a written tenancy agreement b. The tenant is entitled to rely on her statutory right to receive information about: i. whether the premise was healthy homes compliant and if it wasn’t, was it exempt from these requirements; ii. whether the premise has compliant smoke alarms, where they are located, when they were last tested and when they expire; and iii. If the landlord has tenant insurance that covers tenant related damage to the premise, what the policy covers and the excess that applies; iv. The amount of bond charged and received from the tenant. c. t is in the interests of the tenants to receive compensation for the landlords’ breach.

Did the landlord provide the tenant with the healthy homes information requested?

Under section 123A(1AC) of the RTA, a landlord must provide requested healthy homes information within 21 days. Failure to comply without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act.
The tenant asked for healthy homes information in June 2024, when the landlord provided her with the second tenancy agreement, but she never received it, so had her own assessment and report done on 16 December 2025.
I am satisfied the evidence proves the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the requested healthy homes information. I am statutorily barred from awarding exemplary damages for the 18 June 2024 request not being fulfilled within 21 days as this breach was more than 12 months prior to the tenant’s 5 August 2025 application to the Tribunal.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a general damage/compensatory sum of $300.00 compensation because the tenant continued to have doubts about the premise’s level of compliance but had to engage a third-party assessor to confirm her suspicions because the landlord refused to obtain and provide the requested information. Did the landlord unlawfully increase the tenant’s rent on 18 June 2024?
The tenant claims the landlord unlawfully increased her rent from $570.00 to $620.00 on18 June 2024 , the date she and the landlord signed new tenancy agreement took effect, but that he did not provide her with the required statutorily notice of the rent increase.
The landlord did not have to give the tenant 60 days’ notice of a rent increase if both parties agree to the new rent and sign a new tenancy agreement that starts from the date of the new rental rate.
The landlord’s issuance of the new tenancy agreement on 18 June 2024 varied the rent payable to $620.00.
The claim is dismissed for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because Tammy Brassey has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in its claims. I dismissed its application for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded in its proceedings and I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord significant recidivist breaches of the terms of the tenancy agreement, its statutory obligations to the tenant and its conduct during the tenancy.
The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

State of repair Leaks Mould Smoke alarms Healthy homes Dairy Flat

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Dispute theme: state of repair
Dispute theme: healthy homes
Dispute theme: mould

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5317222?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be

How much money was awarded in case 5317222?

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317222?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Leaks, Mould, Smoke alarms, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317222?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13245160-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317222 — State of repair at 1 Wilson Road, Dairy Flat, RD 2, Dairy Flat 0792

Decided 9 March 2026 · Published 9 March 2026 · Application 5317222

Tenant favoured

State of repair
Leaks
Mould
Smoke alarms
Healthy homes

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Tenant favoured

From published order

Location

Dairy Flat

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

M Pollak

Dispute themes

Award balance

Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.

Gross award: $25,822.20
Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant: $25,822.20

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards for application 5317222 — net $25,822.20 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: Failure to maintain- Dishwasher

Amount: $1,752.85
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- Dishwasher

Compensation: Cost of healthy homes assessment report

Amount: $160.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Cost of healthy homes assessment report

Compensation: Failure to maintain- chimney and fireplace

Amount: $1,168.57
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- chimney and fireplace

Compensation: Failure to maintain- mould on ceilings

Amount: $3,005.71
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- mould on ceilings

Compensation: Failure to maintain- hole in internal and external wall

Amount: $3,757.14
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- hole in internal and external wall

Compensation: Failure to maintain- window and door framing issues

Amount: $2,921.43
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- window and door framing issues

Compensation: Failure to maintain- bathroom fan

Amount: $221.43
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- bathroom fan

Compensation: Reimburse cost of water pump

Amount: $1,168.50
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Reimburse cost of water pump

Compensation: Reimburse cost of a tank of water

Amount: $320.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Reimburse cost of a tank of water

Compensation: Failure to maintain watertank

Amount: $244.29
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain watertank

Compensation: Failure to maintain- leak in downstairs bedroom

Amount: $4,508.57
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- leak in downstairs bedroom

Compensation: Failure to maintain- oven/stove

Amount: $1,765.71
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- oven/stove

Compensation: Smoke alarm regulation breach

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Smoke alarm regulation breach

Exemplary damages: Breach of s45(1)(b) and (bb) RTA obligations

Amount: $2,400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of s45(1)(b) and (bb) RTA obligations

Compensation: Failure to provide statutorily required information in tenancy agreements- s13A RTA

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to provide statutorily required information in tenancy agreements- s13A RTA

Compensation: Failure to keep business records- s30 RTA

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to keep business records- s30 RTA

Compensation: Failure to provide requested HHS info within 21 days

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to provide requested HHS info within 21 days

Compensation-Bond not lodged

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Bond not lodged

Filing fee reimbursement

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

Net award

Tenant $25,822.20

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $25,822.20

Dismissed claims

Rent Arrears — Should the tenancy be terminated, and possession returned to the landlord?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Replace Smoke Alarms Exemplary damages Filing Fee Rent arrears

Order

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 22 March 2026: a. Leak in downstairs bedroom to be investigated by a qualified contractor, leak fully remediated and all water damage fully repaired. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, including the source of the leak identified and remediated, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; b. Install new dishwasher. Landlord to give the tenant a $15.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until a new dishwasher is installed and fully operational; c. Rotten interior and exterior wall in the small entranceway to the downstairs bedroom to be investigated by a qualified contractor, leak(s) fully remediated and all water damage to the interior and exterior walls fully remediated. Landlord to give the tenant a $25.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, including the source of the leak identified and remediated, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; d. Chimney to be swept by a professional chimney sweep. Landlord to give the tenant $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the chimney has been swept; e. Bricks around the fireplace to be investigated and repaired/replaced. Landlord to give the tenant $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; f. Seal around fireplace glass door to be repaired or replaced. Landlord to give the tenant $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; g. Mould on ceilings throughout the premise to be cleaned by a mould treatment specialist. Landlord to give the tenant a $20.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; h. Rot around windows and doors joinery to be investigated by a qualified builder and remediated. Landlord to give the tenant a $15.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; i. Two-bedroom windows that are screwed shut from the inside to be investigated by a qualified builder and remediated. Landlord to give the tenant a $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, and the issue fully resolved; j. A new oven and stove to be installed and be fully functional. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; k. Healthy homes complaint photoelectric smoke alarms to be installed throughout the premise so that there is one within 3 meters of each bedroom door and on every level of the house. All installed smoke alarms to have batteries, be tested and be fully functional. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; l. The premise must be brought up to healthy homes compliance standard for all five healthy homes standards in accordance with the Panda Healthy Homes Assessment Report dated 16 December 2025. Landlord to give the tenant a $200.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; m. The landlord must construct accurate rent records and provide them to the tenant. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; n. The full bond must be lodged with the Bond Centre. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the bond has been lodged and proof provided to the tenant.
If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 1 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $80,000.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
Sujendra Sharma must pay Tammy Brassey $25,822.20 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended a case management conference with Adjudicator Kan on 17 October 2025 and a hearing on 3 February 2026. The matter was adjourned twice, on 27 November 2025 and 19 December 2025, due to the landlord’s work commitments preventing him from attending the hearing and him being unable to brief a representative in time for the scheduled hearings.
The tenant has applied for work orders, compensation, general damages, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has made a late cross application, on 7 January 2026, for rent arrears, compensation, general damages, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. 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.
In summary, 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. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. However, section 109(2) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

Are there rent arrears owing?

The landlord says the tenant owes him rent arrears of $1,710.06 to 28 December 2025.
The tenant agrees that she has not paid her rent in full and on time because the landlord has breached so many of his Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 based obligations to her as a tenant and continues to do so.
The tenant undertook to recommence paying $620.00 rent per week from 6 March 2026, conditional upon the landlord having complied with all the work orders she sought at the 3 February 2026 hearing. The tenant has updated the Tribunal on 6 March 2026 that none of the work orders agreed upon by the landlord at the hearing have been complied with.
At the hearing, the landlord did not provide accurate rent records in the required format and the tenant disprove the amount the landlord stated was owing.
I am not satisfied that the rent records are accurate. The Tribunal cannot award rent arrears unless it is certain the landlord has proven the amount sought is owing and the tenant has not disproven the rent records produced. The claim is dismissed.

Should the tenancy be terminated, and possession returned to the landlord?

The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy in accordance with s55(1)(a) of the RTA because he says the rent was 21 days or more in rent arrears on the date he filed his application, being 7 January 2026.
The rent records produced are inaccurate and the landlord has been unable to prove that the rent was in arrears of 21 or more days on 7 January 2026. The claim is dismissed.

Should the tenant pay the landlord for costs of clearing rubbish out of the yard?

The landlord says there is lots of junk and rubbish in the yard that needs to be removed, after the tenant refused to do so, and seeks compensation of $5,000.00.
The landlord has not provided any evidence of the rubbish/junk in the yard, nor a receipt for the $5,000.00 he claims it has cost him to have it removed.
.A landlord cannot be compensated for a loss he has not incurred nor can he be compensated for a tenant breach he has not proven on the balance of probabilities.
The claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to hear it. Should the Tribunal compensate the landlord for the loss of his life insurance policy valued at $700,000.00?
The Tenancy Tribunal is statutorily barred from hearing claims for more than a total of $100,00.00. This claim well exceeds that limit. If a claim exceeds this amount, it must be filed through the District Court.
Additionally, the Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear any life insurance related claims. There are no breaches by a tenant in the RTA that could give rise to such a claim.
The claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to hear it. Should the Tribunal compensate the landlord for stress and unwanted financial pressure valued at $100,000.00?
The Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear any landlord claims for stress or financial pressure.
A landlord is running a business when he/she/it rents out a premise and is expected to manage the tenancy in accordance with his obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and all associated statues and regulations. This includes, but is not limited to, meeting all his s45(1) of the RTA obligations to ensure the premise in repaired and maintained to a reasonable standard in all the circumstances and that the premise complies with all the healthy homes standards and smoke alarm regulations.
There is no provision in the RTA that provides a remedy for landlord stress or any financial pressure a landlord experiences as a result of choosing to rent out a premise to a tenant. A landlord is expected to have sufficient funds to cover the costs associated with complying with the RTA during the period the landlord is renting the premise to a tenant.
The claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to hear it. Should the Tribunal compensate the landlord for the tenant running a business from the rental premise?
The landlord asserts the tenant is running a business from the rental premise without his permission and he wants compensation for her breach of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord has not provided any evidence of the tenant running a business from her home nor that she required his permission to do so. He was unable to show me the provision in the tenancy agreement he says the tenant had breached.
The tenant denies running a business from her home.
In New Zealand, a tenant can run a business from a rental property, but the premise must be primarily used for residential purposes. Written permission from the landlord is generally required if a tenant is running a full business operation from the premise, such as a medical practice or massage therapy practice or nail salon or hair salon or the like. The tenant would also need to ensure the business complied with local council zoning, bylaws, and did not impact the landlord's insurance. A tenant does not need consent from a landlord to administer a business from a rental premise e.g do the accounts, or to use the premise as a base from which to go to or from a work site, such as may be the case in a gardening business where a tenant may keep a work van and equipment stored at home that he/she/they take to clients premises each day. It is of note that low- impact, home-office based businesses (e.g. online retail, consulting) do not require landlord consent whereas businesses involving significant numbers of clients coming and going from the premise, or significant amounts of inventory being kept on the premise, are more likely to require landlord consent.
The landlord was not clear about the nature of the business he says the tenant is running from the premise, nor why he considers the tenant requires his permission to run any such business form home.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed for failure to provide evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Does the tenant require a landlord’s permission to have a flatmate?
The tenant is legally entitled to have a flatmate without obtaining the landlord’s permission, so long as she does not exceed to maximum number of occupants provided for in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord has not produced any evidence that the tenant has exceed the number of occupants provided for in either of the two tenancy agreements signed by the parties, during the tenancy. I do not appear to have complete copies of these two agreements, or these two agreements did not record that specific information. I am not sure from the evidence provided which one is true.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed for failure to provide evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. TENANT’S CLAIMS Work Orders Sought
The tenant has proven the landlord has committed a number of beaches of his obligations under the RTA and she wants these problems fixed.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds, the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 22 March 2026: a. Leak in downstairs bedroom to be investigated by a qualified contractor, leak fully remediated and all water damage fully repaired. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, including the source of the leak identified and remediated, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; b. Install new dishwasher. Landlord to give the tenant a $15.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until a new dishwasher is installed and fully operational; c. Rotten interior and exterior wall in the small entranceway to the downstairs bedroom to be investigated by a qualified contractor, leak(s) fully remediated and all water damage to the interior and exterior walls fully remediated. Landlord to give the tenant a $25.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, including the source of the leak identified and remediated, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; d. Chimney to be swept by a professional chimney sweep. Landlord to give the tenant $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the chimney has been swept; e. Bricks around the fireplace to be investigated and repaired/replaced. Landlord to give the tenant $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; f. Seal around fireplace glass door to be repaired or replaced. Landlord to give the tenant $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; g. Mould on ceilings throughout the premise to be cleaned by a mould treatment specialist. Landlord to give the tenant a $20.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; h. Rot around windows and doors joinery to be investigated by a qualified builder and remediated. Landlord to give the tenant a $15.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; i. Two-bedroom windows that are screwed shut from the inside to be investigated by a qualified builder and remediated. Landlord to give the tenant a $10.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, and the issue fully resolved; j. A new oven and stove to be installed and be fully functional. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; k. Healthy homes complaint photoelectric smoke alarms to be installed throughout the premise so that there is one within 3 meters of each bedroom door and on every level of the house. All installed smoke alarms to have batteries, be tested and be fully functional. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; l. The premise must be brought up to healthy homes compliance standard for all five healthy homes standards in accordance with the Panda Healthy Homes Assessment Report dated 16 December 2025. Landlord to give the tenant a $200.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed, all water damage remedied, and the issue fully resolved; m. The landlord must construct accurate rent records and provide them to the tenant. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the work has been completed; n. The full bond must be lodged with the Bond Centre. Landlord to give the tenant a $30.00 per week rent abatement from 9 March 2026 until the bond has been lodged and proof provided to the tenant.
If the landlord fails to comply with the orders set out in paragraph [45]and Order 1 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $80,000.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond within the required statutory timeframes?

The tenant claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord confirmed that he knew that bonds for residential tenancies must be lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received and that he had not done so because: a. He and his wife did not remember if they had lodged the bond or not; b. He had not lodged it because the tenant was behind on rent and thought he would use it to offset rent arrears because she had told him he could do so in a text message dated 20 May 2022 and that he did so but forgot to record the transaction on the rent summary.
The RTA is clear, all landlords must lodge the tenant’s bond with Tenancy Services/the Bond Centre within 23 working days of receiving it.
The landlord confirmed it did not do so.
The tenancy commenced on 9 October 2018. The tenant’s agreement for the landlord to use the $1,710.00 bond to offset rent arrears in May 2022 was not within these 23 working days after receiving the bond from the tenant.
Tenancy Services has confirmed it has no record of a bond for this address or this tenant.
I find that the landlords have intentionally committed an unlawful act when they failed to lodge the bond with Tenancy Services Bond Centre within 23 working days from the date, they received the bond, being 9 October 2018. Further, the tenant has issued 14-day notices requiring the landlord to remedy this breach on 26/09/2204 and 01/08/2025 and then in her application filed 5 August 2025.The landlord has still not lodged the bond or accounted for it in the rent records and then came seeking $1,710.00 rent arrears from the tenant and termination of her tenancy for unproven rent breaches. This claim indicates that the landlord decided not to use to bond to offset rent arrears it says are owing, despite the tenant’s agreement to it doing so. The evidence suggests it still did not lodge the bond after, more likely than not, making that decision.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Landlords are required to understand their responsibilities to tenants, and I am satisfied the landlord should have reasonably known that the bond had to be submitted to the Bond Centre within 23 days after their receipt of it. The obligations placed on a landlord to put the bond into the Bond Centre on trust for the tenant is an obligation the Tribunal takes seriously. The bond is owned by the tenant, until the parties agree that all or part of the bond can be paid to the landlord to cover proven debts.
I find it would be just to require the landlords to pay exemplary damages to the tenant because: a. The landlords intentionally held on to the bond and did not submit it to the Bond Centre for over 7 years and 4 months since the tenancy commenced and the bond was paid by the tenant; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting the bond money that has been placed in it on trust for the tenant’s benefit, unless it is proven the tenant owes the landlord a debt that both parties agree can be paid by the Bond Centre to the landlord or on order from the Tribunal. The tenant’s money was not protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for a total period of 7 years and 4 months between 9 October 2018 to 8 March 2026 and it should have been; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations pay the bond received into the Bond Centre promptly for the protection of both parties’ interests.
However, s109(2) statutorily bars me from from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it has been more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025) that this breach occurred.
I find that this intentional disregard for the RTA and the protections it affords tenants warrants an award of general damages of $1,000.00 and make that award to the tenant for this breach. Has the landlord breached his section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) obligations to the tenant?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to his attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is 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”. 1 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15].
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA states that a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A.
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
Breaching any of these s45(1) obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain
The tenant gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to his attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances.
The landlord repeatedly confirmed that he had not investigated and repaired defects with the property brought to his attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. His justification for these breaches of s45(1) of the RTA are: 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. a. The tenant has not paid her rent, and he has been unable to fund the repairs and maintenance required as a result. This allegation has remained unproven during this hearing; and b. He lost his job on 3 December 2025 and has not had the financial capacity to meet his s45(1)of the RTA obligations to the tenant. This does not explain the numerous breaches of his s45(1) of the RTA breaches prior to that date. A. Dishwasher
The tenant confirmed, after the first year of tenancy, the dishwasher stopped working and that she first raised this issue in writing on 11 December 2023 in a 14-day notice to remedy. She also produced an email she sent to the landlord on 24 August 2025, informing the landlord the dishwasher still not working. The landlord never responded to either.
At the 3 February 2026 hearing, the landlord committed to getting a new dishwasher installed within the next 2 weeks. The tenant confirmed on Friday 6 March 2026 that he had not done so.
I am satisfied the landlord has intentionally committed an unlawful act.
I find the tenant should receive a rent rebate of $15 per week for the period she lived with this loss of amenity, and the stress and convenience she suffered from 11 December 2023 to 8 March 2026 (116 weeks 6 days) being a rent rebate of $1,752.85.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $50.00 per week for the period 12 July 2022 to 18 August 2023 (57 weeks and 3 days). being a rent rebate of $2,871.42 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). B. House foundation sinking- ground goes straight into the bedroom making the foundations are illegal
The tenant confirmed that after she received the heathy homes assessment report from Panda Solutions, in December 2025, she became aware of structural issues with the premise and that the foundation is sinking and the ground now does straight into the ground.
The tenant confirmed that she had not provided the landlord with a copy of the Panda Solutions report and had not raised this issue with the landlord as at the date of 3 February 2026 hearing.
A landlord cannot address an issue it does not know about and that a tenant cannot prove it has raised with the landlord.
This claim is dismissed for a failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant did prove that she paid $160.00 for the report that shows the premise fails to meet all the healthy homes’ standards. I award the tenant $160.00 compensation for the commissioning of the report to obtain healthy homes information the landlord should have supplied to the tenant in the tenancy agreement and on her request but did not. C. Chimney and fireplace
The tenant confirmed the premise’s only source of heating is a tiled fireplace with glass door and flue up to the ceiling.
The photographic evidence provided by the tenant shows there are no fire bricks around the hearth, the glass door does not have rope seal intact and the chimney has not been cleaned or swept since the tenancy commenced on 9 October 2018.
The landlord claims he had the chimney swept 3 to 4 years ago. He did not provide a receipt for this or any other evidence to support his claim.
Chimneys should generally be cleaned and inspected at least once a year to remove creosote, prevent chimney fires, and satisfy insurance requirements. If the fireplace or wood burner is used heavily, daily, or burns unseasoned wood, it may require cleaning twice per season (or roughly every 1–2 cords of wood).
The tenant has proven she issued the landlord with 14-day notices to remedy the chimney and tile issues on 11/12/23, 1/8/25 and 24/8 2025. The photographic evidence provided proves the landlord had still not addressed these issues by Friday 6 March 2026.
The landlord had nothing to say in his defence about this breach.
I find he has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $10.00 per week for the period 11 December 2023 to 8 March 2026 (116 weeks and 6 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $1,168.57ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). D. Mould
The tenant provided photographic of extensive black mould on the ceilings in the kitchen, upstairs bedroom and hallway. She also proved she had issued 14-day notices to remedy this issue on 21/4/23, 27/7/23 and 24/8/25 and that the landlord had not addressed the issue at the date of the hearing and has followed up the Tribunal to confirm that by 5:00pm on Friday 6 March 2026 this issue had still not been addressed.
The landlord doesn’t deny this and accepts the ventilation and draught issues need to be addressed at the property that are causing the mould. He stated that the black mould would be treated after that remedial work was been done.
I find the landlord has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $20.00 per week for the period 24 April 2023 to 8 March 2026 (150 weeks and 2 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $3,005.71 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). E. Rotten interior and exterior walls
The tenant provided photographic of a rotten internal wall in the small entrance way by the entrance to the downstairs bedroom. She states this damage is from water flooding down the stairs that has rotted the wall to the extent you can put your hand through the hole to outside.
The landlord says the tenant did inform him about this issue and that it is an easy fix. He also confirmed that he has not yet been over to fix it, despite knowing of it at least since the tenant’s application on 5 August 2025.
The tenant produced a text message that proves she raised this issue with the landlord on 24 April 2023 and she confirmed to the Tribunal that it had still not been addressed by 5:00pm on Friday 6 March 2026.
The landlord says he is struggling financially as the tenant is not paying her rent in full and on time and he has struggled to make ends meet and to pay for maintenance including these rotten walls.
I find the landlord has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $25.00 per week for the period 24 April 2023 to 8 March 2026 (150 weeks and 2 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $3,757.14 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). F. Rotten window and door frames that will not close properly or are screwed shut a. The tenant provided photographic of two bedrooms upstairs where two windows are screwed shut from outside. One was done when she arrived and the other one, she nailed shut (around December 2023 after it kept coming open and banging because of so many holes in the joinery. She proved she issued a 14-day notice about these windows on 11 December 2023; and b. Rotten framing around the upstairs lounge door on to the deck; and c. Four windows and a door that have smashed due to flying open in the wind; d. The kitchen window frame rotting from outside; e. The downstairs door rotting around its framing due to ongoing leaks.
The landlord had nothing to say in his defence about these breaches.
I find he has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $25.00 per week for the period 11 December 2023 to 8 March 2026 (116 weeks and 6 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $2,921.23 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). G. Bathroom and kitchen extractor fans
The tenant provided the Panda Solutions Healthy Home report that confirmed the bathroom fan was not compliant in December 2025, but the kitchen extractor fans was compliant.
The tenant sent two 14-day notices to the landlord about the extractor fan issues on 1 and 24 August 2025.
The tenant confirmed the bathroom fan was fixed in around 3 January 2025 but says the kitchen extractor fan is still faulty.
The landlord confirmed he sent an electrician to look at bathroom fan, rangehood and oven on 23 October 2025 and had a text message from his electrician that confirmed he had checked the range hood, it was working, and it may be an intermittent problem that was not present when he was investigating it.
The tenant says the kitchen extractor fan has never really worked. The lights work but no fan goes on.
Based on the electrician’s text message and the Panda Solutions healthy homes assessment report, I find that the tenant has not produced enough evidence on the balance of probabilities to prove the kitchen extractor fan is not working and the landlord has disproven this claim. I also find the tenant has proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to fix the bathroom extractor fan from 1 August 2025 to 3 January 2026.
I find the landlord has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $10.00 per week for the period 1 August 2025 to 3 January 2026 (22 weeks and 1 day) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $221.43 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). H. Water pump and water tank leak
The tenant claims the water tank was leaking prior to pump breaking down, that she notified the landlord on 18 June 2025 that the pump was broken, and the tank had been leaking for a while. The landlord said he would reimburse tenant for the water but did not.
The tenant provided evidence: a. The water pump stopped working for six weeks and two days, from 18 June 2025 to 14 August 2025, leaving the tenant without running wate; b. The tenant’s family paid $1,16.50 for a new water pump; c. The tenant paid $320.00 for a tank of water after a leak in the tank depleted it fully; d. The new pump was installed on 14 August 2025.
The landlord says he did not have enough time to have the pump fixed. He says he did not get the Facebook message on 18 June 2025 and by the time he got the text message from the tenant on 24 June 2025 she had already been a few days without water.
The tenant confirmed on 25 June 225, she saw a new pump on trade me and told the landlord she was going to purchase it and have it installed. The landlord confirmed he asked her about the size of the pump, and was told it was bigger than current one.
The pump turned out to be faulty, so the tenant told the landlord that it has not been replaced. On 1 August 2025, the landlord says he got a quote for replacing the pump at a cost of $700.00. The landlord did not know what happened after that.
The tenant still had no water after 1 August 2025, so engaged a contractor to replace the pump and fix the leak at a cost of $1,168.50. She notified the landlord on 14 August 2025 that the pump had been replaced and the leak fixed. He confirmed that he would not accept the plumbers 1 August 2025 quote and that he cancelled his plumber the same day.
I find the landlord has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive: a. A rent rebate of $30.00 per week for the period 18 June 2025 to14 August 2025 (8 weeks and 1 day) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $244.29 ordered; b. $1,168.50 compensation for the cost of the water pump; and c. $320.00 compensation for the tank of water.
I am satisfied it would also be just to also require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages for this because: a. The tenant suffered a loss of amenity stress and inconvenience caused by this breach when the landlord knew of these issues and did not take reasonable steps to investigate and remedy them in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances; b. The tenant also suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind him of his obligations under the RTA to no avail ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for the bathroom related breach will be addressed at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breaches section of this Order. I. Leak in downstairs bedroom and broken downpipe
The tenant provided photographic of the water damage caused by a leak that was discovered on 21 April 2023 after a broken downpipe failed and caused a rotten wall in stairwell. This led to a bedroom leak from 1 June 2024. The tenant proved she reported the downpipe issue on 21 April 2023, but nothing was done to investigate or remediate the issue.
The tenant gave evidence that every time it rained heavily thereafter the gutters overflow and because the foundation are below ground level, it floods outside the door downstairs and floods into the downstairs room.
The tenant proved she has issued 14-day notices about these issues and sent emails to the landlord on 26 September 2024, June/July 2025, and 24 August 2025.
The landlord says he got some text messages in June/July 2025 about the leak and got a plumber to come and investigate and remediate the leak issue. A few weeks after this issue was raised, the landlord says he got a plumber in to try and fix the issue with the leaks under the house. He says the plumber repaired a piece of down piping with a hole in it. The tenant gave evidence the landlord did not pay contractor, so he did not come back and finish the job.
The landlord says after the plumber had been he had not had any contact from the tenant about the ongoing leak and was not aware this was still a problem. The tenant proved she had messaged the landlord on 24 August 2025 and the issues have still not been resolved as at 5:00pm on 6 March 2026.
I find the landlord has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $30.00 per week for the period 21 April 2023 to 8 March 2026 (150 weeks and 2 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $4,508.57 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). J. Oven and stover
The tenant says the oven and cooktop stopped working in August 2024. She emailed the landlord, but no longer has access to these emails due to broken phone.
She proved she first raised in writing on 26 September 2024 in a 14-day notice to remedy and again in another 14-day notice on 1 August 2025.
The parties confirmed a new oven/stove was installed on 12 November 2025 after telling the tenant for years that the only way this can be sorted is to purchase a new one herself and deduct from rent arrears.
I find he has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $30.00 per week for the period 26 September 2024 to 12 November 2025 (58 weeks and 6 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered, being a rent rebate of $1,765.71 ordered.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025).

Did the landlord breach the smoke alarm regulations?

Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA states the landlord “shall comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A”.
The tenant claims the rental premise had no compliant or working smoke alarms when she moved in, and none have been installed by the landlord during the tenancy. She provided photographic evidence that proves this.
The tenant also says when she told the landlord there were no smoke alarms, he told her it was her responsibility to purchase and install the smoke alarms required to make the premise compliant.
The tenant described the premise as a two-storey house with two bedrooms upstairs and one downstairs. She says she purchased one smoke alarm and installed it upstairs but could not afford to purchase any more. She has not been reimbursed for the cost of the smoke alarm purchase and I could not reimburse the cost to her as I was not provided with a receipt.
Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) website, www.fire.org, confirms both landlords and tenants take some responsible for smoke alarms as follows: a. Landlords must ensure smoke alarms: i. are working at the start of each new tenancy; ii. remain in working order during the tenancy; and iii. That are not working are replaced with photoelectric smoke alarms. b. Tenants must: i. not damage, remove, or disconnect a smoke alarm; ii. replace dead batteries during the tenancy if there are older-style smoke alarms with replaceable batteries; and iii. let the landlord know if there are any problems with the smoke alarms as soon as possible.
The Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 healthy hoes report confirms there were no compliant smoke alarms when it carried out its assessment and that two were required to ensure that there was one within 3 metres of each bedroom door.
I am satisfied that the tenant has proven that the landlord failed to ensure the rental premise was fitted with working smoke alarms that meet the regulatory requirements referred to in the RTA.
I find that the tenant should be awarded compensation for the breach of the landlord’s obligations to provide smoking smoke alarms and award compensation of $500.00 for the landlord’s blatant disregard of the smoke alarm regulations and the tenant’s safety.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). Failure to meet buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premise
The tenant says the landlord failed to meet his obligations under s45(1)(c) of the RTA as the premise did not meet the building and health and safety related laws that apply to residential tenancies.
I note that the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 only applies to contractors that are working on the premise in unsafe conditions and not to person living in a premise.
The tenant says the premise did not meet the building code and building standards as the foundation has sunk and the building now sits below ground level and that causes leaks and water damage in the house.
The tenant says the healthy homes inspection raised this breach with her when he conducted the healthy homes assessment, but there is nothing about this in the Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 report.
Regulation 7(2) of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) states: There shall be in each kitchen or kitchenette— (a) an approved sink with a tap connected to an adequate supply of potable water; and (b) adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food, both by boiling and by baking.
The tenant has proven the premise had no means of baking or boiling from 24 September 2024 to 12 November 2025 and that there was no water for the kitchen sink from 18 June 2025 to 14 August 2025. Therefore, I am satisfied that the landlord was in breach of this obligation. The tenant has already received compensation for these breaches under her failure to maintain claims. The tenant should not receive additional compensation because these breaches fall under two different categories of breach. I have considered the duality of breach when awarding compensation under the failure to maintain sections of this Order, above.
Regulation 9(2)of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) states: Every bathroom shall contain an approved bath or shower with an adequate supply of wholesome water. Adequate means of heating water shall be provided.
The tenant has proven the premise had no water for the bathroom from 18 June 2025 to 14 August 2025. Therefore, I am satisfied that the landlord was in breach of this obligation. The tenant has already received compensation for this breach under her failure to maintain claims. The tenant should not receive additional compensation because this breach falls under two different categories of breach. I have considered the duality of breach when awarding compensation under the failure to maintain sections of this Order, above.
Regulation 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) states: Every house shall be free from dampness.
The tenant has proven the premise has leaks and water damage, ventilation issues and draught stopping issues that have led the house to be damp and mouldy. The tenant has already received compensation for these breach under her failure to maintain claims. The tenant should not receive additional compensation because these breaches fall under two different categories of breach. I have considered the duality of the breaches when awarding compensation under the failure to maintain sections of this Order, above.
Section 109(2) of the RTA statutorily bars me from awarding the tenant exemplary damages for this breach as it occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the tenant filed her application (5 August 2025). Failure to meet healthy homes standards
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. 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 ii. 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. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenant has had two tenancy agreements during her tenancy. The first was commenced on 9 October 2018 and the second commenced on 18 June 2024. Therefore, the landlord had until 1 July 2025 to comply with the healthy homes’ standards under the first tenancy agreement and 120 days from the commencement of the second tenancy agreement, being Wednesday 16 October 2024.
When the tenant informed the landlord, she had engaged Panda Solutions to assess the premise against the healthy homes standards and that it did not fully comply with any of them, he said this is all new to him and he had not had time to go and check that the house is all compliant. He told the tenant he would call Panda Solutions to see if they can remediate the issues highlighted. He has not done so to date. A. Insulation
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 healthy homes assessment report records “the underfloor insulation has met minimum thickness, but some areas are missing. Need to be topped up to satisfy requirements of code NZS 4246:2016” and that the premise is “non-compliant with the insulation standard.”
The tenant’s claim has been proven by an independent third party.
The tenant became aware of this breach on 16 December 2025, within 12 months of her application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Therefore, exemplary damages can be considered. I am however, not satisfied that this breach was known by the landlord or an intentional breach. Therefore, I cannot award any exemplary damages for this breach. B. Heating
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the heating standard.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
There must be one or more fixed heaters that can directly heat the main living room.
The main living room is the largest room that is used for general, everyday living – for example a lounge, family room or dining room.
Heater(s) must be fixed (not portable) and must be at least 1.5 kW in heating capacity and meet the minimum heating capacity needed for the main living room. There are several options to calculate the heating capacity required for the main living room.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant has proven that the only source of heating for the premise is a closed fireplace that was not fit for purpose due to the chimney not having been cleaned, the glass door not sealing properly and there being no fire bricks around the hearth from the start of the tenancy.
Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 healthy homes assessment report records “Heating-existing fireplace heating capacity unable to be determined. Need to add heating devices to mee t capacity requirements or check manufacturers or council records for the heating capacity of the fireplace. Requires 7kW of heating capacity. Heaters installed before 1 July 2019, each have to have a minimum heating greater than 2.4kW, meet the general requirements for heaters and have combined capacity that is at least 80 per cent of what is required. 80% of 7kW is
6kW”.
The tenant’s claim has been proven by an independent third party.
The tenant became aware of this breach on 16 December 2025, within 12 months of her application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Therefore, exemplary damages can be considered.
In this case I have determined the landlord has committed an intentional unlawful act by failing to ensure the premise met the heating standard by the earlier compliance date. He was well aware the fireplace was not usable in its current condition, as the tenant had repeatedly raised this with him.
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.
Considering those factors, I am satisfied it would also be just to also require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages for this because: a. The tenant suffered a loss of amenity stress and inconvenience caused by this breach when the landlord knew of this issue and did not take reasonable steps to ensure the premise met the heating standard by Wednesday 16 October 2024; b. The tenant also suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind him of his obligations under the healthy homes’ standards to no avail ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the breach; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their healthy homes standards obligations.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for the bathroom related breach will be addressed at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breaches section of this Order. C. Ventilation
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the ventilation standard.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 healthy homes assessment report records the bbathroom extractor fan was non-compliant on the date of the assessment and the tenant has proven the bathroom extractor fan did not work from 1 August 2025 to 3 January 2026. Therefore, on Wednesday 16 October 2024, the premise did not meet the ventilation standard.
The tenant became aware of this breach on 1 August 2025, within 12 months of her application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Therefore, exemplary damages can be considered.
In this case I have determined the landlord has committed an intentional unlawful act by failing to ensure the premise met the ventilation standard by the earlier compliance date. He was well aware the bathroom extractor fan was not compliant, as the tenant had repeatedly raised this with him.
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.
Considering those factors, I am satisfied it would also be just to also require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages for this because: a. The tenant suffered a loss of amenity stress and inconvenience caused by this breach when the landlord knew of this issue and did not take reasonable steps to ensure the premise met the heating standard by Wednesday 16 October 2024; b. The tenant also suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind him of his obligations under the healthy homes’ standards to no avail ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the breach; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their healthy homes standards obligations.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for the bathroom related breach will be addressed at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breaches section of this Order. D. Draught Stopping
The tenant claims the landlord has failed to comply with the 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.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 healthy homes assessment report records the following draught stopping standard breaches: a. Ceiling is cracked; b. Ceiling hatch is missing; c. Gaps present around both the front and back doors allowing draughts; d. Two holes on the external wall; e. Window handles are broken and one window stay (support bracket) is damaged; f. One window is poorly fitted, and need to be fixed; g. Multiple window gaps exceeding 3mm, resulting air leak; and h. Mould present
Therefore, on Wednesday 16 October 2024, the premise did not meet the ventilation standard.
The tenant became aware of these breaches are various times during the tenancy from 21 April 2023 to 6 March 2026, outside of the 12-month period prior to her application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Therefore, exemplary damages cannot be considered, even though I am satisfied the landlord was aware of these breaches and intentionally failed to address them (Refer to s109(2)(a) of the RTA). The tenant has received compensation for these breaches in the repair and maintenance breach section of this order. E. Moisture Ingress and Drainage
The tenant claims the landlord has failed to comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard.
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 if it is reasonably practical to do so.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Panda Solutions 16 December 2025 healthy homes assessment report records: a. “Ground moisture barrier and drainage- gutters loose and downpipes cracked- GMB has parts missing- Need to install to meet the specifications in NZS4246:2016”; and b. Guttering is loose and needs to be fixed; and c. One downpipe is cracked and needs to be fixed.
Further the tenant has proven in her repair and maintenance claims that she has raised these issues with the landlord on 21 April 2023 and the issues have still not been addressed by to 8 March 2026.
Therefore, I am satisfied that on Wednesday 16 October 2024, the premise did not meet the ventilation standard.
The tenant became aware of the breach of the ground moisture barrier on 16 December 2025, within 12 months of her application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Therefore, exemplary damages can be considered. However, she became aware of the other moisture ingress and drainage issues on 21 April 2023, outside of the 12-month period before her application to the Tenancy Tribunal.
In this case I have determined the landlord has committed unlawful act by failing to ensure the premise met the moisture ingress and drainage standards by the earlier compliance date. He should have been aware the premise had to be fully compliant by Wednesday 16 October 2024 and took no seps to ensure it was.
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.
Considering those factors, I am not satisfied it would also be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages for this because the tenant has not proven on the balance of probabilities that this breach was intentional.
The tenant has received compensation for the other drainage and moisture ingress issues in the repair and maintenance section of this Order above. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed one intentional breach of s45(1)(b) and two of s45(1)(bb) of the RTA that resulted in the tenant living conditions that were unhealthy and that she experienced considerable periods of stress, inconvenience, and loss of the amenity the tenant was paying rent to enjoy. The landlord did not offer any rent relief to the tenant at these times.
I find the landlord has committed these three unlawful acts intentionally.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenant many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $2,400.00 exemplary damages to the tenant, being one third of the maximum penalty available. Failure to keep proper business records
The tenant claims the landlord has not kept records of rent and bond paid.
A landlord must keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant. See section 30(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 30(2) and Schedule 1A RTA).
The tenant has proven the rent records are inaccurate. They show the tenant has paid $12,783.00 in rent since 8 January 2025 when the rent payments on the ledger add up to $15,388.00.
The tenant has also produced text messages to the landlord seeking a copy of the rent ledger during the tenancy and none were ever provided to the tenant. They say things such as: a. Tenant: “Can you please send me the original tenancy agreement and the tenant ledger (proof of all payments) including missed payments and $ that should have being taken off for things I fixed around the house etc. Thanks” b. Landlord: “I am not going back that many years as I have not got time and I paid you for things that you fixed ok. I’m sick and tired of all this to be really honest with you. I never had this problem with anyone before. You are having major problems paying full rent and its time you did something about it and did it urgently too. Thank you.” c. Landlord “...from the beginning of this year I have given you the breakdown already. Lets sort that out ok. I’m not going to let this go on for another month. Yu haven paid full rent for 7 months now and any other landlord would have kicked you out by now and believe me im on the verge of doing that. I felt sorry for you for too long now.”
The landlord also stated he had increased the rent lawfully to $630.00 via a text message dated 30 November 2021. This text confirms the rent is going up to $630.00 per week from 29 January 2022. The landlord could not explain why the new agreement in 2024 has $620.00 in it. The tenant proved the phone number the landlord sent this text message to was 0220963757 and that this was not her phone number in 2021 or ever. The tenant says the first she knew of this issue was when the landlord sent her a rent ledger on 29 July 2025 showing the rent as $630.00 per week back dated to 8 January 2025.
The rent records have also not accounted for payment of the bond at the start of the tenancy nor whether it has been used to cover two weeks rent arrears in May 2022 .
Proper business records mean records that are orderly, to a high standard 6 , and contemporaneous with payments made by the tenant 7 .
I find the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has failed to keep accurate business records that are of a high standard, in accordance with s30 of the RTA, and he has committed an unlawful act. e 6 Kumar v Capper NZTT Auckland TT1004/90, 12 March 1991 at [8]. 7 Brown v Steele [2002] DCR 338 at [19].
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord intentionally failed to retain accurate business records to a high standard and that it would be just to require the landlord to pay a general damages/compensatory sum of $300.00 because I am statutorily barred from awarding exemplary damages under s109(2) of the RTA and: a. The landlord should have reasonably known that it is required by law to keep accurate business records that allows it to provide the tenant with accurate rent summaries in a reasonable timeframe, and it did not. b. The tenant is entitled to rely on accurate business records being kept by their landlord for 7 years so that they can be assured their rent payments are being accounted for accurately and they can seek confirmation of how much rent they owe or have overpaid at any given time; c. t is in the interests of the tenant to receive general damages for the landlords’ breach. Did the landlord provide the statutorily required healthy homes, smoke alarm, insurance information and bond information in the tenancy agreement?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 13A(1A), 13A(1CA) and 13A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1A) the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord that describes whether or not there is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, any insulation installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises and the details of the location, type, and condition of all insulation that is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises.
Under s13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the five healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions. These five standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping. This provision also requires the landlord to record how many smoke alarms are in the premise, when the smoke alarms were last tested and when they expire.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
If the landlord is unable to provide some or all the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 13A(2) states the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement the following information about insurance of the premises: (a)if the premises are not insured, a statement that they are not insured; and (b)if the premises are insured, a statement— (i)setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and (ii)informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request (except that the statement need not inform the tenant of this if the landlord has already provided to the tenant a copy of the policy in accordance with section 45(2B) or 66J(5)).
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) and/or 13A(2) of the RTA obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant received two tenancy agreements during the tenancy. Tenancy agreement one
The first tenancy agreement commenced on 9 October 2018.
From 1 July 2019, landlords were required to sign a statement of intent to comply with healthy homes standards in new or varied tenancy agreements.
From 1 December 2020, landlord had to include a statement of their current level of compliance of the healthy homes’ standards in new or varied tenancy agreements.
An insulation statement has been legally required in all new, varied, or renewed tenancy agreements in New Zealand since 1 July 2016. This statement had to outline the location, type, and condition of the ceiling and underfloor insulation.
All rental properties were required to have ceiling and underfloor insulation installed by 1 July 2019.
Smoke alarm information has been mandatory in all New Zealand tenancy agreements since 1 July 2016. The law requires that all residential rental properties are fitted with working, compliant smoke alarms (long-life photoelectric) and that landlords include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement confirming this.
Insurance information became a mandatory requirement in New Zealand tenancy agreements for all new, varied, or renewed tenancies from August 27, 2019. Under the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2019, landlords must disclose if the property is insured, the excess amount, and provide a statement that insurance policies are available upon request.
Bond information, including the specific amount charged, has been a required component of written tenancy agreements in New Zealand since the RTA came into force in 1986.
Therefore, the first tenancy agreement failed to provide an insulation statement, smoke alarm and insurance information and the amount of bond charges and receipted but was not required to contain any of the other healthy homes’ standards related information. Tenancy agreement two
The second tenancy agreement commenced on 18 June 2024.
The second tenancy agreement was required to have all the current statutory required heathy homes information, insurance and bond information. It failed to contain: a. HHS compliance statement; b. HHS detailed compliance information; c. Smoke alarm information; d. Insurance information; e. Information on the amount of any general bond (refer to s13A(1)(i) of the RTA);
As such, the tenant had no idea, whether the premises were fully healthy homes compliant, whether any exemptions applied to the premises, whether there were smoke alarm(s) that were compliant with statutory requirements and whether the landlord had insurance that limited the tenant’s liability for costs associated with any careless or deliberate damages to the premise.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, pursuant to section 13A(1F)(a) of the RTA, the Tribunal may award up to a maximum of $750.00 in exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements and smoke alarm information prescribed by sections 13A(1A),13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, or the insurance information prescribed by s13A(2) of the RTA or the bond information prescribed by s13A(1)(i) of the RTA in the second tenancy agreement but I am statutorily barred from awarding exemplary damages for the 18 June 2024 agreement breaches as this breach was more than 12 months prior to the tenant’s 5 August 2025 application to the Tribunal.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a general damage/compensatory sum of $300.00 compensation because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known that he is required by to provide the tenants with healthy homes, smoke alarm, insurance and bond information with a written tenancy agreement b. The tenant is entitled to rely on her statutory right to receive information about: i. whether the premise was healthy homes compliant and if it wasn’t, was it exempt from these requirements; ii. whether the premise has compliant smoke alarms, where they are located, when they were last tested and when they expire; and iii. If the landlord has tenant insurance that covers tenant related damage to the premise, what the policy covers and the excess that applies; iv. The amount of bond charged and received from the tenant. c. t is in the interests of the tenants to receive compensation for the landlords’ breach.

Did the landlord provide the tenant with the healthy homes information requested?

Under section 123A(1AC) of the RTA, a landlord must provide requested healthy homes information within 21 days. Failure to comply without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act.
The tenant asked for healthy homes information in June 2024, when the landlord provided her with the second tenancy agreement, but she never received it, so had her own assessment and report done on 16 December 2025.
I am satisfied the evidence proves the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the requested healthy homes information. I am statutorily barred from awarding exemplary damages for the 18 June 2024 request not being fulfilled within 21 days as this breach was more than 12 months prior to the tenant’s 5 August 2025 application to the Tribunal.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a general damage/compensatory sum of $300.00 compensation because the tenant continued to have doubts about the premise’s level of compliance but had to engage a third-party assessor to confirm her suspicions because the landlord refused to obtain and provide the requested information. Did the landlord unlawfully increase the tenant’s rent on 18 June 2024?
The tenant claims the landlord unlawfully increased her rent from $570.00 to $620.00 on18 June 2024 , the date she and the landlord signed new tenancy agreement took effect, but that he did not provide her with the required statutorily notice of the rent increase.
The landlord did not have to give the tenant 60 days’ notice of a rent increase if both parties agree to the new rent and sign a new tenancy agreement that starts from the date of the new rental rate.
The landlord’s issuance of the new tenancy agreement on 18 June 2024 varied the rent payable to $620.00.
The claim is dismissed for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because Tammy Brassey has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in its claims. I dismissed its application for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded in its proceedings and I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord significant recidivist breaches of the terms of the tenancy agreement, its statutory obligations to the tenant and its conduct during the tenancy.
The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

State of repair Leaks Mould Smoke alarms Healthy homes Dairy Flat

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Dispute theme: state of repair
Dispute theme: healthy homes
Dispute theme: mould

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5317222?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be

How much money was awarded in case 5317222?

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317222?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Leaks, Mould, Smoke alarms, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317222?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13245160-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain- Dishwasher	$1,752.85	Failure to maintain- Dishwasher
Compensation: Cost of healthy homes assessment report	$160.00	Cost of healthy homes assessment report
Compensation: Failure to maintain- chimney and fireplace	$1,168.57	Failure to maintain- chimney and fireplace
Compensation: Failure to maintain- mould on ceilings	$3,005.71	Failure to maintain- mould on ceilings
Compensation: Failure to maintain- hole in internal and external wall	$3,757.14	Failure to maintain- hole in internal and external wall
Compensation: Failure to maintain- window and door framing issues	$2,921.43	Failure to maintain- window and door framing issues
Compensation: Failure to maintain- bathroom fan	$221.43	Failure to maintain- bathroom fan
Compensation: Reimburse cost of water pump	$1,168.50	Reimburse cost of water pump
Compensation: Reimburse cost of a tank of water	$320.00	Reimburse cost of a tank of water
Compensation: Failure to maintain watertank	$244.29	Failure to maintain watertank
Compensation: Failure to maintain- leak in downstairs bedroom	$4,508.57	Failure to maintain- leak in downstairs bedroom
Compensation: Failure to maintain- oven/stove	$1,765.71	Failure to maintain- oven/stove
Compensation: Smoke alarm regulation breach	$500.00	Smoke alarm regulation breach
Exemplary damages: Breach of s45(1)(b) and (bb) RTA obligations	$2,400.00	Breach of s45(1)(b) and (bb) RTA obligations
Compensation: Failure to provide statutorily required information in tenancy agreements- s13A RTA	$300.00	Failure to provide statutorily required information in tenancy agreements- s13A RTA
Compensation: Failure to keep business records- s30 RTA	$300.00	Failure to keep business records- s30 RTA
Compensation: Failure to provide requested HHS info within 21 days	$300.00	Failure to provide requested HHS info within 21 days
Compensation-Bond not lodged	$1,000.00	Bond not lodged
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$25,822.20
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$25,822.20