What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5333599 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 5333599?

Compensation: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5333599?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5333599?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12590531-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5333599 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 5333599?

Compensation: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5333599?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5333599?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12590531-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

16 Belmont Avenue, Rangiora, Rangiora 7400 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5333599 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5333599 — net $1,678.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$750.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$900.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,678.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,678.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5333599 — net $1,678.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$750.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$900.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,678.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,678.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Julian Forde and Claire Wilcox must pay [the tenants] $1,678.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The tenants’ claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

[One of the tenants] attended the hearing representing the tenants. The property manager, Ms Dunn, attended representing the landlords.
The tenants claim compensation and exemplary damages for alleged breaches of the landlords’ obligations relating to the condition of the premises. Background
This tenancy began in February 2025 and is continuing.
The premises were built in 2006, and they were occupied by the landlords. They became a rental in 2022. The first tenancy ended shortly before this current tenancy.
The Tribunal dealt with applications from the parties to the first tenancy including a claim by the landlords for the cost of replacing sheer curtains in the master bedroom. The Tribunal found that the curtains were at the end of their life in any case and but awarded $200 for their residual value. The ingoing report for this tenancy refers to damage to the curtains in the master bedroom.
The tenants raised some issues concerning the condition of the premises through the property manager, but the landlords took no action in relation to some of them.
Ms Dunn took over as the property manager from June and she passed the tenants’ concerns onto the landlords. She did not receive instructions to carry out any remedial work and so she took matters into her own hands and arranged for work to be completed.
Some issues have been attended to and some remain. Law
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety and comply with Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. In this case the relevant HHS applied from mid-June 2025.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed either in good working order or with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. Claims Master Bedroom Curtains
It is accepted that there is damage to the curtains. The sheer curtains have some holes and pulls in them and there is some damage to the linings of the main curtains. The landlords measured up for new curtains and the tenants expected the curtains to be replaced. The landlords gave no undertaking to do so.
I can understand why the tenants expected the curtains to be replaced. The landlords’ claim against the previous tenants for the cost of new curtains and the Tribunal’s finding adds to their chagrin. But the question for me is whether the curtains are in a reasonable state of repair given the age and character of the premises.
The premises are modern, good quality and stylish and there is an argument that the curtains should be replaced to match that standard. There are also some landlords who would recognise the unattractiveness of making a claim based on the necessity to replace the curtains and then taking the position with the next tenants that they are acceptable. But in my view the damage to the curtains is not such that I can find that they are not in a reasonable state of repair. The damage is moderate and, at least for now, they are acceptable. Ensuite Shower
There is a waterproof membrane over the tiled shower floor that is peeling off and the tenants are concerned that it could result in water ingress and damage. They also refer to water being trapped and mould forming.
Ms Dunn confirmed that she has been looking for a contractor to quote for remedial work and she produced evidence of that. She confirmed that as a first step, she will arrange for the loose membrane to be removed.
The tenants have brought this situation to the landlords’ attention and so they cannot be liable for any consequential damage. This issue is noted on the outgoing report which stated that the floor coating needed to be redone.
This is an example of the tenants’ complaint that the landlords did not take care to ensure that the premises were in good condition for the tenants when the tenancy began. Although the issue is not causing the tenants a serious problem, it should have been dealt with. At the least, the damaged membrane should have been removed.
An award of exemplary damages in the sum of $200 is appropriate for this breach. It was not in a reasonable state of repair. There is no need for an award of compensation in addition. Kitchen Cupboard Struts
Kitchen cupboard doors hinged at the top were without the struts required to keep them open. Some struts were provided, and the tenants fitted them. Two cupboards were without struts which meant that the tenants had difficulty using them. They had to be held open with one hand while trying to remove items with the other. The cupboards were high making it more difficult.
The remaining struts were fitted at the end of August. The tenants suffered inconvenience during the time that using the cupboards was problematic. This should have been dealt with before the start of the tenancy and an award of exemplary damages in the sum of $200 is appropriate to include the inconvenience suffered by the tenants. Window Stays
There are openable windows in every room in the premises. There is no suggestion that the premises are not compliant in that respect. The tenants’ complaint is that most of the windows have no adjustable stays. They can be opened, and they will stay open, but air movement will open them wider which is undesirable and can create a security risk. There is no way to hold the windows open allowing ventilation and at the same time keeping the premises safe and secure.
The Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 require all habitable rooms to have opening windows “for the admission of air”. In other words, for ventilation. Arguably windows that open but that are prone to open fully are not practical to be used for ventilation. The Regulations could be read as requiring windows that open in such a way that it is practical and safe to open them for ventilation. Arguably, the windows in the premises would not comply with that.
I have not found any decision that has considered this exact issue. The windows can be opened, and they will stay open to admit air, but they are prone to opening fully. Ideally, they would have stays that allowed them to held open a little while remaining secure and allowed the opening to be adjustable. That would be in the interests of both landlords and tenants. But I am not prepared to apply the Regulations to require that. The windows comply with the Regulations read strictly. This claim is therefore dismissed. Hot Water Heating
The tenants were concerned about the size of their power bills and so they took some steps to try to determine why they were so high. They replaced light bulbs with LED bulbs and stopped using the clothes dryer. They concluded that the hot water heating was the problem. The hot water is provided by an outdoor heat pump.
They arranged for an electrician to test the water heater. The electrician replaced the thermostat, and the tenants say that they immediately noticed a reduction in their power usage. The landlords paid the electrician’s invoice.
The invoice states that the hot water cylinder was drawing a lot of power and that an intermittent thermostat was the suspected cause. There is no evidence that it was tested and found to be faulty.
The tenants produced their power bills. They show a marked increase in power usage in June/July. That can be explained partly because the June/July bill covers 41 days not the usual 30 or so. That would not account for all the increase, but of course colder weather was likely a factor. I note that hot water usage would not change much from month to month.
The thermostat was replaced in early August. The next billing period showed a 20% lower power use. The latest bill was lower still. Again, the weather is likely to be a factor as well.
There is no way that I can analyse this accurately, but I am satisfied on the evidence that there was a fault with the water cylinder and that it caused higher power bills. The best estimate I can make is that they were higher by $150 per month for five months.
Landlords must provide premises in a reasonable state of repair, and it follows from my findings that the hot water cylinder was faulty. There is no evidence that the landlords were aware of that, but that does not disentitle the tenants to compensation. To the extent necessary, I rely of s85 of the Act which requires the Tribunal to determine disputes according to the substantial merits and justice of the case.
Because the breach was not intentional, there is no basis for an award of exemplary damages. I therefore award $750 compensation. Extractor Fans
According to the HHS Regulations the premises should have had compliant extractor fans in both bathrooms in the premises from mid-June. Compliant means they must, at least, be in good working order. Because the fans were already installed, the tenants were entitled to expect them to be in good working order from the start.
The tenants complained in June that neither of the extractor fans installed in the bathrooms was effective at removing moisture from them. They were replaced at the end of August.
The tenants say that the new fan in the ensuite is blowing air out into the room, not removing it from the room. This was the first time that the landlords have been made aware of that. Ms Dunn confirmed that she will arrange for that to be checked.
I will proceed on the basis that there was non-compliance for six months from the start of the tenancy. The tenants should have informed the landlords immediately of the problem with the new fan in the ensuite.
I find that an award of exemplary damages is required for this breach. The failure of the landlords to ensure compliance in this instance was intentional in the sense that they were aware or should have been aware of the problem and chose not to act. It is part of a wider failure to ensure that the premises were compliant. An award of $500 is appropriate. I have taken account of the effect of the breach on the tenants and so a separate award of compensation is not necessary. Quiet Enjoyment
The tenants claim that the landlords have interfered with their quiet enjoyment in their use of the premises because they ignored their complaints and made them feel that reporting problems was pointless. They also point to the rush of contractors coming to the premises when there was finally some action.
I don’t think that this constitutes breach of quiet enjoyment. It is an incident of the landlords’ failure to comply with their maintenance obligations and it can and should be considered when awarding compensation for breach of those obligations and I have done so. Filing fee
The tenants have had substantial success and so I have awarded them the filing fee. Suppression
For the same reason I have granted them name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5333599 — Exemplary damages at 16 Belmont Avenue, Rangiora, Rangiora 7400

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5333599 — Exemplary damages at 16 Belmont Avenue, Rangiora, Rangiora 7400

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions