What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5327689 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 5327689?

Compensation: Failure to comply with…: $1,980.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain gi…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain ho…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327689?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13636854-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5327689 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 5327689?

Compensation: Failure to comply with…: $1,980.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain gi…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain ho…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327689?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13636854-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

275 Wairere Road, Waitakere, RD 2, Auckland 0782 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5327689 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

275 Wairere Road, Waitakere, RD 2, Auckland 0782 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5327689 — 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 5327689 — net $5,558.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide healthy homes compliance statement	$250.00	22. Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $250.00 in exemplary damages.
Compensation: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards	$1,980.00	Failure to comply with healthy homes standards
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards	$2,400.00	40. Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $2,400.00 in exemplary damages.
Compensation: Failure to maintain hole in bathroom floor	$300.00	Failure to maintain hole in bathroom floor
Compensation: Failure to maintain gib board over hot water cupboard	$300.00	Failure to maintain gib board over hot water cupboard
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$300.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,558.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,558.00

Claims and awards for application 5327689 — net $5,558.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages: Failure to provide healthy homes compliance statement

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 22. Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $250.00 in exemplary damages.

Compensation: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards

Amount: $1,980.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards

Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards

Amount: $2,400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 40. Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $2,400.00 in exemplary damages.

Compensation: Failure to maintain hole in bathroom floor

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain hole in bathroom floor

Compensation: Failure to maintain gib board over hot water cupboard

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The parties agree that the tenant may collect their goods left behind at the end of the tenancy at 12:00pm, Saturday 30 May 2026, from the top of the driveway.
Roger Ward must pay [The tenant/s] $5,558.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 11 May 2026. The landlord was represented by Geraldine Ward.
The premises are a small cottage located on the same piece of land as the landlord’s main home. The tenancy began on 8 September 2024 and the tenant paid rent of $460.00 per week. No bond was paid. The landlord is an elderly couple who managed the tenancy themselves.
The tenancy ended on 28 August 2025. The tenant claims they did not receive a healthy homes compliance statement, and the premises did not comply with the healthy homes standards. They also claim the premises were kept in a poor state of repair. They seek compensation and exemplary damages for these alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Before determining the tenant’s claims, 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. Compensation and exemplary damages – the law generally
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, distress, inconvenience and emotional suffering.
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.
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 1 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. 2 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 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. TENANT’S CLAIMS Did the landlord provide a healthy homes compliance statement with the tenancy agreement?
Section 13A(1CA) RTA states: The landlord must also include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, - (a) That, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply wit the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and (b) Including the information (if any) prescribed by the regulations under section 138B(5).
This kind of statement is commonly referred to as a “healthy homes compliance statement.”
A copy of the tenancy agreement was provided. It does not include healthy homes compliance statement. Therefore, I find the landlord breached section 13A(1CA) RTA.
Failure to comply with section 13A(1CA) RTA is an unlawful act, for which a maximum amount of $750.00 in exemplary damages may be ordered. 3
I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to provide a healthy homes compliance statement with the tenancy agreement. This is because no evidence proving any steps taken by the landlord to include such a statement was submitted. The fact that the landlord was not aware of their legal obligations is no defence. All landlords are expected to know and comply with their obligations under the RTA.
Taking the following matters into account, I find it just to order exemplary damages: 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 13A(1F)(a) & Schedule 1A. 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 purpose of providing a healthy homes compliance statement is to ensure that landlord’s turn their mind towards the need to comply with the healthy homes standard and that tenants are aware whether the premises meet the healthy homes standards. In this case, the landlord did not turn their mind to this issue at all and the tenant was unaware whether the premises complied. c. The public interest. Landlord’s should be deterred from failing to provide a healthy homes compliance statement with the tenancy agreement. Where no such statement is provided, it creates confusion and ambiguity as to whether the premises comply with the healthy homes standards. Parliament has enacted legislation requiring landlords to provide a heathy homes compliance statement and landlords need to understand the importance of complying with this requirement.
Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $250.00 in exemplary damages.

Did the premises comply with the healthy homes standards?

The law

Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards.
The healthy homes standards are found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (“HHS”). These provide a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in respect of insulation, heating, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture and drainage. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the premises did not comply with the healthy homes standards, because there was no insulation or extractor fan in the bathroom or kitchen. Further, they claim there were large gaps in the doors, which caused draughts, and the outdoor spouting was incomplete, which caused water to pool outside. The tenant also claims there was inadequate heating in the living room.
The tenant claims they asked the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy if the premises were insulated, and the landlord advised them that they were.
The tenant claims the carpet in the lounge was damp in winter, because the premises are built into a hill and there was no underfloor insulation. The tenant claims that their daughter visited the premises on one occasion and her socks got wet.
The landlord had the premises assessed to determined compliance with the healthy homes standards on 3 December 2025. They accept the outcome of the report means the premises did not comply with some aspects of the standards.
The landlord gave evidence that they were unaware of the need for the premises to comply with the healthy homes standards, because they believed the standards were aimed at premises tenanted by families, not single adults.
The landlord also said that if the tenant had advised them at the beginning of the tenancy of the need for the premises to comply with the healthy homes standards, the landlord would have taken steps to ensure compliance. Analysis
The tenancy began on 8 September 2024. Therefore, the landlord had until 6 January 2025, which is 120 days later, to comply with the healthy homes standards.
The landlord submitted a healthy homes assessment report completed by RentFit dated 3 December 2025. The report concludes that the premises do not comply with the following standards: a. Heating b. Ventilation c. Draught stopping
The report concludes that the premises are exempt from needing to comply with the insulation requirements. This is because the ceiling is a skillion ceiling and the underfloor joists are below 400mm, which means it is not safe to install insulation.
I accept the findings in the report and find the premises did not comply with the heating, ventilation or draught stopping requirements of the healthy homes standards.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach of section 45(1)(bb) RTA. Considering the following matters, I find $60.00 per week to be reasonable: a. Nature of the breach. Failure to comply with the healthy homes standards is a serious breach, as evidenced by the fact that the maximum amount of exemplary damages the Tribunal may order is $7,200.00. 4 I find the breach in this case to fall towards the middle of the spectrum in terms of seriousness. This is because the premises did not comply with three aspects of the healthy homes standards. 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) & Schedule 1A. b. Duration of the breach. The breach endured for 7.5 months, which is a relatively long period of time. c. Effect of the breach on the other party. The tenant claims the premises were very cold to live in during winter. I accept that lack of adequate heating, draughts and poor ventilation meant the premises were cold, especially in winter. I also accept that the coldness detracted from the amenity of the premises. I am not convinced the carpet was damp in the lounge, as claimed by the tenant. The tenant submitted a written document from their daughter claiming this was the case however, the tenant did not call the daughter as a witness to give evidence at the hearing. This means their daughter’s evidence could not be tested. Further, the healthy homes assessment report does not make any mention of the carpet being wet. In the absence of any supporting evidence, I am not convinced the carpet was damp.
There are approximately 33 weeks between 6 January 2025 and 28 August 2025. Therefore, the tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $1,980.00.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to comply with the healthy homes standards is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered. 5
I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to comply with the healthy homes standards. This is because the landlord did not take any steps to ensure compliance. The fact that the landlord was not aware or misunderstood their legal obligations is no defence. All landlords are expected to know and comply with their obligations under the RTA. The Tribunal cannot excuse a breach on the basis that the landlord did not know the law.
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. See paragraph [35(c)] above. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. The tenant has an interest in ensuring that premises rented to them are compliant with the healthy homes standards. d. The public interest. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords are deterred from failing to comply with the healthy homes standards. The healthy homes standards are designed to protect tenants and ensure that they live in warm, dry homes. 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) & Schedule 1A.
Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $2,400.00 in exemplary damages.

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

The law

Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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. 6
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. 7 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. 8
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 9
The tenant claims the landlord breached their obligations in relation to the following: a. Hole in the bathroom floor. b. Deteriorating skirting/gib board in the bathroom. Hole in the bathroom floor
The landlord completed some minor renovations to the bathroom before the tenancy began. An old vanity was removed, and a new one installed in a slightly different location. This resulted in a hole being left in one of the floor tiles in the bathroom where the pipe from the old vanity used to be. The landlord claims the plumber was supposed to put a bung in the hole but did not. 6 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 7 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 8 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 9 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
The landlord gave evidence that the floor tiles are granite, which made repairing the hole difficult, because special tools were needed.
The tenant claims the hole was covered by a bathmat and they only discovered it after the tenancy began. The tenant claims the hole went all the way to the underfloor and rats entered the premises through it.
The tenant claims they raised the issue with the landlord on 22 September 2024, but it was not fixed until after the tenancy had ended. The tenant claims the landlord put a piece of blue tape over the hole and covered it with a bathmat.
The landlord claims the hole was fixed around Christmas time in 2025 when some friends visited the landlord and helped them to fix it with the proper tools. Analysis
It is not normal for a bathroom floor to have a hole in it. For this reason, I find the bathroom floor was in a state of disrepair and required fixing.
I find the landlord became aware of the hole on 22 September 2024. The tenant submitted a copy of an email sent by them to the landlord on this date, raising the issue and asking for it be fixed.
I find the placing of blue tape over the hole to be an inadequate repair. The hole was not repaired by the end of the tenancy on 28 August 2025, approximately 11 months after the tenant’s email.
Photographs of the hole were submitted. It appears small – moderate in size, being approximately 5cm wide. The tenant claims it was 10cm however, no evidence of this was submitted, such as a photograph of a ruler measuring the hole.
I find a delay of 11 months to repair the hole to be unreasonable. For this reason, I find the landlord breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA.
The tenant seeks compensation for the breach. Considering the following factors, I find $300.00 to be reasonable. a. Nature of the breach. Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is a serious breach of the RTA, as evidenced by the fact that the maximum amount of exemplary damages the Tribunal may order is $7,200.00. 10 I find the breach in this case falls towards the lower end of the scale in terms of seriousness. This is because the size of the hole is small – moderate and the likely detraction in amenity is correspondingly small – moderate. 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) & Schedule 1A. b. Duration of the breach. The breach endured for approximately 11 months, which is a long time. c. Effect of the breach on the other party. I accept that the hole detracted from the visual amenity of the bathroom and most likely contributed to draughts in the bathroom and house. The tenant gave evidence that rats entered the premises through the hole however, no evidence of rats inside the premises was submitted and I am not convinced this was the case. Deteriorating skirting/gib board in the bathroom
The tenant claims that rats ate through the skirting in the bathroom at the bottom of the hot water cupboard. The tenant claims the gap caused a draught and rats entered the premises through the gap.
The landlord claims the gap is a result of the gib board being slightly too short and denies the presence of any rats. The landlord gave evidence that behind the gib board, there is a hot water cylinder. The piece of gib is screwed in to cover the hot water cylinder. The landlord gave evidence the piece of gib was replaced a couple of weeks prior to the hearing. Analysis
A photograph of hot water cupboard was submitted. It shows there is a small gap between the bathroom floor and piece of gib covering the hot water cylinder. The skirting is present on the base of the floor. The gap is in between the skirting and piece of gib.
The edges of the skirting and piece of gib where the gap is are perfectly straight. This means I consider the landlord’s explanation about the gap to be more likely than the tenant’s. If the gap was caused by rats eating away at this area, it is unlikely that the edges of the gib and skirting would be perfectly straight. The landlord’s explanation about the gab being due to the piece of gib not being long enough is more consistent with the photographic evidence.
The hot water cylinder should be entirely covered. I accept that by not being so, the piece of gib covering the cylinder was in a state of disrepair. The tenant sent the landlord an email about the issue on 22 September 2024 and I find this to be the date the landlord became aware of it. The problem was fixed a couple of weeks before the hearing. Whilst not the most pressing issue, I find a delay of approximately 11 months, which is the time between 22 September 2024 and the end of the tenancy on 28 August 2025, to be unreasonable. For this reason, I find the landlord breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA.
The tenant seeks compensation for the breach. Considering the following factors, I find $300.00 reasonable: a. Nature of the breach. Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is a serious breach of the RTA, as evidenced by the fact that the maximum amount of exemplary damages the Tribunal may order is $7,200.00. 11 I find the breach in this case falls towards the lower end of the scale in terms of seriousness. This is because the size of the gap is small and the issue is relatively minor. b. Duration of the breach. The breach endured for approximately 11 months, which is a long time. c. Effect of the breach on the other party. I accept that the gap detracted from the visual amenity of the bathroom and most likely contributed to draughts in the bathroom and house. The tenant gave evidence that rats entered the premises through the gap however, no evidence of rats inside the premises was submitted and I am not convinced this was the case.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is an unlawful act, for which a maximum of $7,200.00 in exemplary damages may be ordered. 12
I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to repair the hole in the bathroom floor and gap at the bottom of the hot water cupboard. This is because the tenant alerted the landlord to these issues on 22 September 2024 and the landlord did not fix them until after the tenancy ended on 28 August 2025.
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. b. The effect of the unlawful act. See paragraphs [57(c)] and [63(c)] above. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. The tenant has an interest in ensuring that maintenance problems are remedied within a reasonable timeframe. d. The public interest. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords are deterred from failing to remedy defects brought to their attention within a reasonable timeframe. In saying that, I consider the defects in the present case to be towards the lower end of the spectrum in terms of seriousness.
Taking all of these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $300.00 in exemplary damages. 11 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) & Schedule 1A. 12 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) & Schedule 1A. Filing fee & name suppression
The tenant has been wholly successful with their claim. Therefore, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I grant the tenant’s request for 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 5327689 — net $5,558.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide healthy homes compliance statement	$250.00	22. Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $250.00 in exemplary damages.
Compensation: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards	$1,980.00	Failure to comply with healthy homes standards
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards	$2,400.00	40. Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $2,400.00 in exemplary damages.
Compensation: Failure to maintain hole in bathroom floor	$300.00	Failure to maintain hole in bathroom floor
Compensation: Failure to maintain gib board over hot water cupboard	$300.00	Failure to maintain gib board over hot water cupboard
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$300.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,558.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,558.00

Claims and awards for application 5327689 — net $5,558.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages: Failure to provide healthy homes compliance statement

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 22. Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $250.00 in exemplary damages.

Compensation: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards

Amount: $1,980.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards

Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards

Amount: $2,400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 40. Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $2,400.00 in exemplary damages.

Compensation: Failure to maintain hole in bathroom floor

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain hole in bathroom floor

Compensation: Failure to maintain gib board over hot water cupboard

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The parties agree that the tenant may collect their goods left behind at the end of the tenancy at 12:00pm, Saturday 30 May 2026, from the top of the driveway.
Roger Ward must pay [The tenant/s] $5,558.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 11 May 2026. The landlord was represented by Geraldine Ward.
The premises are a small cottage located on the same piece of land as the landlord’s main home. The tenancy began on 8 September 2024 and the tenant paid rent of $460.00 per week. No bond was paid. The landlord is an elderly couple who managed the tenancy themselves.
The tenancy ended on 28 August 2025. The tenant claims they did not receive a healthy homes compliance statement, and the premises did not comply with the healthy homes standards. They also claim the premises were kept in a poor state of repair. They seek compensation and exemplary damages for these alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Before determining the tenant’s claims, 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. Compensation and exemplary damages – the law generally
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, distress, inconvenience and emotional suffering.
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.
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 1 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. 2 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 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. TENANT’S CLAIMS Did the landlord provide a healthy homes compliance statement with the tenancy agreement?
Section 13A(1CA) RTA states: The landlord must also include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, - (a) That, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply wit the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and (b) Including the information (if any) prescribed by the regulations under section 138B(5).
This kind of statement is commonly referred to as a “healthy homes compliance statement.”
A copy of the tenancy agreement was provided. It does not include healthy homes compliance statement. Therefore, I find the landlord breached section 13A(1CA) RTA.
Failure to comply with section 13A(1CA) RTA is an unlawful act, for which a maximum amount of $750.00 in exemplary damages may be ordered. 3
I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to provide a healthy homes compliance statement with the tenancy agreement. This is because no evidence proving any steps taken by the landlord to include such a statement was submitted. The fact that the landlord was not aware of their legal obligations is no defence. All landlords are expected to know and comply with their obligations under the RTA.
Taking the following matters into account, I find it just to order exemplary damages: 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 13A(1F)(a) & Schedule 1A. 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 purpose of providing a healthy homes compliance statement is to ensure that landlord’s turn their mind towards the need to comply with the healthy homes standard and that tenants are aware whether the premises meet the healthy homes standards. In this case, the landlord did not turn their mind to this issue at all and the tenant was unaware whether the premises complied. c. The public interest. Landlord’s should be deterred from failing to provide a healthy homes compliance statement with the tenancy agreement. Where no such statement is provided, it creates confusion and ambiguity as to whether the premises comply with the healthy homes standards. Parliament has enacted legislation requiring landlords to provide a heathy homes compliance statement and landlords need to understand the importance of complying with this requirement.
Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $250.00 in exemplary damages.

Did the premises comply with the healthy homes standards?

The law

Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards.
The healthy homes standards are found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (“HHS”). These provide a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in respect of insulation, heating, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture and drainage. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the premises did not comply with the healthy homes standards, because there was no insulation or extractor fan in the bathroom or kitchen. Further, they claim there were large gaps in the doors, which caused draughts, and the outdoor spouting was incomplete, which caused water to pool outside. The tenant also claims there was inadequate heating in the living room.
The tenant claims they asked the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy if the premises were insulated, and the landlord advised them that they were.
The tenant claims the carpet in the lounge was damp in winter, because the premises are built into a hill and there was no underfloor insulation. The tenant claims that their daughter visited the premises on one occasion and her socks got wet.
The landlord had the premises assessed to determined compliance with the healthy homes standards on 3 December 2025. They accept the outcome of the report means the premises did not comply with some aspects of the standards.
The landlord gave evidence that they were unaware of the need for the premises to comply with the healthy homes standards, because they believed the standards were aimed at premises tenanted by families, not single adults.
The landlord also said that if the tenant had advised them at the beginning of the tenancy of the need for the premises to comply with the healthy homes standards, the landlord would have taken steps to ensure compliance. Analysis
The tenancy began on 8 September 2024. Therefore, the landlord had until 6 January 2025, which is 120 days later, to comply with the healthy homes standards.
The landlord submitted a healthy homes assessment report completed by RentFit dated 3 December 2025. The report concludes that the premises do not comply with the following standards: a. Heating b. Ventilation c. Draught stopping
The report concludes that the premises are exempt from needing to comply with the insulation requirements. This is because the ceiling is a skillion ceiling and the underfloor joists are below 400mm, which means it is not safe to install insulation.
I accept the findings in the report and find the premises did not comply with the heating, ventilation or draught stopping requirements of the healthy homes standards.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach of section 45(1)(bb) RTA. Considering the following matters, I find $60.00 per week to be reasonable: a. Nature of the breach. Failure to comply with the healthy homes standards is a serious breach, as evidenced by the fact that the maximum amount of exemplary damages the Tribunal may order is $7,200.00. 4 I find the breach in this case to fall towards the middle of the spectrum in terms of seriousness. This is because the premises did not comply with three aspects of the healthy homes standards. 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) & Schedule 1A. b. Duration of the breach. The breach endured for 7.5 months, which is a relatively long period of time. c. Effect of the breach on the other party. The tenant claims the premises were very cold to live in during winter. I accept that lack of adequate heating, draughts and poor ventilation meant the premises were cold, especially in winter. I also accept that the coldness detracted from the amenity of the premises. I am not convinced the carpet was damp in the lounge, as claimed by the tenant. The tenant submitted a written document from their daughter claiming this was the case however, the tenant did not call the daughter as a witness to give evidence at the hearing. This means their daughter’s evidence could not be tested. Further, the healthy homes assessment report does not make any mention of the carpet being wet. In the absence of any supporting evidence, I am not convinced the carpet was damp.
There are approximately 33 weeks between 6 January 2025 and 28 August 2025. Therefore, the tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $1,980.00.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to comply with the healthy homes standards is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered. 5
I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to comply with the healthy homes standards. This is because the landlord did not take any steps to ensure compliance. The fact that the landlord was not aware or misunderstood their legal obligations is no defence. All landlords are expected to know and comply with their obligations under the RTA. The Tribunal cannot excuse a breach on the basis that the landlord did not know the law.
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. See paragraph [35(c)] above. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. The tenant has an interest in ensuring that premises rented to them are compliant with the healthy homes standards. d. The public interest. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords are deterred from failing to comply with the healthy homes standards. The healthy homes standards are designed to protect tenants and ensure that they live in warm, dry homes. 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) & Schedule 1A.
Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $2,400.00 in exemplary damages.

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

The law

Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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. 6
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. 7 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. 8
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 9
The tenant claims the landlord breached their obligations in relation to the following: a. Hole in the bathroom floor. b. Deteriorating skirting/gib board in the bathroom. Hole in the bathroom floor
The landlord completed some minor renovations to the bathroom before the tenancy began. An old vanity was removed, and a new one installed in a slightly different location. This resulted in a hole being left in one of the floor tiles in the bathroom where the pipe from the old vanity used to be. The landlord claims the plumber was supposed to put a bung in the hole but did not. 6 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 7 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 8 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 9 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
The landlord gave evidence that the floor tiles are granite, which made repairing the hole difficult, because special tools were needed.
The tenant claims the hole was covered by a bathmat and they only discovered it after the tenancy began. The tenant claims the hole went all the way to the underfloor and rats entered the premises through it.
The tenant claims they raised the issue with the landlord on 22 September 2024, but it was not fixed until after the tenancy had ended. The tenant claims the landlord put a piece of blue tape over the hole and covered it with a bathmat.
The landlord claims the hole was fixed around Christmas time in 2025 when some friends visited the landlord and helped them to fix it with the proper tools. Analysis
It is not normal for a bathroom floor to have a hole in it. For this reason, I find the bathroom floor was in a state of disrepair and required fixing.
I find the landlord became aware of the hole on 22 September 2024. The tenant submitted a copy of an email sent by them to the landlord on this date, raising the issue and asking for it be fixed.
I find the placing of blue tape over the hole to be an inadequate repair. The hole was not repaired by the end of the tenancy on 28 August 2025, approximately 11 months after the tenant’s email.
Photographs of the hole were submitted. It appears small – moderate in size, being approximately 5cm wide. The tenant claims it was 10cm however, no evidence of this was submitted, such as a photograph of a ruler measuring the hole.
I find a delay of 11 months to repair the hole to be unreasonable. For this reason, I find the landlord breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA.
The tenant seeks compensation for the breach. Considering the following factors, I find $300.00 to be reasonable. a. Nature of the breach. Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is a serious breach of the RTA, as evidenced by the fact that the maximum amount of exemplary damages the Tribunal may order is $7,200.00. 10 I find the breach in this case falls towards the lower end of the scale in terms of seriousness. This is because the size of the hole is small – moderate and the likely detraction in amenity is correspondingly small – moderate. 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) & Schedule 1A. b. Duration of the breach. The breach endured for approximately 11 months, which is a long time. c. Effect of the breach on the other party. I accept that the hole detracted from the visual amenity of the bathroom and most likely contributed to draughts in the bathroom and house. The tenant gave evidence that rats entered the premises through the hole however, no evidence of rats inside the premises was submitted and I am not convinced this was the case. Deteriorating skirting/gib board in the bathroom
The tenant claims that rats ate through the skirting in the bathroom at the bottom of the hot water cupboard. The tenant claims the gap caused a draught and rats entered the premises through the gap.
The landlord claims the gap is a result of the gib board being slightly too short and denies the presence of any rats. The landlord gave evidence that behind the gib board, there is a hot water cylinder. The piece of gib is screwed in to cover the hot water cylinder. The landlord gave evidence the piece of gib was replaced a couple of weeks prior to the hearing. Analysis
A photograph of hot water cupboard was submitted. It shows there is a small gap between the bathroom floor and piece of gib covering the hot water cylinder. The skirting is present on the base of the floor. The gap is in between the skirting and piece of gib.
The edges of the skirting and piece of gib where the gap is are perfectly straight. This means I consider the landlord’s explanation about the gap to be more likely than the tenant’s. If the gap was caused by rats eating away at this area, it is unlikely that the edges of the gib and skirting would be perfectly straight. The landlord’s explanation about the gab being due to the piece of gib not being long enough is more consistent with the photographic evidence.
The hot water cylinder should be entirely covered. I accept that by not being so, the piece of gib covering the cylinder was in a state of disrepair. The tenant sent the landlord an email about the issue on 22 September 2024 and I find this to be the date the landlord became aware of it. The problem was fixed a couple of weeks before the hearing. Whilst not the most pressing issue, I find a delay of approximately 11 months, which is the time between 22 September 2024 and the end of the tenancy on 28 August 2025, to be unreasonable. For this reason, I find the landlord breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA.
The tenant seeks compensation for the breach. Considering the following factors, I find $300.00 reasonable: a. Nature of the breach. Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is a serious breach of the RTA, as evidenced by the fact that the maximum amount of exemplary damages the Tribunal may order is $7,200.00. 11 I find the breach in this case falls towards the lower end of the scale in terms of seriousness. This is because the size of the gap is small and the issue is relatively minor. b. Duration of the breach. The breach endured for approximately 11 months, which is a long time. c. Effect of the breach on the other party. I accept that the gap detracted from the visual amenity of the bathroom and most likely contributed to draughts in the bathroom and house. The tenant gave evidence that rats entered the premises through the gap however, no evidence of rats inside the premises was submitted and I am not convinced this was the case.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is an unlawful act, for which a maximum of $7,200.00 in exemplary damages may be ordered. 12
I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to repair the hole in the bathroom floor and gap at the bottom of the hot water cupboard. This is because the tenant alerted the landlord to these issues on 22 September 2024 and the landlord did not fix them until after the tenancy ended on 28 August 2025.
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. b. The effect of the unlawful act. See paragraphs [57(c)] and [63(c)] above. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. The tenant has an interest in ensuring that maintenance problems are remedied within a reasonable timeframe. d. The public interest. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords are deterred from failing to remedy defects brought to their attention within a reasonable timeframe. In saying that, I consider the defects in the present case to be towards the lower end of the spectrum in terms of seriousness.
Taking all of these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $300.00 in exemplary damages. 11 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) & Schedule 1A. 12 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) & Schedule 1A. Filing fee & name suppression
The tenant has been wholly successful with their claim. Therefore, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I grant the tenant’s request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327689 — Healthy homes at 275 Wairere Road, Waitakere, RD 2, Auckland 0782

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327689 — Healthy homes at 275 Wairere Road, Waitakere, RD 2, Auckland 0782

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Did the premises 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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Did the premises 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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions