What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5318563 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 5318563?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5318563?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5318563?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13098154-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5318563 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 5318563?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5318563?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5318563?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13098154-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

13A Tiraumea Drive, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5318563 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5318563 — net $1,228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 45	$1,200.00	Section 45
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,228.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,228.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Jian Zhang must pay [The tenant/s] $1,228.00 immediately.

All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
There were two hearings, the first on 21 November 2025 and the second on 30 January 2026.
The tenancy began on 5 December 2024 and ended on 25 January 2026.
The tenant applied for a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards, compensation in relation to water payments, property loss and for a rent reduction. The tenant also applied for exemplary damages.
The tenancy agreement signed by the parties on 5 December 2024 did not include a statement relating to Healthy Homes standard compliance as required by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 1 .
The landlord provided a statement after the tenancy commenced which was signed by the landlord on 20 February 2025.
Even though the statement signed by the landlord records that the tenancy complied with the Healthy Homes standards at the start of the tenancy, there is evidence that it did not comply with all the standards.
The date for compliance with Healthy Homes Standards varies depending on when the tenancy commenced. For this tenancy, and any other tenancy started or renewed between 28 August 2022 and 2 March 2025, there must be compliance within 120 days of the start of the tenancy. Therefore, the compliance date for this tenancy is 4 April 2025.
The landlord produced a Healthy Homes Inspection report prepared by Panda Solutions. The inspection date for that report was 1 December 2025. The report concluded that on the inspection date the premises was non-compliant in relation to insulation and draught stopping.
Under section 45, a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Smoke alarms
The Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 require that there is one qualifying smoke alarm installed in the sleeping place or within three metres of the entrance to the sleeping place. The Regulations define “sleeping place” as “a space that is for use, or that can reasonably be expected to be used, as a bedroom or other sleeping space.”
At the first hearing the tenant submitted that there was only one smoke alarm that was not within three metres of the bedrooms, and it was expired. 1 Section 13A(1CA)
The Tribunal directed for the landlord to urgently address this issue after the first hearing.
At the second hearing the landlord reported that two smoke alarms had been installed at the premises one to two days after the first hearing. The landlord produced a photograph of the installed smoke alarms and the packaging for the smoke alarms that were purchased.
The landlord had not complied with the regulations related to the smoke alarms from the beginning of the tenancy until 23 November 2025. The period of noncompliance was between 4 April 2025 and 23 November 2025, a period of seven months. Ground moisture barrier
HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The landlord confirmed in the Healthy Homes statement that the ground moisture barrier had been installed. This was not correct. There was no ground moisture barrier at the premises on the day that the statement was completed and signed 2 .
At the hearing the landlord said that she learnt that there was no ground moisture barrier on 20 February 2025 when she attended at the premises for repairs and noticed that it was not there. This was the same day as the statement was signed. The landlord did not mention to the tenant that the ground moisture barrier had not been installed and that there was an error in the statement.
The landlord said that she thought all the insulation had been installed in 2019 when a company was employed to install ceiling and underfloor insulation.
The landlord arranged for the ground moisture barrier to be installed and that was completed on 28 April 2025.
The landlord had not complied with the Healthy Homes moisture and ingress standard in relation to the ground moisture barrier from 4 April 2025 until 28 April 2025, which was a period of noncompliance less than one month. Insulation and draught stopping 2 20 February 2025
The Healthy Homes report referred to above recorded that the ceiling insulation and draught stopping (unreasonable gaps) was non-compliant. The landlord produced evidence that these issues were rectified on 4 December 2025.
The landlord had not complied with the Healthy Homes insulation standard and draught stopping standard from 4 April 2025 until 4 December 2025, an eight- month period.
The landlord was aware of the requirement to comply with the Healthy Homes standards but only referred to compliance with the insulation standard in 2019 and not the other standards. The landlord knew that the premises did not comply with regard to the ground moisture barrier even though the statement recorded otherwise on 20 February 2025.
The lack of compliance with the Healthy Homes standards had a negative impact on the tenant and it is in the public interest that landlords comply with the standards. On the evidence I consider that exemplary damages of $1,200.00 in relation to the Healthy Homes standards is reasonable. Water
The tenant sought compensation in relation to weekly payment for water. The tenancy agreement records weekly rent of $725.00 with an amendment that it included water. The tenant submitted that the property was advertised for $700.00 per week but when signing the tenancy agreement, the landlords asked for $725.00 per week on the basis that water was inclusive.
There are two properties with a shared water meter which is why the landlord could not charge the tenant for water 3 and instead the cost of water would need to be inclusive.
The tenant produced a screen shot from a website which states that the property was listed for rent on 4 November 2024 at $700.00 per week. This is not the actual advertisement relied on by the tenant.
After signing the tenancy agreement, the tenant considered that she was paying $25.00 extra per week for water and thought it was excessive. She asked the landlord to see the water invoices to check on the amount of water used.
The legally binding rent is the amount agreed to and signed in the tenancy agreement - in this case $725.00 including water. The screenshot produced by the tenant is not sufficient evidence of the advertised rent amount but even if it were the rent of $700.00 is not enforceable if both parties knowingly agreed to the higher amount at signing, especially with the inclusion of water as an extra.
The tenant’s claim in respect of compensation for water is dismissed. 3 Section 39(4)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 Tenant property disposed of
The tenant claimed compensation for the landlord disposing of property belonging to the tenant.
The tenant stored some items under the house in a box. The tenant said that the box contained the lid for her Karcher steamer, tools, solar lights and shade sails. The tenant did not produce any evidence of value for these items.
In an email dated 22 April 2025 the landlord advised the tenant they were coming to clean the basement and fix the spouting from 10am on 28 April 2025. This is when the ground moisture barrier was likely installed. In a further email dated 30 April 2025 the landlord emailed the tenant and said “there was some stuff in the basement that looked like yours. We have left them in the basement.”
On 12 May 2025 the tenant emailed the landlord stating, “there are a lot of things that belonged to me that I had safely stored under the house that are no longer there from when you installed the ground moisture barrier last week..” The landlord replied on the same day stating, “2 weeks ago, when we were taking rubbish away from the basement, we found some stuff, such as a mower, vacuum, water blaster, plaster box, black bag etc., which looke...them in the basement. We emailed and told you this on 30/4/2025.” (some of the email is not readable due to the page not displaying it in its entirety)
The tenant said at the hearing that she was unwell when the landlord came to clean the basement so had not removed her belongings that were stored there.
While it is possible that some items belonging to the tenant were mistakenly considered rubbish by the landlord, there is insufficient evidence to support what was missing and the value of any items. For this reason, it is not possible to determine what if any compensation should be awarded to the tenant.
The tenant’s claim for compensation for missing items is dismissed. Other claims
The tenant claims a refund of rent paid and exemplary damages due to substandard living conditions. The tenant did not prove on the balance of probabilities that she is entitled to either a rent refund or exemplary damages in relation to the condition of the premises. Those claims are dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason the tenant’s name is suppressed as sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5318563 — net $1,228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 45	$1,200.00	Section 45
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,228.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,228.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Jian Zhang must pay [The tenant/s] $1,228.00 immediately.

All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
There were two hearings, the first on 21 November 2025 and the second on 30 January 2026.
The tenancy began on 5 December 2024 and ended on 25 January 2026.
The tenant applied for a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards, compensation in relation to water payments, property loss and for a rent reduction. The tenant also applied for exemplary damages.
The tenancy agreement signed by the parties on 5 December 2024 did not include a statement relating to Healthy Homes standard compliance as required by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 1 .
The landlord provided a statement after the tenancy commenced which was signed by the landlord on 20 February 2025.
Even though the statement signed by the landlord records that the tenancy complied with the Healthy Homes standards at the start of the tenancy, there is evidence that it did not comply with all the standards.
The date for compliance with Healthy Homes Standards varies depending on when the tenancy commenced. For this tenancy, and any other tenancy started or renewed between 28 August 2022 and 2 March 2025, there must be compliance within 120 days of the start of the tenancy. Therefore, the compliance date for this tenancy is 4 April 2025.
The landlord produced a Healthy Homes Inspection report prepared by Panda Solutions. The inspection date for that report was 1 December 2025. The report concluded that on the inspection date the premises was non-compliant in relation to insulation and draught stopping.
Under section 45, a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Smoke alarms
The Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 require that there is one qualifying smoke alarm installed in the sleeping place or within three metres of the entrance to the sleeping place. The Regulations define “sleeping place” as “a space that is for use, or that can reasonably be expected to be used, as a bedroom or other sleeping space.”
At the first hearing the tenant submitted that there was only one smoke alarm that was not within three metres of the bedrooms, and it was expired. 1 Section 13A(1CA)
The Tribunal directed for the landlord to urgently address this issue after the first hearing.
At the second hearing the landlord reported that two smoke alarms had been installed at the premises one to two days after the first hearing. The landlord produced a photograph of the installed smoke alarms and the packaging for the smoke alarms that were purchased.
The landlord had not complied with the regulations related to the smoke alarms from the beginning of the tenancy until 23 November 2025. The period of noncompliance was between 4 April 2025 and 23 November 2025, a period of seven months. Ground moisture barrier
HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The landlord confirmed in the Healthy Homes statement that the ground moisture barrier had been installed. This was not correct. There was no ground moisture barrier at the premises on the day that the statement was completed and signed 2 .
At the hearing the landlord said that she learnt that there was no ground moisture barrier on 20 February 2025 when she attended at the premises for repairs and noticed that it was not there. This was the same day as the statement was signed. The landlord did not mention to the tenant that the ground moisture barrier had not been installed and that there was an error in the statement.
The landlord said that she thought all the insulation had been installed in 2019 when a company was employed to install ceiling and underfloor insulation.
The landlord arranged for the ground moisture barrier to be installed and that was completed on 28 April 2025.
The landlord had not complied with the Healthy Homes moisture and ingress standard in relation to the ground moisture barrier from 4 April 2025 until 28 April 2025, which was a period of noncompliance less than one month. Insulation and draught stopping 2 20 February 2025
The Healthy Homes report referred to above recorded that the ceiling insulation and draught stopping (unreasonable gaps) was non-compliant. The landlord produced evidence that these issues were rectified on 4 December 2025.
The landlord had not complied with the Healthy Homes insulation standard and draught stopping standard from 4 April 2025 until 4 December 2025, an eight- month period.
The landlord was aware of the requirement to comply with the Healthy Homes standards but only referred to compliance with the insulation standard in 2019 and not the other standards. The landlord knew that the premises did not comply with regard to the ground moisture barrier even though the statement recorded otherwise on 20 February 2025.
The lack of compliance with the Healthy Homes standards had a negative impact on the tenant and it is in the public interest that landlords comply with the standards. On the evidence I consider that exemplary damages of $1,200.00 in relation to the Healthy Homes standards is reasonable. Water
The tenant sought compensation in relation to weekly payment for water. The tenancy agreement records weekly rent of $725.00 with an amendment that it included water. The tenant submitted that the property was advertised for $700.00 per week but when signing the tenancy agreement, the landlords asked for $725.00 per week on the basis that water was inclusive.
There are two properties with a shared water meter which is why the landlord could not charge the tenant for water 3 and instead the cost of water would need to be inclusive.
The tenant produced a screen shot from a website which states that the property was listed for rent on 4 November 2024 at $700.00 per week. This is not the actual advertisement relied on by the tenant.
After signing the tenancy agreement, the tenant considered that she was paying $25.00 extra per week for water and thought it was excessive. She asked the landlord to see the water invoices to check on the amount of water used.
The legally binding rent is the amount agreed to and signed in the tenancy agreement - in this case $725.00 including water. The screenshot produced by the tenant is not sufficient evidence of the advertised rent amount but even if it were the rent of $700.00 is not enforceable if both parties knowingly agreed to the higher amount at signing, especially with the inclusion of water as an extra.
The tenant’s claim in respect of compensation for water is dismissed. 3 Section 39(4)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 Tenant property disposed of
The tenant claimed compensation for the landlord disposing of property belonging to the tenant.
The tenant stored some items under the house in a box. The tenant said that the box contained the lid for her Karcher steamer, tools, solar lights and shade sails. The tenant did not produce any evidence of value for these items.
In an email dated 22 April 2025 the landlord advised the tenant they were coming to clean the basement and fix the spouting from 10am on 28 April 2025. This is when the ground moisture barrier was likely installed. In a further email dated 30 April 2025 the landlord emailed the tenant and said “there was some stuff in the basement that looked like yours. We have left them in the basement.”
On 12 May 2025 the tenant emailed the landlord stating, “there are a lot of things that belonged to me that I had safely stored under the house that are no longer there from when you installed the ground moisture barrier last week..” The landlord replied on the same day stating, “2 weeks ago, when we were taking rubbish away from the basement, we found some stuff, such as a mower, vacuum, water blaster, plaster box, black bag etc., which looke...them in the basement. We emailed and told you this on 30/4/2025.” (some of the email is not readable due to the page not displaying it in its entirety)
The tenant said at the hearing that she was unwell when the landlord came to clean the basement so had not removed her belongings that were stored there.
While it is possible that some items belonging to the tenant were mistakenly considered rubbish by the landlord, there is insufficient evidence to support what was missing and the value of any items. For this reason, it is not possible to determine what if any compensation should be awarded to the tenant.
The tenant’s claim for compensation for missing items is dismissed. Other claims
The tenant claims a refund of rent paid and exemplary damages due to substandard living conditions. The tenant did not prove on the balance of probabilities that she is entitled to either a rent refund or exemplary damages in relation to the condition of the premises. Those claims are dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason the tenant’s name is suppressed as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5318563 — Exemplary damages at 13A Tiraumea Drive, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5318563 — Exemplary damages at 13A Tiraumea Drive, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions