What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317690 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5317690?

Compensation: Breach of tenancy agre…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to comply with…: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain bl…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain cr…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317690?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317690?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13168964-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317690 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5317690?

Compensation: Breach of tenancy agre…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to comply with…: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain bl…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain cr…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317690?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317690?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13168964-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

19 Jeffs Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5317690 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

19 Jeffs Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5317690 — Healthy homes | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

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

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5317690 — net $6,128.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach of tenancy agreement (de- weeding and gardening	$400.00	38. The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach.
Compensation: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards	$2,500.00	48. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach.
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards	$1,500.00	52. Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages.
Compensation: Failure to maintain blinds	$500.00	Failure to maintain blinds
Compensation: Failure to maintain cracks in the walls and ceiling	$500.00	Failure to maintain cracks in the walls and ceiling
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$700.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,128.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,128.00

Claims and awards for application 5317690 — net $6,128.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: Breach of tenancy agreement (de- weeding and gardening

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 38. The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach.

Compensation: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards

Amount: $2,500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 48. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach.

Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 52. Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages.

Compensation: Failure to maintain blinds

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain blinds

Compensation: Failure to maintain cracks in the walls and ceiling

Amount: $500.00

Dismissed claims

Smoke Alarms — Should a work order be made in respect of the smoke alarms?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Crystal Realty Limited as agent for Omkar NZ Holdings must pay [The tenant/s] $6,128.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by Friday, 27 February 2026: a. Install qualifying smoke alarms in the premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 2 February 2026. [The tenant] represented the tenant. Virendra Verma and Vishal Argwal represented the landlord.
The tenancy began on 25 February 2019. It was initially managed by PFSL Rentals Limited however, Crystal Realty Limited purchased PFSL Rentals Limited in April 2021. Crystal Realty Limited have managed the tenancy since this time.
At the time of the hearing, the tenancy was ongoing however, the tenant advised that they had given notice to end the tenancy on 13 February 2026. The tenancy should have ended by the time this decision is issued.
The tenant claims the landlord breached the tenancy agreement by requiring the tenant to undertake de-weeding and gardening at the premises from around mid- 2022. The tenant claims it was agreed between the parties that this would be the responsibility of the landlord. The tenant also claims the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards and have been poorly maintained during the tenancy. Lastly, the tenant claims that various rent increases have resulted in the rent exceeding the market rent by a substantial amount. The issues I must determine are: a. Did the landlord breach the terms of the tenancy agreement by requiring the tenant to undertake de-weeding and gardening at the premises from mid-2022? b. Did the landlord breach their obligation to comply with the healthy homes standards? c. If so, should exemplary damages be ordered? d. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? e. If so, should exemplary damaged be ordered? f. Does the rent exceed the market rent by a substantial amount? g. Should a work order be made in respect of the smoke alarms?
Before determining these issues, I discuss some general legal principles that apply to the case.

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Standard of proof

As the applicant, the tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
A lot of evidence was given at the hearing. Whilst this decision might not refer to all of it, the parties can be assured that I have considered it. Compensation and exemplary damages – the law generally
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages for alleged breaches of the tenancy agreement and RTA by the landlord.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
The following factors are relevant when deciding to award compensation: 1 • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. 1 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and deter. They are like a fine.
Under the RTA, exemplary damages may be ordered for certain defined, unlawful acts.
Section 109(3) RTA states that exemplary damages may be ordered if the Tribunal determines the unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just, having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first been served on the tenant.
Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal that: 2 Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis there was no intention established, therefore there was no basis to order exemplary damages. 2 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 TENANT’S CLAIMS Did the landlord breach the terms of the tenancy agreement by requiring the tenant to undertake de-weeding and gardening at the premises? The law
Section 78 RTA defines the types of orders the Tribunal may make. Section 78(1)(g) states: Where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement between the parties has been induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake, or that any writing purporting to express the agreement between the parties does not accord with their true agreement, an order varying, or setting aside, the agreement or the writing (either wholly or in part). Evidence and submissions of the parties
The parties agree the fixed-term tenancy was renewed on 26 February 2021 and was for a fixed-term expiring on 26 February 2022. Thereafter, the tenancy became periodic.
A copy of the renewal was submitted. It states: The tenant will maintain the lawns and gardens.
The tenant claims the terms of the written agreement are inaccurate. Whilst the tenant accepts it was agreed that they would maintain the lawns, they claim the landlord has always undertaken de-weeding and tree trimming at the premises since the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant claims this is a term of the tenancy agreement and the fact the agreement states otherwise is a mistake.
The tenant submitted an email sent by the landlord on 5 January 2021. It states: Hi Gurjeet and Arveen, ... We need to sign a new fixed term tenancy for another 1 year, there will be an increase of $30 per week to the existing rent to $690 per week. New tenancy agreement will include monthly/2 monthly – De- weeding and 6 monthly tree trimming. ...
The email was sent by the landlord at the time PFSL Rentals Limited were managing the tenancy.
The tenant claims that since mid-2022 the landlord has required them to undertake de-weeding and general gardening. The tenant claims that weeds in the pebbled area grow frequently and it is difficult to keep on top of. The tenant also claims they have spent a lot of money on weed killer, which has also caused them to suffer from eczma.
Crystal Realty Ltd claim they were not aware of the email sent by PFSL Rentals Limited on 5 January 2021. They claim they relied on the terms of the written agreement and submit that this takes precedence over any other prior arrangement reached between the parties. Analysis
The starting point is that the tenancy agreement is a complete and final record of the parties’ arrangement, and its terms override any earlier written or verbal agreement. This means that evidence of prior written agreements, emails, or discussions cannot ordinarily be used to contradict, vary, or add to the terms of the signed agreement. There are exceptions to this, such as when there is evidence of fraud, mistake, or misrepresentation.
The email dated 5 January 2021 was sent by the landlord shortly before the new tenancy agreement was signed. It discusses the contemplated terms of the agreement and states that it will include monthly/2 monthly de-weeding and tree trimming. This evidence supports the tenant’s claim that the parties intended this to be a term of the agreement and the fact it was not included is a mistake.
The tenant also submitted text messages sent by the landlord in 2020 in relation to the garden. These state: 7 January 2020 Ssa bhaji Please let me know if the owner can visit on this Sunday around
00AM along with a gardener to check the garden. 5 February 2020 SSA Bhaji The weed trimmers will visit the property on Sunday, 9 th February from 8.00AM onwards.
These text messages prove that from early on in the tenancy, the landlord assumed responsibility for de-weeding and general gardening at the premises. The fact that the landlord assumed responsibility for these things in the past, further supports the tenant’s claim that the parties intended this to be the case in the future as well.
The tenant also submitted text messages sent by the landlord in April 2021. One of them states: Hi Gurjeet, The owner will be visiting the property tomorrow morning at 11:30 am for deweeding. ...
The new tenancy agreement was signed on 23 February 2021 and ran from 26 February 2021 – 26 February 2022. The fact that even after the new agreement was signed, the landlord undertook de-weeding at the premises further supports the tenant’s claim that the parties always intended this to be a term of the agreement.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that the clause in the tenancy agreement which states that the tenant will be responsible for maintaining the lawns and gardens is a mistake and does not accord with the parties’ true intentions. For this reason, the agreement is varied to state that the tenant will be responsible for the lawns and the landlord will be responsible for de-weeding and tree trimming.
By requiring the tenant to undertake de-weeding at the premises from around mid-2022, I find the landlord breached the agreement. The fact that the landlord was unaware of the email sent by PFSL Rentals Ltd on 5 January 2021 is not a defence. Crystal Realty Ltd is bound by the representations, agreements, or commitments made by PFSL Rentals Ltd in relation to this tenancy.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach. I find $400.00 to be reasonable considering the following factors: a. The nature of the breach. The breach is low level in terms of seriousness. In most instances, it is the tenant’s responsibility to look after the lawns and gardens. In this case, the landlord has agreed to take on more onerous obligations than those imposed by the RTA and failed to follow through. This is not a case where the landlord has breached the minimum standards imposed by the RTA. On the other hand, the rent was increased by $30.00 per week from 26 February 2021 and most likely reflected the fact that the tenant was paying the landlord for a service the tenant would ordinarily be responsible for. b. The duration of the breach. The breach has endured for approximately 3.5 years, which is a long time. On the other hand, the tenant could probably have done more to mitigate their loss. 3 They have not sent the landlord a 14- day notice or filed an application with the Tribunal about this issue until now. c. The effect of the breach on the party. I accept the tenant’s evidence that the pebbled area needs to be de-weeded often and keeping on top of this has been difficult. I also accept that the tenant has spent money on de-weeding products. The tenant claims they have also spent approximately $250.00 to hire a gardener however, no invoice for this was submitted. I am unconvinced the de-weeding products led to severe eczma for the tenant. Although there is a photograph of the tenant’s hand, which appears irritated, there is no accompanying medical evidence confirming a causal link with any de-weeding products. The landlord has also submitted invoices dated 13/06/2021, 22/06/2021, 01/04/2022 and 13/06/2023, which prove they paid for the trees to be trimmed and garden tidied on or around these dates.

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

The law

Section 45(1)(bb) RTA requires a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards. These can be found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS), which provides a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies regarding insulation, heating, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture and drainage.
The tenancy began on 25 February 2019 and was renewed on 26 February 2021. Therefore, the due date for compliance with the HHS was 1 July 2025. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the premises do not comply with the HHS and relies on a report dated 29 January 2026. The report states the premises do not comply with the ceiling insulation and draught stopping requirements.
The landlord claims the premises were compliant on 1 July 2025. The rely on a report dated 3 December 2020. This report states that the ceiling insulation and kitchen extractor fan are non-compliant. The landlord claims these defects were remedied and submitted an invoice dated 21 January 2021. The invoice is from Alpha Home and Service Ltd and states: Description Ranghood ducting 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49. insullation top up (ceiling) Analysis
I find the report dated 29 January 2026 to be more reliable than the report dated 3 December 2020 and accompanying invoices dated 21 January 2021.
The premises needed to comply with the HHS by 1 July 2025 and at all other times thereafter during the tenancy. The report dated 29 January 2026 was completed closer in time to the compliance date than the report dated 3 December 2020. This means that its findings are more likely to provide an accurate reflection of the state of the premises on 1 July 2025, than the report dated 3 December 2020. Its findings also provide a more accurate reflection of the current state of the premises than the 2020 report.
The invoices submitted by the landlord prove that steps were taken in January 2021 to address the issues identified in the 2020 report however, no confirmation that the work undertaken was sufficient to bring the premises up to compliance was submitted. The fact that the ceiling insulation has remained at 90mm from 3 December 2020 – 29 January 2026, despite apparently being topped up in January 2021, means this work was most likely insufficient.
Where a premises fails on one or more aspects of the HHS, the usual practice is for photographs of remedial work to be sent to the assessor to update the report or for the assessor to revisit the premises and confirm compliance. The landlord accepts this did not occur and gave evidence that assessors generally charge an additional fee to reinspect the premises. This is a cost landlords must be prepared pay if they want to avoid findings of non-compliance by the Tribunal.
I accept the findings in the report dated 26 January 2026 and find the premises does not comply with the HHS.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $2,500.00 to be reasonable considering the following factors: a. The nature of the breach. The breach is serious. The purpose of the HHS is to ensure that rental properties are warm, dry and healthy for tenants. The fact that Parliament has legislated that failure to comply is an unlawful act, which may attract exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00, indicates the level of seriousness Parliament considers cases of non- compliance. In this case, the premises are non-compliant in two respects. b. The duration of the breach. There is approximately 33 weeks between 1 July 2025 and 13 February 2026, which is a relatively lengthy period of time. The landlord claims the tenant denied and delayed access for a HHS assessment to be completed. The landlord only emailed the tenant a copy of the 2020 report on 9 July 2025, which is after the due date for compliance. The landlord also only took steps after the due date to try to organise an updated inspection and report. For these reasons, I do not accept the landlord’s submission that the tenant frustrated their efforts to comply with the HHS. c. The effect of the breach on the party. The tenant claims that there was a lot of mould in the premises and the premises were difficult to heat. I accept that mould is more likely to grow in premises where the ceiling insulation is non-compliant. I also accept that non-compliant premises may be more difficult to heat and result in higher electricity bills than usual. The tenant submitted photographs of the blinds, bathroom and garage. There is a small amount of mould on the back of the blinds and a very small amount in the bathroom and garage. The level of mould is far from the concerning levels the Tribunal sometimes sees and would most likely be considered the tenant’s responsibility to maintain. d. The tenant also claims that they suffer from asthma and were hospitalised twice during the tenancy. The tenant claims their condition was exacerbated due to the noncompliance however, I am not convinced of this. The medical evidence submitted states the tenant lives in a cold and damp home. This is what the tenant reported to the nurse practitioner, it is not an observation the practitioner made themselves. The medical evidence also does not draw a direct, causal link between the premises and the tenant’s asthma. There are a number of matters noted in the medical evidence, which appear to have contributed to a worsening of the tenant’s asthma, as well as other medical conditions.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

The law

Failure to comply with the HHS is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered. 4
I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to comply with the HHS. This is because the landlord did not take steps to confirm that the remedial work completed in January 2021 was sufficient to bring the premises up to compliance. The landlord also did not take any steps to confirm the premises complied immediately before 1 July 2025, which was the compliance date.
Considering the following factors, I find it just to order exemplary damages: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act. I find the landlord acted intentionally. 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1. b. The effect of the unlawful act. See paragraph 46(c) above. I note that I have already considered this matter when setting the level of compensation and I must be careful not to double count for it. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. The tenant has an interest in ensuring that premises they are renting are compliant with the HHS. In this case, the premises do not comply in two respects. d. The public interest. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords are deterred from failing to comply with the HHS.
Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

The law

Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which they are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
A landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy it. 5
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 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. 6 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 7
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 8
The tenant claims the landlord failed to repair the following: a. Ventilation system 5 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 6 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 7 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 8 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. b. Blinds c. Bedroom window d. Cracks in walls and ceiling Ventilation system Evidence and submissions of the parties
There is disagreement between the parties about whether the ventilation system works and whether the tenant told the landlord about any defect.
The tenant gave evidence the premises were advertised as being a modern house with a fully functioning ventilation system. They say this was appealing to them, because they suffer from asthma. The tenant claims the electrical pad for the ventilation system shows a “change filter” error message when turned on, which has occurred since the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant claims they have mentioned the problem to the landlord at inspections and it has never been fixed.
[The tenant] gave evidence for the tenant. [The tenant] said the ventilation system did not work at the beginning of the tenancy, although he accepts he did not actually know how to use it at the beginning of the tenancy either. [The tenant] gave evidence the system was serviced in 2021 and worked after that but stopped working again in 2024/2025. He says he knows it stopped working, because he could not feel any air coming out of the vents. [The tenant] gave evidence he did not mention anything about this to the landlord.
[The tenant] also gave evidence for the tenant. He said a red light comes on when the ventilation system is turned on. [The tenant] accepts the landlord was able to turn the ventilation system on during a visit on 26 January 2026, however, after not experiencing any atmospheric difference in the premises, [the tenant] turned it off. [The tenant] claims he knows the ventilation system does not work, because the house feels suffocating, and the temperature recorded on the electronic pad never changes. Other than possibly mentioning the issue to the landlord once before the Covid-19 pandemic, [the tenant] gave evidence he has not mentioned it to the landlord during inspections.
The landlord claims the tenant only mentioned the ventilation system to them for the first time at the case conference on 26 November 2025. The landlord says they did not check the ventilation system at routine inspections during the tenancy and no complaints were received at these times either. The landlord gave evidence they visited the premises on 29 January 2026 and saw the unit was in “switch off” mode. The landlord claims they turned it on, and a green light came on, indicating the ventilation system is working. Analysis
The tenant bares the onus of proving the ventilation system does not work on the balance of probabilities. I am not convinced this is the case.
The landlord gave evidence the ventilation system was able to be turned on during their visit on 26 January 2026 and showed a green light. [The tenant] accepts this occurred but claims the ventilation system does not work and he knows this because the house feels suffocating. [The tenant] and [the tenant’s] evidence that the house feels suffocating is insufficient to prove the ventilation system does not work. This is because there is no evidence confirming a causal link between this feeling and the ventilation system. The tenant gave evidence that the blinds in the premises do not open, which could be the reason the premises feel suffocating.
[The tenant] and [the tenant’s] evidence that no air can be felt coming out of the vents in the ceiling is also insufficient to prove the ventilation system does not work. The air that generally flows from the vents of a ventilation system is very gentle. It is reasonably possible that air is flowing out of the vents but cannot be felt.
The tenant did not submit any photographs of the error message that apparently appear on the control pad regularly.
The accepted evidence from both parties is that the ventilation system was able to be turned on and displayed a green light on 26 January 2026. This indicates that it works, and expert evidence is needed to clarify that it is broken. In the absence of any evidence from a heating, ventilation and air conditioning technician confirming the ventilation system does not work, I am not convinced this is the case.
For these reasons, the tenant has not proven this claim, and it is dismissed. Blinds Evidence and submissions of the parties
The premises have vertical blinds throughout. The tenant claims these have been broken since 2021. The tenant claims some blinds have fallen down, the blades on some blinds do not open and some blinds cannot be pulled open, because they get stuck. The tenant claims they have raised the issue with the landlord verbally at every inspection since 2022 and a tradesperson was only sent in August 2025. The tenant claims the tradesperson simply installed curtains on top of the blinds, which was an inadequate repair. The tenant claims because they cannot open the blinds, they cannot ventilate the premises. The tenant claims adding curtains on top of blinds that cannot open makes the premises feel suffocating.
[The tenant] gave evidence that the broken blinds were mentioned many times during inspections and promises of repairs were made by the landlord. [The tenant] claims the blades of some of the blinds do not open and some blinds cannot be pulled open and get jammed. [The tenant] claims the blinds in his mother’s room fell off when trying to pull them open.
The landlord claims they were never advised that the blinds do not work. The landlord also claims the blinds are not in a state of disrepair and that they have sent multiple tradespeople to the premises to assess the blinds who have confirmed there is no issue. Notwithstanding this, the landlord claims they organised for curtains to be installed, because the tenant was persistent about the issue. The landlord claims the tenant asked the tradesperson not to remove the blinds.
The landlord called the tradesperson as a witness. They gave evidence that the tenant asked them not to remove the blinds. They could not remember the name of the person who asked them this.
[The tenant] gave evidence that she was present towards the end of the tradesperson’s visit and did not tell them to keep the blinds. [The tenant’s] mother was present for the entire visit. She has lost her voice for a long time and is unable to speak. [The tenant] claims her mother would not have been able to tell the tradesperson to keep the blinds. Analysis
I am convinced the blinds are in a state of disrepair. The tenant’s evidence on this issue is supported by the evidence of [the tenant], as well as photographs of the blinds. Photographs submitted show some of the panels on the blinds have fallen off. Photographs contained in an inspection report dated 29 September 2025 also show the beading on the bottom of some of the blinds is broken and hanging off. The blinds in the living room are all closed, which is consistent with the tenant’s evidence that they were unable to open them because they got stuck.
The landlord claims they sent tradespeople to the premises who told them the blinds were not broken however, no evidence of this was submitted and the photographs do not support this claim.
The tenant submitted a copy of a text message sent to the landlord on 13 February 2025 complaining about the blinds. The text message refers to an inspection completed on 7 February 2025. I find this to be the date the landlord became aware of the issue. The tenant claims they told the landlord about the blinds earlier however, the landlord denies this is the case. No written evidence about the blinds from 2021/2022 was submitted. No photographs of the blinds from 2021/2022 were submitted either, which means I am unable to assess whether they were obviously in a state of disrepair.
The landlord submitted an invoice dated 2 August 2025, which proves a tradesperson visited the premises on this date to investigate and fix the blinds. There is conflicting evidence about whether the tenant requested the blinds to remain in the premises or not. It would be unusual for a tenant to tell a tradesperson sent on behalf of the landlord what to do. Irrespective of whether the tenant asked the tradesperson to keep the blinds or not, I am satisfied that the blinds were in a state of disrepair for most of 2025.
There is a delay of approximately 6 months between 7 February 2025 and 2 August 2025, which is the date the tradesperson visited the premises. Whilst not an urgent issue, I consider a delay of 6 months to investigate and fix the blinds to be unreasonable. For this reason, I find the landlord failed to maintain the blinds in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $500.00 to be reasonable, considering the following factors: a. The nature of the breach. The breach is of a low level of seriousness. Broken blinds do not present an immediate health and safety risk, although I accept that premises are more difficult to ventilate with broken blinds. b. The duration of the breach. I find the breach endured for most of 2025, which is a relatively long period of time. c. The effect of the breach on the party. I accept the tenant’s claim that they were unable to ventilate the premises properly because they could not open the blinds. Bedroom window Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the window in the master bedroom is broken and cannot fully close. They claim it has been like this for a long time and they have mentioned it to the landlord during inspections.
[The tenant] gave evidence that the window has been broken for approximately 3 – 4 years and they have told the landlord about it once during an inspection. [The tenant] could not recall exactly when this was but said he thought it was some time in 2024. [The tenant] gave evidence that the landlord showed him how to use the window and although it was able to open and close, it required a lot of effort.
The landlord gave evidence the tenant has never told them the window is broken and they did not know this was the case. Analysis
The 2026 HHS report confirms the window in the main bedroom cannot fully close due to faulty joinery. Therefore, I am convinced the window is in a state of disrepair.
I am not convinced the landlord became aware of the issue until 29 January 2026, which is the date of the HHS report. The tenant claims they advised the landlord about the problem before this during inspections however, the landlord denies this. It is common for tenants to raise maintenance issues verbally an inspections however, an evidential issue arises when there is a dispute about whether the landlord was notified or not. The tenant bares the onus of proving when the landlord became aware of the issue on the balance of probabilities. In the absence of any supporting evidence, I am not convinced the landlord became aware of the issue before 29 January 2026. The tenant sent the landlord written communications in 2023 and 2025 referencing maintenance issues however, the window is not mentioned. The nature of the defect is not such that it would have been apparent from observation. This is because the window is stuck in an open position. If it was open during inspections, the landlord might reasonably believe the tenant had opened it.
The tenant claims the landlord should have checked every window during inspections however, I find this to be an unreasonable expectation. Routine inspections are generally short and not very thorough.
I find the landlord became aware of the issue on 29 January 2026 after receiving the HHS report. The hearing occurred on 2 February 2026 and the tenancy was due to end on 13 February 2026. There is 2 weeks between 29 January 2026 and 13 February 2026. A delay of two weeks is not unreasonable.
For these reasons, the tenant has not proven this claim, and it is dismissed. Cracks Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant gave evidence that cracks began to appear in the ceiling and walls inside the premises around 2023. They claim they have raised the issue with the landlord at routine inspections since then and in writing in September/October 2024. The tenant claims the cracks may indicate weathertightness or structural issues with the premises.
At the case conference on 26 November 2025, I directed the landlord to commission a condition report prepares by an appropriately qualified building inspector who holds their Licensed Building Practitioner (LBP) to determine the cause of the cracks. The landlord submitted a report dated 29 January 2026. It has been completed by Vinay Mehta from Auckland Building Reports. It states there are cracks by doors, windows and minor cracks in the ceiling. It provides the following explanations:
Cracks noted near doors and windows Relevant NZBC clauses: • B1 Structure • B2 Durability Explanation: The NZBC requires buildings to withstand expected loads without excessive deformation (B1). Minor cracking can occur naturally due to age, settlement, or material shrinkage. However, cracking around openings can sometimes indicate movement or stress. Code perspective: • Hairline cracks are usually acceptable and considered age-related. • Widening or stepped cracks could indicate structural movement and may affect B1 compliance if progressive. ...
Minor cracks noted on ceiling at few places Relevant NZBC clauses: • B1 Structure • B2 Durability Explanation: Ceiling cracks are commonly caused by building settlement, temperature changes, or material shrinkage. The NZBC allows for minor movement as long as structural performance is not compromised. Code perspective: • Minor hairline cracking is generally acceptable and cosmetic. • If cracks widen or reappear after repair, further structural assessment may be required.
The tenant claims Vinay Mehta does not hold an LBP certification and therefore, the findings in the report are unreliable. The tenant also claims Auckland Building Reports is not part of the New Zealand Institute of Building Inspectors, as the report states. Further, the tenant referred to a news article which they claim states the High court has previously found against Mr Mehta who completed a pre- purchase report for a premises that were leaky.
The tenant claims the landlord did not comply with the Tribunal’s directions and they did not have sufficient time to commission their own report by to counter Mr Mehta’s report. The tenant asks the Tribunal to draw a negative inference from the landlord’s failure to comply.
The landlord claims they were unaware Mr Mehta does not hold an LBP certification. They claim the cracks are cosmetic and most likely caused by poor preparation prior to painting or ground movement. The landlord denies there are any weathertightness or structural issues with the premises. The landlord submits that all non-invasive moisture readings contained in the report indicate that the premises are dry.
Vinay Mehta gave evidence by telephone. He states that he is a member of the NZIBI and is awaiting his certificate. He also claims to hold professional indemnity insurance and states that he completes around 800 – 900 building inspections per year. Mr Mehta holds qualifications in chemical engineering, although he claims he has practical experience in supervising the building of houses as well. Mr Mehta gave evidence that cracks like the ones in the premises are common in many premises and are most likely the result of poor paint preparation or vibrations. Regarding the news article referred to by the tenant, Mr Mehta claims the High Court acquitted him in the end and the tenant has not seen the final judgement. Mr Mehta claims the news article does not provide a full and accurate account of the full proceedings. Analysis
The photographs submitted show cracks throughout the premises, including the garage. The cracks are mostly around windows, doors and the ceiling. The photographs were taken in 2025 and I find this to be the date the cracks developed. The tenant claims they developed in 2023 and that they reported this to the landlord at the time however, the landlord denies this was the case and no written communications or photographs from 2023 were submitted. The tenant claims they raised the issue in writing with the landlord in September/October 2024 however, no evidence of this written communication was submitted either.
In my order dated 26 November 2025, I requested the landlord to have the premises assessed by an LBP and report prepared focusing on the condition of the property and identifying the cause of the cracks in the walls and ceiling. Mr Mehta does not hold an LBP qualification, and the report unhelpfully does not offer an opinion as to the cause of the cracks. It simply states they are present and provides two possible explanations. Notwithstanding these shortcomings, the fact that non-invasive moisture readings returned levels indicating the premises are dry suggests it is unlikely there are any weathertightness issues with the premises.
The Tribunal sees numerous applications for maintenance issues. Relatively shallow cracks in the walls and ceiling is something I have seen before. This supports Mr Mehta’s evidence that cracks of this nature are not uncommon.
The cracks, as shown in the photographs and videos submitted by the tenant, appear in straight lines. This is consistent with Mr Mehta’s evidence that the cause is most likely poor plaster and paint preparation, resulting in sheet join cracking.
The news article referred to by the tenant is behind a paywall, which means the entire article was unable to be read. The High Court judgement was also not provided. This means I do not have enough information about this prior case to make a negative finding about Mr Mehta’s competency in the way the tenant seeks.
The tenant bares the onus of proving that the cracks indicate a weather tightness or structural issue within the premises on the balance of probabilities. The condition report does not indicate this, and Mr Mehta’s evidence was that this was unlikely. Notwithstanding the fact that Mr Mehta does not hold his LBP certification, I find his qualifications, experience and the contents of the report to be sufficient to allay any concerns that there are any weathertightness or structural concerns with the premises.
To conclude, I find the cracks developed in 2025 and the landlord became aware of them on this date. This is because they would have been obvious during inspections. The cracks are most likely a cosmetic issue, caused by poor plaster and paint preparation. The only evidence the landlord submitted of a professional investigating the cause of the cracks is the report dated 29 January 2026. By the date of the hearing, nothing had been done to fix the cracks. I find a delay of approximately one year to investigate and remedy the cracks to be unreasonable. For this reason, I find the landlord breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $500.00 to be reasonable considering the following factors: a. The nature of the breach. Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is a serious breach, as evidenced by the fact that the maximum amount of exemplary damages that may be ordered is $7,200.00. In saying that, I consider this particular breach to fall towards the lower end of the spectrum in terms of seriousness, because I am convinced the issue is cosmetic, rather than structural. b. The duration of the breach. The breach endured for approximately 1 year, which is a relatively lengthy period of time. c. The effect of the breach on the party. I accept the cracks were a cause of concern for the tenant and visually detracted from the amenity of the premises.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum $7,200.00 may be ordered.
The tenant has proven the landlord breached their obligations in relation to the blinds and cracks in the premises. In doing so, I find the landlord acted intentionally. This is because the landlord became aware of the state of the blinds on 7 February 2025 and did not take steps to remedy the problem until 2 August 2025. The landlord also became aware of the cracks in 2025 and did not take any steps to investigate and confirm their cause until 29 January 2026. The landlord is a professional property management company, which knows its rights and obligations under the RTA. No evidence was submitted proving these delays were due to negligence, mistake or oversight.
I find it just to order exemplary damages considering the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act. I find the landlord acted intentionally. b. The effect of the unlawful act. The broken blinds detracted from the amenity of the premises and made it difficult to ventilate. The cracks were visually unappealing and a cause for anxiety and concern regarding potential more serious, underlying issues. Both problems endured for 6 – 12 months. I bare in mind I have already considered these matters when determining the level of compensation already ordered. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. The tenant has an interest in ensuring that maintenance issues are properly investigated and remedied within a reasonable timeframe. d. The public interest. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords are discouraged from delaying investigating and remedying defects brought to their attention within a reasonable timeframe.
Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay the tenant $700.00 in exemplary damages.

Does the rent exceed the market rent by a substantial amount?

The law

Section 25(1) RTA states: 25Market rent (1) On an application made to it at any time by the tenant, the Tribunal may, in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this section, on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount, to be specified in the order, that is in line with market rent. ... (3)For the purposes of this Act, the market rent for any tenancy shall be the rent that, without regard to the personal circumstances of the landlord or the tenant, a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy, taking into consideration the general level of rents (other than income related rents within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992) for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant. (4)An order made under this section shall take effect on and from a date to be specified in the order, which may be the date of the order or any earlier or later date, but being no earlier than the date of the application for the order and no later than 30 days after the date of the order.
Three questions arise for determination. First, what a market rent would be for the premises. Second, whether the rent increase is substantially above the market value. Third, if this is the case, what the rent should be.
In Fisken & Associates Limited [2023] NZDC 17698, the District Court held that if the market rent cannot be established, the Tribunal cannot decide whether the rent paid or payable exceeds it by a substantial amount and the application must fail. 9 The District Court held that evidence is required to determine what the market rent is. This may be independent evidence from real estate agents or property managers, as well evidence of rent paid for comparative properties. It may also include information from the Tenancy Services website, which is updated monthly and contains bond information from the previous 6 months. 9 At [29]. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The rent was increased from $690.00 per week to $730.00 per week some time in 2023 until 1 November 2024. It was meant to increase to $750.00 per week however, the landlord agreed to increase it to $730.00 per week.
On 3 September 2024, the landlord sent the tenant notice of a rent increase from $730.00 per week to $790.00 per week, beginning on 2 November 2024. The tenant raised concerns about this increase and the landlord offered to allow the tenant to pay $770.00 per week from 2 November 2024 – 30 April 2025. The landlord claims it was agreed the tenant would then pay $790.00 per week from 1 May 2025. The tenant claims they did not agree to pay $790.00 per week from 1 May 2025 and only agreed to pay $770.00 per week. The tenant has paid $770.00 per week from 2 November 2024 up to the date of the hearing.
The tenant claims both rent increases ($690.00 per week to $730.00 per week and $730.00 per week to $790.00 per week) resulted in the rent exceeding the market rent by a substantial amount. They rely on information obtained from the Tenancy Services website. This provides rent ranges for a 3 bedroom house in Flat Bush as follows: 01/02/2024 – 31/07/2024 Lower quartile: $700 Median rent: $740 Upper quartile: $760 01/06/2025 – 30/11/2025 Lower quartile: $683 Median rent: $700 Upper quartile: $750
The tenant also relies on a Trademe advertisement for new premises they are considering moving into at 1/44 Carlos Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland. These premises are a unit title and appear to be a townhouse. They have 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms and a garage that allows for two cars to be parked. The total floor size is 170m² spread across two levels. The rent is $740.00 per week. Analysis
The tenant bares the onus of proving what the market rent for the premises is. Insufficient evidence was provided for me to make a finding on this issue. The information from the Tenancy Services website is a useful starting point however, it is insufficient to prove what the market rent for the premises is alone. The website itself states that the information “is a useful guide for landlords and tenants, but should not be used alone to determine the market rent of any property.” This is because the website provides average rent data based on broad geographic areas and property types. It does not account for the unique features, condition, location, or amenities of the particular premises in question.
The only comparable property referred to me by the tenant was the premises at 1/44 Carlos Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland. The fact that these premises are located in Flat Bush and have a garage are the only similarities. In all other respects, they are quite different. They are a townhouse spread across two levels and share an intertenancy wall with neighbouring properties. In comparison, the premises at the tenancy address are single level and standalone. The premises at the tenancy address also have a small section and garden, whereas the premises at 1/44 Carlos Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland have a small balcony. The tenancy address is three bedrooms and the premises at Carlos Drive are four bedrooms. Considering these differences, I do not find a comparison of the rent charged at 1/44 Carlos Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland to be persuasive evidence establishing that the market rent for the tenancy address is the same.
No other evidence of rent paid for comparative premises was submitted by the tenant.
The tenant has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish what the market rent for the premises is. Therefore, I cannot determine whether $790.00 per week exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount. For this reason, this claim is dismissed.

Should a work order be made in respect of the smoke alarms?

The Tribunal may, in respect of any claim within its jurisdiction, make a work order. 10
A landlord’s duty to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016 is separate from their duty to comply with the HHS. Notwithstanding this, HHS reports commonly record whether smoke alarms are compliant or not, which is what has occurred in the present case. The HHS report records that the smoke alarms at the premises expired in 2020.
Because failure to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016 was not part of the tenant’s original claim, I did not allow them 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 78(1)(e). to amend their application and pursue this matter at the hearing. To do so would have been unfair to the landlord who had not been given reasonable notice that this was an issue to be determined at the hearing and had not been given a fair opportunity to prepare a response. Adjourning the hearing to allow this to occur would have been inconsistent with the Tribunal’s requirement to determine disputes expeditiously.
Non-compliant smoke alarms are a serious safety concern. These premises are likely to be rented out to new tenants. Therefore, it is important that the Tribunal is satisfied the landlord has installed qualifying smoke alarms and I cannot simply ignore this issue. For these reasons, I order the landlord to replace the smoke alarms with qualifying smoke alarms, as defined in regulation 7 of the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016. This requires the landlord to replace the smoke alarms with smoke alarms that are not expired and that have a battery life of at least 8 years, among other things. Filing fee & name suppression
The tenant has been substantially successful with their claim. Therefore, I must order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I must grant their request for name suppression.
The landlord also requested name suppression.
I have a discretion to grant the landlord name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
Publication of the landlord’s name in this decision might negatively affect their reputation however, that is an ordinary consequence of the proceedings. It is not unusual or special.
I have considered the interests of the landlord and weighed these against the public interest. I find the public interest in publication outweighs the landlord’s interest in suppression. For this reason, I decline to grant the landlord name suppression.

Claims & awards

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

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5317690 — net $6,128.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach of tenancy agreement (de- weeding and gardening	$400.00	38. The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach.
Compensation: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards	$2,500.00	48. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach.
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards	$1,500.00	52. Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages.
Compensation: Failure to maintain blinds	$500.00	Failure to maintain blinds
Compensation: Failure to maintain cracks in the walls and ceiling	$500.00	Failure to maintain cracks in the walls and ceiling
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$700.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,128.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,128.00

Claims and awards for application 5317690 — net $6,128.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: Breach of tenancy agreement (de- weeding and gardening

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 38. The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach.

Compensation: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards

Amount: $2,500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 48. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach.

Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 52. Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages.

Compensation: Failure to maintain blinds

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain blinds

Compensation: Failure to maintain cracks in the walls and ceiling

Amount: $500.00

Dismissed claims

Smoke Alarms — Should a work order be made in respect of the smoke alarms?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Crystal Realty Limited as agent for Omkar NZ Holdings must pay [The tenant/s] $6,128.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by Friday, 27 February 2026: a. Install qualifying smoke alarms in the premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 2 February 2026. [The tenant] represented the tenant. Virendra Verma and Vishal Argwal represented the landlord.
The tenancy began on 25 February 2019. It was initially managed by PFSL Rentals Limited however, Crystal Realty Limited purchased PFSL Rentals Limited in April 2021. Crystal Realty Limited have managed the tenancy since this time.
At the time of the hearing, the tenancy was ongoing however, the tenant advised that they had given notice to end the tenancy on 13 February 2026. The tenancy should have ended by the time this decision is issued.
The tenant claims the landlord breached the tenancy agreement by requiring the tenant to undertake de-weeding and gardening at the premises from around mid- 2022. The tenant claims it was agreed between the parties that this would be the responsibility of the landlord. The tenant also claims the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards and have been poorly maintained during the tenancy. Lastly, the tenant claims that various rent increases have resulted in the rent exceeding the market rent by a substantial amount. The issues I must determine are: a. Did the landlord breach the terms of the tenancy agreement by requiring the tenant to undertake de-weeding and gardening at the premises from mid-2022? b. Did the landlord breach their obligation to comply with the healthy homes standards? c. If so, should exemplary damages be ordered? d. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? e. If so, should exemplary damaged be ordered? f. Does the rent exceed the market rent by a substantial amount? g. Should a work order be made in respect of the smoke alarms?
Before determining these issues, I discuss some general legal principles that apply to the case.

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Standard of proof

As the applicant, the tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
A lot of evidence was given at the hearing. Whilst this decision might not refer to all of it, the parties can be assured that I have considered it. Compensation and exemplary damages – the law generally
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages for alleged breaches of the tenancy agreement and RTA by the landlord.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
The following factors are relevant when deciding to award compensation: 1 • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. 1 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and deter. They are like a fine.
Under the RTA, exemplary damages may be ordered for certain defined, unlawful acts.
Section 109(3) RTA states that exemplary damages may be ordered if the Tribunal determines the unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just, having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first been served on the tenant.
Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal that: 2 Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis there was no intention established, therefore there was no basis to order exemplary damages. 2 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 TENANT’S CLAIMS Did the landlord breach the terms of the tenancy agreement by requiring the tenant to undertake de-weeding and gardening at the premises? The law
Section 78 RTA defines the types of orders the Tribunal may make. Section 78(1)(g) states: Where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement between the parties has been induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake, or that any writing purporting to express the agreement between the parties does not accord with their true agreement, an order varying, or setting aside, the agreement or the writing (either wholly or in part). Evidence and submissions of the parties
The parties agree the fixed-term tenancy was renewed on 26 February 2021 and was for a fixed-term expiring on 26 February 2022. Thereafter, the tenancy became periodic.
A copy of the renewal was submitted. It states: The tenant will maintain the lawns and gardens.
The tenant claims the terms of the written agreement are inaccurate. Whilst the tenant accepts it was agreed that they would maintain the lawns, they claim the landlord has always undertaken de-weeding and tree trimming at the premises since the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant claims this is a term of the tenancy agreement and the fact the agreement states otherwise is a mistake.
The tenant submitted an email sent by the landlord on 5 January 2021. It states: Hi Gurjeet and Arveen, ... We need to sign a new fixed term tenancy for another 1 year, there will be an increase of $30 per week to the existing rent to $690 per week. New tenancy agreement will include monthly/2 monthly – De- weeding and 6 monthly tree trimming. ...
The email was sent by the landlord at the time PFSL Rentals Limited were managing the tenancy.
The tenant claims that since mid-2022 the landlord has required them to undertake de-weeding and general gardening. The tenant claims that weeds in the pebbled area grow frequently and it is difficult to keep on top of. The tenant also claims they have spent a lot of money on weed killer, which has also caused them to suffer from eczma.
Crystal Realty Ltd claim they were not aware of the email sent by PFSL Rentals Limited on 5 January 2021. They claim they relied on the terms of the written agreement and submit that this takes precedence over any other prior arrangement reached between the parties. Analysis
The starting point is that the tenancy agreement is a complete and final record of the parties’ arrangement, and its terms override any earlier written or verbal agreement. This means that evidence of prior written agreements, emails, or discussions cannot ordinarily be used to contradict, vary, or add to the terms of the signed agreement. There are exceptions to this, such as when there is evidence of fraud, mistake, or misrepresentation.
The email dated 5 January 2021 was sent by the landlord shortly before the new tenancy agreement was signed. It discusses the contemplated terms of the agreement and states that it will include monthly/2 monthly de-weeding and tree trimming. This evidence supports the tenant’s claim that the parties intended this to be a term of the agreement and the fact it was not included is a mistake.
The tenant also submitted text messages sent by the landlord in 2020 in relation to the garden. These state: 7 January 2020 Ssa bhaji Please let me know if the owner can visit on this Sunday around
00AM along with a gardener to check the garden. 5 February 2020 SSA Bhaji The weed trimmers will visit the property on Sunday, 9 th February from 8.00AM onwards.
These text messages prove that from early on in the tenancy, the landlord assumed responsibility for de-weeding and general gardening at the premises. The fact that the landlord assumed responsibility for these things in the past, further supports the tenant’s claim that the parties intended this to be the case in the future as well.
The tenant also submitted text messages sent by the landlord in April 2021. One of them states: Hi Gurjeet, The owner will be visiting the property tomorrow morning at 11:30 am for deweeding. ...
The new tenancy agreement was signed on 23 February 2021 and ran from 26 February 2021 – 26 February 2022. The fact that even after the new agreement was signed, the landlord undertook de-weeding at the premises further supports the tenant’s claim that the parties always intended this to be a term of the agreement.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that the clause in the tenancy agreement which states that the tenant will be responsible for maintaining the lawns and gardens is a mistake and does not accord with the parties’ true intentions. For this reason, the agreement is varied to state that the tenant will be responsible for the lawns and the landlord will be responsible for de-weeding and tree trimming.
By requiring the tenant to undertake de-weeding at the premises from around mid-2022, I find the landlord breached the agreement. The fact that the landlord was unaware of the email sent by PFSL Rentals Ltd on 5 January 2021 is not a defence. Crystal Realty Ltd is bound by the representations, agreements, or commitments made by PFSL Rentals Ltd in relation to this tenancy.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach. I find $400.00 to be reasonable considering the following factors: a. The nature of the breach. The breach is low level in terms of seriousness. In most instances, it is the tenant’s responsibility to look after the lawns and gardens. In this case, the landlord has agreed to take on more onerous obligations than those imposed by the RTA and failed to follow through. This is not a case where the landlord has breached the minimum standards imposed by the RTA. On the other hand, the rent was increased by $30.00 per week from 26 February 2021 and most likely reflected the fact that the tenant was paying the landlord for a service the tenant would ordinarily be responsible for. b. The duration of the breach. The breach has endured for approximately 3.5 years, which is a long time. On the other hand, the tenant could probably have done more to mitigate their loss. 3 They have not sent the landlord a 14- day notice or filed an application with the Tribunal about this issue until now. c. The effect of the breach on the party. I accept the tenant’s evidence that the pebbled area needs to be de-weeded often and keeping on top of this has been difficult. I also accept that the tenant has spent money on de-weeding products. The tenant claims they have also spent approximately $250.00 to hire a gardener however, no invoice for this was submitted. I am unconvinced the de-weeding products led to severe eczma for the tenant. Although there is a photograph of the tenant’s hand, which appears irritated, there is no accompanying medical evidence confirming a causal link with any de-weeding products. The landlord has also submitted invoices dated 13/06/2021, 22/06/2021, 01/04/2022 and 13/06/2023, which prove they paid for the trees to be trimmed and garden tidied on or around these dates.

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

The law

Section 45(1)(bb) RTA requires a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards. These can be found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS), which provides a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies regarding insulation, heating, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture and drainage.
The tenancy began on 25 February 2019 and was renewed on 26 February 2021. Therefore, the due date for compliance with the HHS was 1 July 2025. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the premises do not comply with the HHS and relies on a report dated 29 January 2026. The report states the premises do not comply with the ceiling insulation and draught stopping requirements.
The landlord claims the premises were compliant on 1 July 2025. The rely on a report dated 3 December 2020. This report states that the ceiling insulation and kitchen extractor fan are non-compliant. The landlord claims these defects were remedied and submitted an invoice dated 21 January 2021. The invoice is from Alpha Home and Service Ltd and states: Description Ranghood ducting 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49. insullation top up (ceiling) Analysis
I find the report dated 29 January 2026 to be more reliable than the report dated 3 December 2020 and accompanying invoices dated 21 January 2021.
The premises needed to comply with the HHS by 1 July 2025 and at all other times thereafter during the tenancy. The report dated 29 January 2026 was completed closer in time to the compliance date than the report dated 3 December 2020. This means that its findings are more likely to provide an accurate reflection of the state of the premises on 1 July 2025, than the report dated 3 December 2020. Its findings also provide a more accurate reflection of the current state of the premises than the 2020 report.
The invoices submitted by the landlord prove that steps were taken in January 2021 to address the issues identified in the 2020 report however, no confirmation that the work undertaken was sufficient to bring the premises up to compliance was submitted. The fact that the ceiling insulation has remained at 90mm from 3 December 2020 – 29 January 2026, despite apparently being topped up in January 2021, means this work was most likely insufficient.
Where a premises fails on one or more aspects of the HHS, the usual practice is for photographs of remedial work to be sent to the assessor to update the report or for the assessor to revisit the premises and confirm compliance. The landlord accepts this did not occur and gave evidence that assessors generally charge an additional fee to reinspect the premises. This is a cost landlords must be prepared pay if they want to avoid findings of non-compliance by the Tribunal.
I accept the findings in the report dated 26 January 2026 and find the premises does not comply with the HHS.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $2,500.00 to be reasonable considering the following factors: a. The nature of the breach. The breach is serious. The purpose of the HHS is to ensure that rental properties are warm, dry and healthy for tenants. The fact that Parliament has legislated that failure to comply is an unlawful act, which may attract exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00, indicates the level of seriousness Parliament considers cases of non- compliance. In this case, the premises are non-compliant in two respects. b. The duration of the breach. There is approximately 33 weeks between 1 July 2025 and 13 February 2026, which is a relatively lengthy period of time. The landlord claims the tenant denied and delayed access for a HHS assessment to be completed. The landlord only emailed the tenant a copy of the 2020 report on 9 July 2025, which is after the due date for compliance. The landlord also only took steps after the due date to try to organise an updated inspection and report. For these reasons, I do not accept the landlord’s submission that the tenant frustrated their efforts to comply with the HHS. c. The effect of the breach on the party. The tenant claims that there was a lot of mould in the premises and the premises were difficult to heat. I accept that mould is more likely to grow in premises where the ceiling insulation is non-compliant. I also accept that non-compliant premises may be more difficult to heat and result in higher electricity bills than usual. The tenant submitted photographs of the blinds, bathroom and garage. There is a small amount of mould on the back of the blinds and a very small amount in the bathroom and garage. The level of mould is far from the concerning levels the Tribunal sometimes sees and would most likely be considered the tenant’s responsibility to maintain. d. The tenant also claims that they suffer from asthma and were hospitalised twice during the tenancy. The tenant claims their condition was exacerbated due to the noncompliance however, I am not convinced of this. The medical evidence submitted states the tenant lives in a cold and damp home. This is what the tenant reported to the nurse practitioner, it is not an observation the practitioner made themselves. The medical evidence also does not draw a direct, causal link between the premises and the tenant’s asthma. There are a number of matters noted in the medical evidence, which appear to have contributed to a worsening of the tenant’s asthma, as well as other medical conditions.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

The law

Failure to comply with the HHS is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered. 4
I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to comply with the HHS. This is because the landlord did not take steps to confirm that the remedial work completed in January 2021 was sufficient to bring the premises up to compliance. The landlord also did not take any steps to confirm the premises complied immediately before 1 July 2025, which was the compliance date.
Considering the following factors, I find it just to order exemplary damages: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act. I find the landlord acted intentionally. 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1. b. The effect of the unlawful act. See paragraph 46(c) above. I note that I have already considered this matter when setting the level of compensation and I must be careful not to double count for it. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. The tenant has an interest in ensuring that premises they are renting are compliant with the HHS. In this case, the premises do not comply in two respects. d. The public interest. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords are deterred from failing to comply with the HHS.
Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

The law

Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which they are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
A landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy it. 5
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 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. 6 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 7
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 8
The tenant claims the landlord failed to repair the following: a. Ventilation system 5 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 6 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 7 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 8 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. b. Blinds c. Bedroom window d. Cracks in walls and ceiling Ventilation system Evidence and submissions of the parties
There is disagreement between the parties about whether the ventilation system works and whether the tenant told the landlord about any defect.
The tenant gave evidence the premises were advertised as being a modern house with a fully functioning ventilation system. They say this was appealing to them, because they suffer from asthma. The tenant claims the electrical pad for the ventilation system shows a “change filter” error message when turned on, which has occurred since the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant claims they have mentioned the problem to the landlord at inspections and it has never been fixed.
[The tenant] gave evidence for the tenant. [The tenant] said the ventilation system did not work at the beginning of the tenancy, although he accepts he did not actually know how to use it at the beginning of the tenancy either. [The tenant] gave evidence the system was serviced in 2021 and worked after that but stopped working again in 2024/2025. He says he knows it stopped working, because he could not feel any air coming out of the vents. [The tenant] gave evidence he did not mention anything about this to the landlord.
[The tenant] also gave evidence for the tenant. He said a red light comes on when the ventilation system is turned on. [The tenant] accepts the landlord was able to turn the ventilation system on during a visit on 26 January 2026, however, after not experiencing any atmospheric difference in the premises, [the tenant] turned it off. [The tenant] claims he knows the ventilation system does not work, because the house feels suffocating, and the temperature recorded on the electronic pad never changes. Other than possibly mentioning the issue to the landlord once before the Covid-19 pandemic, [the tenant] gave evidence he has not mentioned it to the landlord during inspections.
The landlord claims the tenant only mentioned the ventilation system to them for the first time at the case conference on 26 November 2025. The landlord says they did not check the ventilation system at routine inspections during the tenancy and no complaints were received at these times either. The landlord gave evidence they visited the premises on 29 January 2026 and saw the unit was in “switch off” mode. The landlord claims they turned it on, and a green light came on, indicating the ventilation system is working. Analysis
The tenant bares the onus of proving the ventilation system does not work on the balance of probabilities. I am not convinced this is the case.
The landlord gave evidence the ventilation system was able to be turned on during their visit on 26 January 2026 and showed a green light. [The tenant] accepts this occurred but claims the ventilation system does not work and he knows this because the house feels suffocating. [The tenant] and [the tenant’s] evidence that the house feels suffocating is insufficient to prove the ventilation system does not work. This is because there is no evidence confirming a causal link between this feeling and the ventilation system. The tenant gave evidence that the blinds in the premises do not open, which could be the reason the premises feel suffocating.
[The tenant] and [the tenant’s] evidence that no air can be felt coming out of the vents in the ceiling is also insufficient to prove the ventilation system does not work. The air that generally flows from the vents of a ventilation system is very gentle. It is reasonably possible that air is flowing out of the vents but cannot be felt.
The tenant did not submit any photographs of the error message that apparently appear on the control pad regularly.
The accepted evidence from both parties is that the ventilation system was able to be turned on and displayed a green light on 26 January 2026. This indicates that it works, and expert evidence is needed to clarify that it is broken. In the absence of any evidence from a heating, ventilation and air conditioning technician confirming the ventilation system does not work, I am not convinced this is the case.
For these reasons, the tenant has not proven this claim, and it is dismissed. Blinds Evidence and submissions of the parties
The premises have vertical blinds throughout. The tenant claims these have been broken since 2021. The tenant claims some blinds have fallen down, the blades on some blinds do not open and some blinds cannot be pulled open, because they get stuck. The tenant claims they have raised the issue with the landlord verbally at every inspection since 2022 and a tradesperson was only sent in August 2025. The tenant claims the tradesperson simply installed curtains on top of the blinds, which was an inadequate repair. The tenant claims because they cannot open the blinds, they cannot ventilate the premises. The tenant claims adding curtains on top of blinds that cannot open makes the premises feel suffocating.
[The tenant] gave evidence that the broken blinds were mentioned many times during inspections and promises of repairs were made by the landlord. [The tenant] claims the blades of some of the blinds do not open and some blinds cannot be pulled open and get jammed. [The tenant] claims the blinds in his mother’s room fell off when trying to pull them open.
The landlord claims they were never advised that the blinds do not work. The landlord also claims the blinds are not in a state of disrepair and that they have sent multiple tradespeople to the premises to assess the blinds who have confirmed there is no issue. Notwithstanding this, the landlord claims they organised for curtains to be installed, because the tenant was persistent about the issue. The landlord claims the tenant asked the tradesperson not to remove the blinds.
The landlord called the tradesperson as a witness. They gave evidence that the tenant asked them not to remove the blinds. They could not remember the name of the person who asked them this.
[The tenant] gave evidence that she was present towards the end of the tradesperson’s visit and did not tell them to keep the blinds. [The tenant’s] mother was present for the entire visit. She has lost her voice for a long time and is unable to speak. [The tenant] claims her mother would not have been able to tell the tradesperson to keep the blinds. Analysis
I am convinced the blinds are in a state of disrepair. The tenant’s evidence on this issue is supported by the evidence of [the tenant], as well as photographs of the blinds. Photographs submitted show some of the panels on the blinds have fallen off. Photographs contained in an inspection report dated 29 September 2025 also show the beading on the bottom of some of the blinds is broken and hanging off. The blinds in the living room are all closed, which is consistent with the tenant’s evidence that they were unable to open them because they got stuck.
The landlord claims they sent tradespeople to the premises who told them the blinds were not broken however, no evidence of this was submitted and the photographs do not support this claim.
The tenant submitted a copy of a text message sent to the landlord on 13 February 2025 complaining about the blinds. The text message refers to an inspection completed on 7 February 2025. I find this to be the date the landlord became aware of the issue. The tenant claims they told the landlord about the blinds earlier however, the landlord denies this is the case. No written evidence about the blinds from 2021/2022 was submitted. No photographs of the blinds from 2021/2022 were submitted either, which means I am unable to assess whether they were obviously in a state of disrepair.
The landlord submitted an invoice dated 2 August 2025, which proves a tradesperson visited the premises on this date to investigate and fix the blinds. There is conflicting evidence about whether the tenant requested the blinds to remain in the premises or not. It would be unusual for a tenant to tell a tradesperson sent on behalf of the landlord what to do. Irrespective of whether the tenant asked the tradesperson to keep the blinds or not, I am satisfied that the blinds were in a state of disrepair for most of 2025.
There is a delay of approximately 6 months between 7 February 2025 and 2 August 2025, which is the date the tradesperson visited the premises. Whilst not an urgent issue, I consider a delay of 6 months to investigate and fix the blinds to be unreasonable. For this reason, I find the landlord failed to maintain the blinds in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $500.00 to be reasonable, considering the following factors: a. The nature of the breach. The breach is of a low level of seriousness. Broken blinds do not present an immediate health and safety risk, although I accept that premises are more difficult to ventilate with broken blinds. b. The duration of the breach. I find the breach endured for most of 2025, which is a relatively long period of time. c. The effect of the breach on the party. I accept the tenant’s claim that they were unable to ventilate the premises properly because they could not open the blinds. Bedroom window Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the window in the master bedroom is broken and cannot fully close. They claim it has been like this for a long time and they have mentioned it to the landlord during inspections.
[The tenant] gave evidence that the window has been broken for approximately 3 – 4 years and they have told the landlord about it once during an inspection. [The tenant] could not recall exactly when this was but said he thought it was some time in 2024. [The tenant] gave evidence that the landlord showed him how to use the window and although it was able to open and close, it required a lot of effort.
The landlord gave evidence the tenant has never told them the window is broken and they did not know this was the case. Analysis
The 2026 HHS report confirms the window in the main bedroom cannot fully close due to faulty joinery. Therefore, I am convinced the window is in a state of disrepair.
I am not convinced the landlord became aware of the issue until 29 January 2026, which is the date of the HHS report. The tenant claims they advised the landlord about the problem before this during inspections however, the landlord denies this. It is common for tenants to raise maintenance issues verbally an inspections however, an evidential issue arises when there is a dispute about whether the landlord was notified or not. The tenant bares the onus of proving when the landlord became aware of the issue on the balance of probabilities. In the absence of any supporting evidence, I am not convinced the landlord became aware of the issue before 29 January 2026. The tenant sent the landlord written communications in 2023 and 2025 referencing maintenance issues however, the window is not mentioned. The nature of the defect is not such that it would have been apparent from observation. This is because the window is stuck in an open position. If it was open during inspections, the landlord might reasonably believe the tenant had opened it.
The tenant claims the landlord should have checked every window during inspections however, I find this to be an unreasonable expectation. Routine inspections are generally short and not very thorough.
I find the landlord became aware of the issue on 29 January 2026 after receiving the HHS report. The hearing occurred on 2 February 2026 and the tenancy was due to end on 13 February 2026. There is 2 weeks between 29 January 2026 and 13 February 2026. A delay of two weeks is not unreasonable.
For these reasons, the tenant has not proven this claim, and it is dismissed. Cracks Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant gave evidence that cracks began to appear in the ceiling and walls inside the premises around 2023. They claim they have raised the issue with the landlord at routine inspections since then and in writing in September/October 2024. The tenant claims the cracks may indicate weathertightness or structural issues with the premises.
At the case conference on 26 November 2025, I directed the landlord to commission a condition report prepares by an appropriately qualified building inspector who holds their Licensed Building Practitioner (LBP) to determine the cause of the cracks. The landlord submitted a report dated 29 January 2026. It has been completed by Vinay Mehta from Auckland Building Reports. It states there are cracks by doors, windows and minor cracks in the ceiling. It provides the following explanations:
Cracks noted near doors and windows Relevant NZBC clauses: • B1 Structure • B2 Durability Explanation: The NZBC requires buildings to withstand expected loads without excessive deformation (B1). Minor cracking can occur naturally due to age, settlement, or material shrinkage. However, cracking around openings can sometimes indicate movement or stress. Code perspective: • Hairline cracks are usually acceptable and considered age-related. • Widening or stepped cracks could indicate structural movement and may affect B1 compliance if progressive. ...
Minor cracks noted on ceiling at few places Relevant NZBC clauses: • B1 Structure • B2 Durability Explanation: Ceiling cracks are commonly caused by building settlement, temperature changes, or material shrinkage. The NZBC allows for minor movement as long as structural performance is not compromised. Code perspective: • Minor hairline cracking is generally acceptable and cosmetic. • If cracks widen or reappear after repair, further structural assessment may be required.
The tenant claims Vinay Mehta does not hold an LBP certification and therefore, the findings in the report are unreliable. The tenant also claims Auckland Building Reports is not part of the New Zealand Institute of Building Inspectors, as the report states. Further, the tenant referred to a news article which they claim states the High court has previously found against Mr Mehta who completed a pre- purchase report for a premises that were leaky.
The tenant claims the landlord did not comply with the Tribunal’s directions and they did not have sufficient time to commission their own report by to counter Mr Mehta’s report. The tenant asks the Tribunal to draw a negative inference from the landlord’s failure to comply.
The landlord claims they were unaware Mr Mehta does not hold an LBP certification. They claim the cracks are cosmetic and most likely caused by poor preparation prior to painting or ground movement. The landlord denies there are any weathertightness or structural issues with the premises. The landlord submits that all non-invasive moisture readings contained in the report indicate that the premises are dry.
Vinay Mehta gave evidence by telephone. He states that he is a member of the NZIBI and is awaiting his certificate. He also claims to hold professional indemnity insurance and states that he completes around 800 – 900 building inspections per year. Mr Mehta holds qualifications in chemical engineering, although he claims he has practical experience in supervising the building of houses as well. Mr Mehta gave evidence that cracks like the ones in the premises are common in many premises and are most likely the result of poor paint preparation or vibrations. Regarding the news article referred to by the tenant, Mr Mehta claims the High Court acquitted him in the end and the tenant has not seen the final judgement. Mr Mehta claims the news article does not provide a full and accurate account of the full proceedings. Analysis
The photographs submitted show cracks throughout the premises, including the garage. The cracks are mostly around windows, doors and the ceiling. The photographs were taken in 2025 and I find this to be the date the cracks developed. The tenant claims they developed in 2023 and that they reported this to the landlord at the time however, the landlord denies this was the case and no written communications or photographs from 2023 were submitted. The tenant claims they raised the issue in writing with the landlord in September/October 2024 however, no evidence of this written communication was submitted either.
In my order dated 26 November 2025, I requested the landlord to have the premises assessed by an LBP and report prepared focusing on the condition of the property and identifying the cause of the cracks in the walls and ceiling. Mr Mehta does not hold an LBP qualification, and the report unhelpfully does not offer an opinion as to the cause of the cracks. It simply states they are present and provides two possible explanations. Notwithstanding these shortcomings, the fact that non-invasive moisture readings returned levels indicating the premises are dry suggests it is unlikely there are any weathertightness issues with the premises.
The Tribunal sees numerous applications for maintenance issues. Relatively shallow cracks in the walls and ceiling is something I have seen before. This supports Mr Mehta’s evidence that cracks of this nature are not uncommon.
The cracks, as shown in the photographs and videos submitted by the tenant, appear in straight lines. This is consistent with Mr Mehta’s evidence that the cause is most likely poor plaster and paint preparation, resulting in sheet join cracking.
The news article referred to by the tenant is behind a paywall, which means the entire article was unable to be read. The High Court judgement was also not provided. This means I do not have enough information about this prior case to make a negative finding about Mr Mehta’s competency in the way the tenant seeks.
The tenant bares the onus of proving that the cracks indicate a weather tightness or structural issue within the premises on the balance of probabilities. The condition report does not indicate this, and Mr Mehta’s evidence was that this was unlikely. Notwithstanding the fact that Mr Mehta does not hold his LBP certification, I find his qualifications, experience and the contents of the report to be sufficient to allay any concerns that there are any weathertightness or structural concerns with the premises.
To conclude, I find the cracks developed in 2025 and the landlord became aware of them on this date. This is because they would have been obvious during inspections. The cracks are most likely a cosmetic issue, caused by poor plaster and paint preparation. The only evidence the landlord submitted of a professional investigating the cause of the cracks is the report dated 29 January 2026. By the date of the hearing, nothing had been done to fix the cracks. I find a delay of approximately one year to investigate and remedy the cracks to be unreasonable. For this reason, I find the landlord breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $500.00 to be reasonable considering the following factors: a. The nature of the breach. Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is a serious breach, as evidenced by the fact that the maximum amount of exemplary damages that may be ordered is $7,200.00. In saying that, I consider this particular breach to fall towards the lower end of the spectrum in terms of seriousness, because I am convinced the issue is cosmetic, rather than structural. b. The duration of the breach. The breach endured for approximately 1 year, which is a relatively lengthy period of time. c. The effect of the breach on the party. I accept the cracks were a cause of concern for the tenant and visually detracted from the amenity of the premises.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum $7,200.00 may be ordered.
The tenant has proven the landlord breached their obligations in relation to the blinds and cracks in the premises. In doing so, I find the landlord acted intentionally. This is because the landlord became aware of the state of the blinds on 7 February 2025 and did not take steps to remedy the problem until 2 August 2025. The landlord also became aware of the cracks in 2025 and did not take any steps to investigate and confirm their cause until 29 January 2026. The landlord is a professional property management company, which knows its rights and obligations under the RTA. No evidence was submitted proving these delays were due to negligence, mistake or oversight.
I find it just to order exemplary damages considering the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act. I find the landlord acted intentionally. b. The effect of the unlawful act. The broken blinds detracted from the amenity of the premises and made it difficult to ventilate. The cracks were visually unappealing and a cause for anxiety and concern regarding potential more serious, underlying issues. Both problems endured for 6 – 12 months. I bare in mind I have already considered these matters when determining the level of compensation already ordered. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. The tenant has an interest in ensuring that maintenance issues are properly investigated and remedied within a reasonable timeframe. d. The public interest. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords are discouraged from delaying investigating and remedying defects brought to their attention within a reasonable timeframe.
Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay the tenant $700.00 in exemplary damages.

Does the rent exceed the market rent by a substantial amount?

The law

Section 25(1) RTA states: 25Market rent (1) On an application made to it at any time by the tenant, the Tribunal may, in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this section, on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount, to be specified in the order, that is in line with market rent. ... (3)For the purposes of this Act, the market rent for any tenancy shall be the rent that, without regard to the personal circumstances of the landlord or the tenant, a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy, taking into consideration the general level of rents (other than income related rents within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992) for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant. (4)An order made under this section shall take effect on and from a date to be specified in the order, which may be the date of the order or any earlier or later date, but being no earlier than the date of the application for the order and no later than 30 days after the date of the order.
Three questions arise for determination. First, what a market rent would be for the premises. Second, whether the rent increase is substantially above the market value. Third, if this is the case, what the rent should be.
In Fisken & Associates Limited [2023] NZDC 17698, the District Court held that if the market rent cannot be established, the Tribunal cannot decide whether the rent paid or payable exceeds it by a substantial amount and the application must fail. 9 The District Court held that evidence is required to determine what the market rent is. This may be independent evidence from real estate agents or property managers, as well evidence of rent paid for comparative properties. It may also include information from the Tenancy Services website, which is updated monthly and contains bond information from the previous 6 months. 9 At [29]. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The rent was increased from $690.00 per week to $730.00 per week some time in 2023 until 1 November 2024. It was meant to increase to $750.00 per week however, the landlord agreed to increase it to $730.00 per week.
On 3 September 2024, the landlord sent the tenant notice of a rent increase from $730.00 per week to $790.00 per week, beginning on 2 November 2024. The tenant raised concerns about this increase and the landlord offered to allow the tenant to pay $770.00 per week from 2 November 2024 – 30 April 2025. The landlord claims it was agreed the tenant would then pay $790.00 per week from 1 May 2025. The tenant claims they did not agree to pay $790.00 per week from 1 May 2025 and only agreed to pay $770.00 per week. The tenant has paid $770.00 per week from 2 November 2024 up to the date of the hearing.
The tenant claims both rent increases ($690.00 per week to $730.00 per week and $730.00 per week to $790.00 per week) resulted in the rent exceeding the market rent by a substantial amount. They rely on information obtained from the Tenancy Services website. This provides rent ranges for a 3 bedroom house in Flat Bush as follows: 01/02/2024 – 31/07/2024 Lower quartile: $700 Median rent: $740 Upper quartile: $760 01/06/2025 – 30/11/2025 Lower quartile: $683 Median rent: $700 Upper quartile: $750
The tenant also relies on a Trademe advertisement for new premises they are considering moving into at 1/44 Carlos Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland. These premises are a unit title and appear to be a townhouse. They have 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms and a garage that allows for two cars to be parked. The total floor size is 170m² spread across two levels. The rent is $740.00 per week. Analysis
The tenant bares the onus of proving what the market rent for the premises is. Insufficient evidence was provided for me to make a finding on this issue. The information from the Tenancy Services website is a useful starting point however, it is insufficient to prove what the market rent for the premises is alone. The website itself states that the information “is a useful guide for landlords and tenants, but should not be used alone to determine the market rent of any property.” This is because the website provides average rent data based on broad geographic areas and property types. It does not account for the unique features, condition, location, or amenities of the particular premises in question.
The only comparable property referred to me by the tenant was the premises at 1/44 Carlos Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland. The fact that these premises are located in Flat Bush and have a garage are the only similarities. In all other respects, they are quite different. They are a townhouse spread across two levels and share an intertenancy wall with neighbouring properties. In comparison, the premises at the tenancy address are single level and standalone. The premises at the tenancy address also have a small section and garden, whereas the premises at 1/44 Carlos Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland have a small balcony. The tenancy address is three bedrooms and the premises at Carlos Drive are four bedrooms. Considering these differences, I do not find a comparison of the rent charged at 1/44 Carlos Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland to be persuasive evidence establishing that the market rent for the tenancy address is the same.
No other evidence of rent paid for comparative premises was submitted by the tenant.
The tenant has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish what the market rent for the premises is. Therefore, I cannot determine whether $790.00 per week exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount. For this reason, this claim is dismissed.

Should a work order be made in respect of the smoke alarms?

The Tribunal may, in respect of any claim within its jurisdiction, make a work order. 10
A landlord’s duty to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016 is separate from their duty to comply with the HHS. Notwithstanding this, HHS reports commonly record whether smoke alarms are compliant or not, which is what has occurred in the present case. The HHS report records that the smoke alarms at the premises expired in 2020.
Because failure to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016 was not part of the tenant’s original claim, I did not allow them 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 78(1)(e). to amend their application and pursue this matter at the hearing. To do so would have been unfair to the landlord who had not been given reasonable notice that this was an issue to be determined at the hearing and had not been given a fair opportunity to prepare a response. Adjourning the hearing to allow this to occur would have been inconsistent with the Tribunal’s requirement to determine disputes expeditiously.
Non-compliant smoke alarms are a serious safety concern. These premises are likely to be rented out to new tenants. Therefore, it is important that the Tribunal is satisfied the landlord has installed qualifying smoke alarms and I cannot simply ignore this issue. For these reasons, I order the landlord to replace the smoke alarms with qualifying smoke alarms, as defined in regulation 7 of the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016. This requires the landlord to replace the smoke alarms with smoke alarms that are not expired and that have a battery life of at least 8 years, among other things. Filing fee & name suppression
The tenant has been substantially successful with their claim. Therefore, I must order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I must grant their request for name suppression.
The landlord also requested name suppression.
I have a discretion to grant the landlord name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
Publication of the landlord’s name in this decision might negatively affect their reputation however, that is an ordinary consequence of the proceedings. It is not unusual or special.
I have considered the interests of the landlord and weighed these against the public interest. I find the public interest in publication outweighs the landlord’s interest in suppression. For this reason, I decline to grant the landlord name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317690 — Healthy homes at 19 Jeffs Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317690 — Healthy homes at 19 Jeffs Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2016

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Does the rent exceed the market rent by a substantial amount?

Should a work order be made in respect of the smoke alarms?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Does the rent exceed the market rent by a substantial amount?

Should a work order be made in respect of the smoke alarms?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions