What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5321643 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 5321643?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: GST: $5,028.21 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Section 45: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $6,604.76 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5321643?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5321643?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13147417-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5321643 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 5321643?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: GST: $5,028.21 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Section 45: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $6,604.76 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5321643?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5321643?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13147417-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

68 New North Road, Eden Terrace, Auckland 1021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5321643 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5321643 — net $3,023.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$6,604.76		Rent arrears
Cleaning	$500.00		Cleaning
Compensation: GST		$5,028.21	GST
Exemplary damages: Section 18		$750.00	Section 18
Exemplary damages: Section 19		$750.00	Section 18
Compensation: Section 45		$3,600.00	Section 45
Total award	$7,104.76	$10,128.21
Net award		$3,023.45
Bond		$3,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,023.45

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5321643 — net $3,023.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$6,604.76		Rent arrears
Cleaning	$500.00		Cleaning
Compensation: GST		$5,028.21	GST
Exemplary damages: Section 18		$750.00	Section 18
Exemplary damages: Section 19		$750.00	Section 18
Compensation: Section 45		$3,600.00	Section 45
Total award	$7,104.76	$10,128.21
Net award		$3,023.45
Bond		$3,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,023.45

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Summit Holdings Akl Limited Melissa He must pay [The tenant/s] $3,023.45 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

I first heard this matter on 29 September 2025. That hearing was confined to the issue of jurisdiction. At that hearing I determined that the tenancy at 68 New North Road was a residential tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies. The matter was then adjourned for hearing of the substantive issues raised in the tenant’s application.
Since that time, the respondent landlord has filed a cross-application. The matter was heard in full on 29 January 2026.
This order is to be read together with my decision dated 29 September 2025. Certain defences advanced by the landlord rely on matters already determined in that earlier decision. It is therefore unnecessary to revisit those issues in detail. The Landlords application:
The landlord submits that the tenancy was a commercial tenancy. However, in light of the previous finding that the agreement remained a fixed-term residential tenancy, the landlord asks that I find the tenants abandoned the premises without lawful justification, and seeks the following awards. a) $22,483.34 for rent arrears to 30 January 2026; b) $500.00 for cleaning costs; c) $348.25 for unpaid water charges; d) $1,000.00 for breach of s 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (alleged prevention of the landlord’s lawful entry to the premises). The tenants application:
The tenants tell me that the landlord, by their conduct, induced them to enter into the tenancy. They say the premises were not fit for residential occupation, that there were numerous breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and that they were left with no reasonable alternative but to vacate the tenancy.
They are seeking the following orders: a) Refund of bond: $4,117.00; b) Refund of GST: $3,968.00; c) Interest on bond not lodged: $137.23; d) Rent refund: $6,080.00; e) $2,000.00 for case preparation costs; f) $1,500.00 for breach of s 19 (failure to lodge the bond); g) $1,500.00 for breach of s 18 (bond exceeding four weeks’ rent); h) $7,200.00 for breach of s 45 (alleged non-compliance with Healthy Homes standards and smoke alarm requirements); i) $4,500.00 for breaches of ss 38 and 48 (harassment and unlawful entry); j) $2,700.00 for breaches of ss 13 and 137 (failure to provide a written tenancy agreement, alleged misrepresentations inducing entry into the tenancy, and alleged contracting out of the Act). Factual determinations about the landlords culpability:
The landlord and the tenant have provided alternative narratives about the circumstances of this tenancy. The tenant alleges the landlord induced them by misrepresentation to enter the tenancy, while the landlord told me she rented the property as a commercial tenancy for the operation of an art gallery.
The landlord works within the property sector as a commercial sales agent and is familiar with leasing arrangements and the distinction between residential and commercial tenancies. In those circumstances, the use of a commercial agreement for premises advertised and occupied as a residence is suspect.
The property was advertised by the landlord, Melissa He on behalf of Summit Holdings on [Online platform] as a place to live and was in fact occupied as a residence, photos on the listing show a bed and clothing in the rooms. The platform itself is directed to residential landlords and provides guidance intended to assist compliance with the Act. Despite this, the landlord stated she had no intention to find residential tenants and asked the tenants to enter a commercial lease.
The landlord also relied on a Tenancy Services property inspection report dated and signed the 1 st of February 2025 to substantiate claims made during the hearing about the condition of the property. This was reflective of how the landlord approached evidence during the hearing, using particular evidence to substantiate a particular position which later contradicted her assertions in relation to other submissions.
Melissa He’s conduct during the hearing reinforced my concerns about the completeness and candour of aspects of her evidence. Matters arose suggesting the landlord was receiving real-time assistance from her husband, who is a lawyer, without the Tribunal being advised. The fact of assistance is not itself an issue, had leave been sought I would have permitted his attendance as a support person, however the behaviour supported the narrative that the tenants put forward that her conduct was not transparent.
While this did not determine any individual issue, it informed my overall assessment of reliability. It did not prevent findings being made in the landlord’s favour where supported by evidence, including in relation to rent arrears. Knowledge of the Residential Tenancies Act and intention
The landlord maintained she believed the tenancy was commercial and therefore did not consider or think that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applied. A genuine lack of knowledge may in some circumstances be relevant to intention. However, the law distinguishes between absence of knowledge and deliberate avoidance of knowledge.
I have reached the view, that for the

Reasons

I have mentioned above that on the balance of probabilities the landlord was aware this was a residential tenancy to which the RTA applied. However, for completeness I have considered what would change if the landlord’s assertion that they did not know was bona fide.

In R v Crooks [1981] 2 NZLR 53 (CA), the Court of Appeal confirmed that wilful blindness, where a person suspects a relevant state of affairs but deliberately refrains from inquiry satisfies the requirement of knowledge. A party who consciously avoids confirming what is obvious is treated in law as knowing it.
Applied in the present context, the question is not merely whether the landlord knew the Act applied, but whether she turned her mind to the possibility that it applied and deliberately avoided confirmation while proceeding inconsistently with it. Where a landlord advertises premises for residential occupation, provides them for living purposes, and operates within the property industry, the statutory framework governing residential tenancies is an obvious and foreseeable legal regime.
The District Court has considered the meaning of “intentionally” in a number of decisions, referring to the following formulation: “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.” 1
On its face, this phrase suggests a party must deliberately set about breaching the Act. However, later appellate decisions clarify that intention does not require conscious wrongdoing in the sense of knowing conduct is unlawful. 1 Edmondson v Walls North Shore [1993] NZTT, 548/92, 29 June 1993 at para [38]
The District Court has held that a party cannot avoid intention by claiming ignorance of the law: “Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.” 2
In Rawstone v Westside Management Limited T/A Quinovic, after reference to Noble v Simons [2019] NZHC 3242, the Court held a mistaken belief about legal entitlement is irrelevant to intention.
These authorities establish that, where a statutory duty exists, deliberate performance of the act that constitutes the breach is sufficient to establish intention even if the party believes the conduct lawful. Intention relates to the doing of the act, not appreciation of its unlawfulness.
This analysis informs my assessment in this order whether the landlord “turned their mind to the Act and deliberately carried it out”. Breach of section 137 RTA - evasion of the Act
For these reasons I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord was aware that the RTA applied to this tenancy, but framed the agreement as a commercial lease as a ploy to evade and defeat the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, including obligations relating to bond limits, Healthy Homes standards, and other statutory protections. The surrounding conduct, including reliance on both residential and commercial terminology depending on what advantaged her at the particular time, supports that inference.
This is in breach of s 137(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which provides that no person shall enter into any arrangement, or do anything, for the purpose or effect of defeating, evading, or preventing the operation of the Act. Whether the breach constitutes an unlawful act (s 137(2))
Section 137 RTA provides: 2 TMT Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 [37] (2) Requiring any person to enter into any transaction, or to make any contract or arrangement, in contravention of subsection (1) is hereby declared to be an unlawful act.
While I find the landlord did induce the tenants to sign the commercial agreement in breach of s 137(1), subsection (2) requires that the person be required to enter the arrangement before exemplary damages may be considered. To ‘require’ means the act must be necessary, essential, or compulsory.
To meet that threshold the tenants would need to show they had little or no real choice in entering into the agreement. That was not the case. Although the tenants indicated it occurred to them the arrangement was unusual, they were persuaded by the landlord’s minimisation of their concerns when she told them it was “same same”. Tenants should conduct due diligence before entering contractual arrangements and satisfy themselves the agreement they sign reflects the terms agreed. It would have been prudent for them to seek advice from Tenancy Services. Section 13 RTA
The tenants also asked me to find the landlord committed an unlawful act in breach of s 13 requiring provision of a tenancy agreement in writing. Although the agreement was not in the form of a residential tenancy agreement, it was nevertheless in writing. Accordingly, the requirements of s 109 for consideration of exemplary damages are not met.

What should happen in respect to the GST that was charged?

At the commencement of the tenancy, the parties agreed to rent of $826.00 plus GST as recoded in the agreement. GST is a tax collected on behalf of Inland Revenue on transactions to which the Goods and Services Tax regime applies.
In my earlier decision, I directed the parties to file submissions on this issue. The tenants submit that residential rent is not subject to GST and seek a refund of the GST charged. The landlord maintains that this was a commercial tenancy and that GST was therefore properly charged. As already determined, the characterisation of the arrangement as “commercial” was adopted to avoid compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. I have found that this was a residential tenancy to which the Act applies.
The landlord further submits that the “true” commercial rent was $950.00. However, the written agreement records rent of $826.00 plus GST. Those are the terms agreed and recorded, and they must be assessed as such. I accept the landlord intended the actual rent to be $950.00 but framed it in that way to support the ruse of this being a commercial arrangement.
The landlord relies on three Tribunal decisions in support of the proposition that the Tribunal should not interfere with the GST component of rent.
The first is Tanner v Archibald (4394082). The landlord submits that, although the Tribunal found the Residential Tenancies Act applied, it accepted rent inclusive of GST. That submission mischaracterises the decision. In an earlier hearing relating to the same tenancy, the Tribunal found that GST was not payable because it did not apply to residential tenancies. In a later hearing, new evidence was provided concerning commercial accommodation providers such as hotels or motels offering long-term accommodation, and their GST obligations. The present landlord’s operation is not analogous to a hotel, motel, or commercial accommodation provider of that nature. That decision does not establish that a landlord may charge GST in addition to agreed residential rent.
The second decision relied upon is None v Bond (4552609). The landlord submits that the Tribunal held that rent described as “plus GST” was of no concern to the tenants. That submission also mischaracterises the decision. The comment relied upon was made in the context of determining whether the tenancy was commercial or residential, and concerned the evidential relevance of advertising language. It was not a determination that GST charged on residential rent is irrelevant to tenants.
The third decision relied upon is None v Reid (4324086). That case concerned termination of the tenancy. The applicability of GST was not in question, and the Tribunal did not determine whether GST was properly chargeable. It does not support the conclusion the landlord is asserting that it does.
While parties are generally free to contract, contractual terms cannot override statutory obligations. The agreement records rent of $826.00 with GST added. GST is not retained for the benefit of the supplier; it is collected on behalf of Inland Revenue and only in respect of taxable supplies. Residential rent is not a taxable supply.
Inland Revenue’s Tax Information Bulletin, Volume 6, Number 5 (November 1994) states that where GST has been incorrectly charged, the matter is between the supplier and the customer, and Inland Revenue is unable to refund GST incorrectly charged. The guidance directs customers to seek a refund from the supplier. It further provides that if a supplier refunds GST before filing the relevant GST return, the adjustment may be included in that return, and if the GST has already been accounted for, the return may be reassessed to correct the error.
Section 78(1)(g) further provides that 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). This order as stated above finds that this tenancy was induced by misrepresentation and as such setting aside the GST charged is supported is within the tribunals jurisdiction.
This position is further supported by Section 137(4) which also provides that money paid and the value of any other consideration for the tenancy provided by the tenant (not being rent lawfully recoverable by the landlord), shall be recoverable as a debt due to the tenant or prospective purchaser by the landlord.
The GST charged in this case was incorrectly applied. It was purportedly collected on a transaction to which GST does not apply and is therefore not lawfully payable by the tenants.
Accordingly, the GST charged must be refunded to the tenants. Any rectification required with Inland Revenue, if GST has in fact been returned, is a matter for the landlord.
The total rent paid was $26,916.66. Adding the rent arrears of $6,604.76, the total rent assessed under the agreement is $33,521.42.
Fifteen percent of that amount is $5,028.21. In the absence of a rent summary that reflects the true rent of $826.00 per week this is the most efficient manner for calculating the amount owing.
$5,028.21 is awarded to the tenants.
Any adjustment required with Inland Revenue is a matter for the landlord.

When did the tenancy end, and are any rent arrears owing?

On 5 August 2025, the tenants gave notice that they intended to vacate the premises on 28 September 2025. The tenants say this decision was prompted by breaches they had identified in relation to the tenancy. The landlord says the tenants had already decided to leave for other reasons and that they did not provide any opportunity to remedy the matters later relied upon.
I accept the landlord’s position on this point. The conduct of the tenants indicates that they had formed an intention to move out irrespective of the breaches later relied upon. At least some of the tenants have since relocated to Australia. While the issues raised in their correspondence with the landlord may have contributed to their decision, I find that those matters were only part of the motivation for bringing the tenancy to an end at that time.
As outlined in the earlier order, the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is concerned with the substance of the agreement rather than its form. Where an agreement purports to contract out of the Act, the Tribunal must consider the wider factual matrix to determine the true nature of the arrangement. Although I have found that this was a residential tenancy to which the Act applies, the associated commercial documentation assists in identifying the parties’ intentions. In particular, it indicates that the parties contemplated occupation continuing until 30 January 2026.
I therefore find that this was a fixed-term tenancy ending on the 30 th of January 2026.
In those circumstances, the appropriate course for the tenants, if relying on breach, would have been to issue a 14-day notice to remedy and allow the landlord an opportunity to address the matters raised.
Parties to a fixed-term tenancy are bound by the agreed term. In limited and unforeseen circumstances, a party may apply to the Tribunal for early termination on the basis of hardship. Even where such relief is granted, liability for rent commonly continues until a replacement tenant is secured, together with reasonable re-letting costs and any other losses attributable to the early termination.
The starting point, therefore, is that the tenancy continued until 30 January 2026 unless ended earlier in accordance with the Act.
Accordingly I find the tenants notice to be of no effect, however I do not consider it to be abandonment. The evidence confirmed the tenants returned possession to the landlord. They remained liable for rent but their departure cannot be properly construed as abandonment.
Section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires both landlord and tenant to take reasonable steps to mitigate loss, including where a fixed-term tenancy ends early. In practice, this requires reasonable steps to re-let the premises as soon as practicable. If a lower rent is achieved for the balance of the term, the difference may be recoverable.
The tenants submitted that the landlord re-tenanted the property shortly after they vacated. They relied on screenshots from the publicly available profile page of an entity known as TBC Radio, which describes its studio address as 68 New North Road, Eden Terrace. Posts dated 25 November 2025, 20 December 2025, and 28 January 2026 were also produced indicating TBC radios occupation of 68 New North Road.
I invited the landlord to respond to this submission and to provide any contrary evidence. No response was received.
In the absence of any contrary evidence, I accept the tenants’ submission that the premises had been re-tenanted and were in use by 12 October 2025. It is reasonable to infer that possession was taken some days earlier to allow installation of studio and recording equipment. I therefore find that the tenancy effectively ended on 5 October 2025.
The landlord produced a rent summary showing arrears to 3 October 2025 in the amount of $6,333.34. I am satisfied that this summary is accurate. The summary includes GST charges; I make no finding in respect of GST at this stage, as that issue is addressed separately later in this decision.
The tenants referred to their own calculations, which incorporated the bond. The landlord lodged $3,800.00 of the bond with the Bond Centre. The remaining $316.66 paid as bond is reflected in the rent summary. The bond is therefore fully accounted for and is addressed separately.
The arrears to 3 October 2025 are $6,333.34. I add two further days’ rent of $271.42, resulting in total rent arrears of $6,604.76 as at 5 October 2025.
$6,604.76 is awarded for rent arrears. Do the tenants owe anything for water?, how much?
The landlord claims $348.25 in outstanding water charges.
For the Tribunal to properly assess such a claim, a clear and itemised summary of water usage is required. Not all charges appearing on a water invoice are recoverable from a tenant. In particular, fixed charges are not payable by a tenant unless expressly permitted by the Act. Even on the invoices produced, it is unclear how the figure of $348.25 has been calculated.
The landlord accepts that fixed charges were passed on to the tenants during the tenancy, for which the tenants are not liable. In those circumstances, and in the absence of a detailed breakdown separating fixed and variable components, the amount properly owing cannot be determined from the landlord’s evidence.
The onus of proof rests with the landlord in respect of this claim. That onus has not been met. I invited the landlord to provide further submissions and clarification of the calculation relied upon, but no further information was provided within time.
Accordingly, the claim is dismissed.

Are the tenants liable for the cleaning costs?

The landlord alleges the tenants breached s 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which requires a tenant, at the end of the tenancy, to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition.
The landlord has provided photographs taken at the conclusion of the tenancy. The photographs indicate that further cleaning was required. Of particular note is the photograph of the oven, which shows a level of grime and residue beyond what could reasonably be described as clean.
A tenant is not required to return the premises to a professionally or commercially cleaned standard; the statutory requirement is one of reasonableness. On the evidence before me, I am satisfied the premises, and in particular the oven, were not left in a reasonably clean condition.
I therefore find the tenants breached their obligation under s 40(1)(e)(iii).
The landlord claims $500.00 for cleaning. An invoice for this amount has been provided and I am satisfied the amount claimed was incurred.
$500.00 for cleaning costs is awarded.

Did the landlord enter without notice, and did the tenants prevent entry?

On 5 August 2025, the tenants gave notice that they intended to end the tenancy on 25 September 2025. In that notice they raised concerns regarding compliance with the Healthy Homes standards and other issues with the property. Those matters are addressed elsewhere in this decision.
In response, the landlord issued a notice stating that entry was required for urgent maintenance. The tenants objected. It is unclear whether that inspection ultimately proceeded.
On 18 August 2025, a further notice of inspection was issued for entry on 20 August. The tenants requested that the inspection occur during the weekend so they could be present. The inspection nevertheless proceeded at the notified time.
On 27 August 2025, the landlord sent a text message advising that an electrician would attend the property. The tenants sought further details, including the identity of the contractor. Those details were not provided and the tenants refused entry.
On 8 September 2025, notice was given that contractors would attend on 10 September, apparently for the installation of insulation. The tenants refused entry. However, they have produced evidence that entry was nonetheless obtained and work was carried out.
On 14 September 2025, further text messages were sent advising of additional inspections and entry for maintenance and compliance purposes. The tenants objected. Despite that objection, the landlord entered the property.
The factual accounts of the parties do not materially differ. The dispute centres on characterisation. The tenants allege the landlord’s notices were deficient and that the repeated entries amounted to harassment. The landlord alleges the tenants unlawfully barred access.
During this period the landlord was proceeding on the basis that the tenancy was governed by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, as reflected in the issuing of notices and steps taken toward Healthy Homes compliance. By this stage the tenants had also indicated an intention to pursue proceedings in the Tenancy Tribunal.
Both parties seek exemplary damages. The Tribunal must therefore consider whether the conduct relied upon was intentional and sufficiently serious to justify a punitive award. Tenants’ claim of harassment (s 38)
The tenants submit that the repeated inspections and entries amounted to harassment within the meaning of s 38.
I do not accept that threshold is met. Although the landlord’s actions were repeated and at times lacking in clarity and sensitivity, the evidence indicates the entries were undertaken for the purpose of carrying out insulation works and achieving Healthy Homes compliance. While some notices were informal and imperfect in form, they generally met the minimum statutory requirements.
In those circumstances, the conduct cannot properly be characterised as harassment for the purposes of s 38. Exemplary damages are not warranted on this basis. Landlord’s claim of prevention of entry (s 48)
The landlord seeks exemplary damages under s 48 on the basis the tenants intentionally prevented lawful entry.
The evidence shows ongoing engagement between the parties. On some occasions inspections were rescheduled by agreement. On other occasions the landlord proceeded with entry notwithstanding the tenants’ objections, and in some instances remained longer than the period specified in the notice.
In that context, the tenants’ refusals particularly where reasonable requests for information were not addressed do not amount to deliberate or serious conduct of the kind contemplated by s 48 for the purposes of exemplary damages. Was the landlord in breach of their obligation in respect to smoke alarms and the Healthy Homes standards?
The tenants allege multiple breaches of s 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), namely: a) Failure to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016; b) Failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards 2019 (heating, ventilation and draught-stopping); c) Failure to comply with the smoke alarm requirements under s 45(1)(ba).
A breach of these provisions constitutes an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded (Schedule 1A RTA).
The landlord’s primary response is that the arrangement was a commercial tenancy and the statutory requirements did not apply.
That position has already been determined. I have found this was a residential tenancy governed by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. In an earlier decision I also found the characterisation of the agreement as “commercial” was adopted in an attempt to avoid the obligations imposed by the Act. The Act prohibits contracting out. Accordingly, that submission does not provide a legal defence to non-compliance.
The tenants allege a breach of s 45(1)(ba) by failing to comply with the smoke alarm standards, which require alarms within three metres of each bedroom. The landlord has provided a pre inspection report which has the relevant box ticked indicating that smoke alarms were present. The tenant suggested they couldn’t remember signing the form but never the less confirmed it was their signature. In relying on this evidence I find that on the balance of probabilities there were smoke alarms present.
The tenants say there was no qualifying fixed heating source as required under the Healthy Homes heating standard.
The landlord relied on the compliance report dated 17 September 2025. The photographs show the installed heat pump was new at the time of inspection, consistent with the tenants’ evidence that no compliant heating source existed during the earlier period of the tenancy.
I am satisfied the heating standard was not met during the tenancy prior to that date.
The tenants produced photographs showing gaps at the top and bottom of two external doors. The landlord did not specifically address these allegations, relying only on the later compliance report.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the premises did not comply with the draught-stopping standard during the tenancy prior to remedial works being undertaken.
The tenants also allege the premises were not insulated to the minimum standard required by the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
The compliance certificate dated 17 September 2025 again indicates that compliance was only achieved late in the tenancy. Taken together with the timing of the works just prior to the tenants vacating for the purpose of installing insulation and heating and the other remedial upgrades undertaken, I am satisfied the insulation requirements were not met until the last month of the tenancy. Exemplary damages
The Healthy Homes standards minimum public health and safety obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Breaches of these provisions are designated unlawful acts. Exemplary damages are punitive and intended to mark the Tribunal’s disapproval of conduct (Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] 1 NZLR 732).
Exemplary damages require intention. In Birch v Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust CIV-2018-009-002094 [2020] NZDC 17667, applying Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls, the Court confirmed the decision-maker must be satisfied the party turned their mind to the act and deliberately carried it out. Intention in this context does not require proof the landlord knew the conduct was unlawful; it is sufficient that the acts causing the breach were done deliberately.
I have earlier found the landlord intentionally structured the tenancy as commercial in order to avoid the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The same course of conduct explains the failure to meet minimum housing standards. The non-compliance was not independent oversight but a foreseeable consequence of treating the tenancy as outside the statutory regime. I therefore find the unlawful acts were intentional.
The landlord knowingly provided residential premises while proceeding on the basis that the statutory obligations did not apply. In that context, the absence of compliant heating, insulation, and draught-stopping arose from a decision to avoid the cost and burden of compliance rather than inadvertence. This represents a deliberate departure from statutory obligations.
For most of the tenancy the premises did not meet minimum standards. The tenants were deprived of the protections guaranteed by the Act and occupied cold and draughty premises until late remedial works were undertaken. Compliance only occurred after the tenancy position was challenged.
There is a strong public interest in ensuring landlords comply with minimum housing standards. Allowing landlords to delay compliance until challenged would undermine the preventative purpose of the minimum standards regime and the integrity of the residential tenancy framework.
I assess the unlawful acts cumulatively as part of one continuing course of non- compliant conduct rather than isolated technical breaches. The premises were non-compliant for most of the tenancy and compliance was achieved only late. The conduct is more serious than careless non-compliance but not at the most extreme level where a landlord refuses to remedy defects after enforcement action.
The maximum exemplary damages available for these unlawful acts is prescribed by Schedule 1A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Taking into account the duration of the breaches, the intentional avoidance of obligations, the late remedial works, an award in the mid-range is proportionate to achieve denunciation and deterrence.
I award exemplary damages of $3,600.00 Rent reduction claim
The tenants claim $6,080.00, calculated as 20% of the GST-inclusive rent of $950.00 over 32 weeks.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 directs the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that ensures the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes.
The same underlying conduct forms the basis of the tenants’ claim for exemplary damages under s 45. In addition, I have determined that GST was incorrectly charged and must be refunded. In those circumstances, to make a further compensatory award calculated as a percentage of rent would amount to duplication.
While I have found that the landlord structured the tenancy in a manner designed to evade statutory obligations, the evidence also establishes that the tenants received the benefit of occupation of the premises and that the tenancy itself was desirable. The inconvenience suffered as a result of non-compliance is appropriately addressed in the overall relief granted.
This claim is therefore dismissed.

What is the status of the bond and where there breaches in relation to it?

On 20 January 2025, during negotiations for the tenancy agreement, the tenant queried whether the agreed bond of $3,800.00 included GST. That inquiry appears to have prompted the landlord to reconsider the bond calculation. Adopting an approach more consistent with a commercial tenancy, she altered the bond from four weeks’ rent to the equivalent of one month’s rent.
The landlord calculated the revised figure by dividing $3,800.00 by four (to obtain a weekly amount), multiplying that figure by 52 (to obtain an annual sum), and then dividing by 12 (to obtain a monthly equivalent). This calculation produced $4,116.66. The landlord then rounded that amount to $4,117.00.
She advised the tenants that the GST-exclusive amount was $3,579.71 and that, with GST added, the total payable was $4,116.66, rounded to $4,117.00.
Following the hearing on 23 September 2025, I directed that the bond be lodged immediately with the Bond Centre. The landlord subsequently lodged $3,800.00. The remaining $316.66 paid by the tenants was credited to the tenants in the rent summary.
The bond is by default the property of the tenant held by the bond centre for the security of both parties. In this case it is now fully accounted for and its allocation is accorded for in the order table of this order and the rent summary as per above. S18 Claim for Exemplary damages
The tenants claim the landlord required a bond exceeding four weeks’ rent.
A landlord must not require a bond greater than four weeks’ rent (s 18(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). Breach of this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $1,500 may be awarded (s 18(4) and Schedule 1A RTA).
Where an unlawful act is intentional, exemplary damages may be awarded having regard to the matters set out in s 109(3).
I accept the landlord intended rent to be $950 per week, which would have permitted a lawful bond of $3,800. The tenancy agreement instead recorded rent of $826 per week, permitting a lawful bond of $3,304. The landlord required payment of $4,116.66, calculated as a monthly figure plus GST. Whatever description was used, the tenants were required to provide security exceeding four weeks’ rent.
I have already found the landlord deliberately treated the tenancy as commercial in order to avoid the Act. The excess bond arose from that same approach. The calculation was deliberate, not accidental, and therefore intentional for the purposes of s 109. The effect was to require the tenants to provide additional upfront funds beyond the statutory limit, conferring a financial advantage on the landlord and reducing the protection the Act guarantees tenants at the commencement of a tenancy. There is a strong public interest in maintaining the integrity of these protections which reflect the relatively weaker position of a tenant when negotiating for a place to live.
Balancing denunciation and deterrence with proportionality, an award at the mid-range is appropriate.
I award exemplary damages of $750.00. S19 claim for exemplary damages
The tenants also claim the landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must lodge a bond within 23 working days after receipt (s 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). Breach is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $1,500 may be awarded (s 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA).
The bond was not lodged until after Tribunal direction on 29 September. This followed the landlord’s position that the tenancy was not governed by the Act. For the reasons already given, the omission was deliberate rather than inadvertent and therefore intentional.
The tenants were deprived of the protection of independent holding of the bond during that period, exposing them to risk the statutory scheme is designed to avoid. There is a clear public interest in prompt lodgement, as the bond system depends on compliance to operate effectively.
However, the bond was eventually lodged and there is no suggestion of permanent loss or misuse of the funds. The breach persisted but was remedied once the Tribunal intervened.
Taking these matters together, a mid-range award appropriately recognises the intentional nature of the breach while remaining proportionate. I award exemplary damages of $750.00. Interest on non-lodged bond
The tenants claim $137.23 representing interest they say the landlord earned by failing to lodge the bond.
The Tribunal does not ordinarily award interest in these circumstances. The failure to lodge the bond is more appropriately addressed by way of exemplary damages. No separate award is made for interest. Costs:
The tenants claim $2,000.00 for preparation of their application.
The Tribunal does not award costs for case preparation. Each party bears their own costs of bringing proceedings.
The same approach is appropriate in respect of the filing fee. Each party has had some success and will bear the cost of their filing fee. Suppression:
Both parties seek suppression under s 95A. I am satisfied the tenants have been substantially successful in their application, and suppression of their names is appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord has, however, been found in this order to have deliberately acted to evade and defeat the provisions of the Act, with further breaches arising from that conduct. In those circumstances, the public interest in publication of the decision outweighs any interest the landlord may have in suppression. Suppression in respect of the landlord is therefore declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5321643 — Exemplary damages at 68 New North Road, Eden Terrace, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5321643 — Exemplary damages at 68 New North Road, Eden Terrace, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What should happen in respect to the GST that was charged?

When did the tenancy end, and are any rent arrears owing?

Are the tenants liable for the cleaning costs?

Did the landlord enter without notice, and did the tenants prevent entry?

What is the status of the bond and where there breaches in relation to it?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What should happen in respect to the GST that was charged?

When did the tenancy end, and are any rent arrears owing?

Are the tenants liable for the cleaning costs?

Did the landlord enter without notice, and did the tenants prevent entry?

What is the status of the bond and where there breaches in relation to it?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions