What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5335259 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be

How much money was awarded in case 5335259?

Cmpensation: Open Homes: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- l…: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- m…: $2,985.74 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5335259?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Mould & damp, State of repair, Leaks, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5335259?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12695770-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5335259 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be

How much money was awarded in case 5335259?

Cmpensation: Open Homes: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- l…: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- m…: $2,985.74 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5335259?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Mould & damp, State of repair, Leaks, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5335259?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12695770-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Churton Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5335259 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

9 Churton Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5335259 — Exemplary damages | 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 5335259 — net $12,713.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Healthy homes information not provided on request	$750.00	Healthy homes information not provided on request
Exemplary damages: Breach of requirement to provide HHS, insurance and smoke alarm information in the tenancy agreement	$750.00	Breach of requirement to provide HHS, insurance and smoke alarm information in the tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$1,500.00	Bond not lodged
Compensation: Failure to maintain- leaks	$2,000.00	Failure to maintain- leaks
Compensation: Failure to maintain- mould and dampness	$2,985.74	Failure to maintain- mould and dampness
Exemplary damages: s45(1) of the RTA breaches	$2,400.00	s45(1) of the RTA breaches
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment	$1,500.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Cmpensation: Open homes	$800.00	Cmpensation: Open homes
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$12,713.74
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$12,713.74

Claims and awards for application 5335259 — net $12,713.74 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages: Healthy homes information not provided on request

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Healthy homes information not provided on request

Exemplary damages: Breach of requirement to provide HHS, insurance and smoke alarm information in the tenancy agreement

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of requirement to provide HHS, insurance and smoke alarm information in the tenancy agreement

Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Bond not lodged

Compensation: Failure to maintain- leaks

Amount: $2,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- leaks

Compensation: Failure to maintain- mould and dampness

Amount: $2,985.74

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Replace Smoke Alarms Filing Fee

Order

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 5 December 2025: a. The mildew/mould in the two lounges must be professionally cleaned by a mould removal specialist.
As an alternative to compliance with Order 1, the landlord must pay the tenants $1,500.00 immediately for them to engage a mould removal specialist to carry out this work.
If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 2 or 3 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $2,000.00. This cost may be set off against rent payable.
Busy Eyes Investment Limited must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $12,713.74 immediately.
The parties have agreed by consent to the landlord swapping the following chattels rented to the tenants with similar items that are of similar quality and size, as the tenants acknowledge these items are special to the landlord’s representative, Mrs Reedy: a. Long Wooden Dinner Table and eight high back chairs; b. Second lounge-1x 1 seater, 1x 2 seater couches and 1 x 3 Seater Couch (1 seater has already been removed); c. Main lounge- 1x2 and 1x3 seater couches; d. Tall boys upstairs; e. Two Persian rugs- (located in the front door, and front lounge).
The parties are to agree to mutually acceptable times and dates for the landlord to carry out the swapping over of these items and to carry out the swap process in a manner that is the least disruptive to the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premise.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 5 November 2025.The landlord was represented by Lusia Reedy and her support person Andrew Sampson. The tenants were represented by Alexander Gaimster and his support person/flatmate, Liam John McHenry.
The tenants applied for work orders, compensation, general damages and/or exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
This premise is a 7-bedroom home rented by the tenants, who have flatmates. The house was rented fully furnished. The tenancy is current.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo 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 or 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. TENANT’S CLAIMS Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b), (ba) and (bb) obligations to the tenant?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
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 and/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 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A of the RTA.
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 for all the s45(1) of the RTA breaches the tenants are claiming. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants.
In order to award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally, and it would be just to award 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. exemplary damages, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Work Orders Sought
The tenants claim that the landlord has not addressed the mildew/mould growing on the ceilings of the two living rooms, which are the primary living spaces used by the tenants and their flatmates. The tenants want the problem fixed.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the tenants to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants have provided photographic evidence that proves the ceilings in the two living rooms have a mould issue that needs addressing by a professional mould removal specialist because the mould is more than can be cleaned away with exit mould or the like and it at a height that is difficult for the tenants to reach without some risk.
The mildew/mould in the two lounges must be professionally cleaned by a mould removal specialist by 5 December 2025 at the landlord’s cost or the landlord may pay the tenants $1,500.00 immediately for them to engage a mould removal specialist to carry out this work. Failure to do so will result in tenants engaging a contractor to carry out this and charging the landlord the costs of this work up to $2,000.00. This cost may be set off against rent payable.
The tenants withdrew their work order claim for the leaks in the roof as this issue had been addressed by the date of the hearing. TENANT’S CLAIMS Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b) and (bb) obligations to the tenant?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 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 and/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 8 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 9 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 10 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 for all the s45(1) of the RTA breaches the tenants are claiming. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. 6 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 7 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 9 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
In order to award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally, and it would be just to award exemplary damages, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Failure to maintain
The tenants say the landlord has failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. Leaks
The tenants claim that there have been three leaks in the premise.
The tenants confirmed the first leak appeared in bedroom ceiling on second floor. The tenants say they raised this issue by email with the landlord shortly after the start of the tenancy in April 2025. They say they did not receive a response from the landlord, but a contractor came to address this leak within a week of the email being sent and there were no further leaks until July 2025.
The tenants say the second leak appeared again after some heavy rain, on 29 July 2025, in the same second-floor bedroom as the first leak. The tenants emailed landlord on 29 July 2025 and say they got no response.
On 31 July 2025, the tenants say the roof leaked again and this time it affected two-bedroom rooms below in level 1 as the bedroom on the second floor. At this time the tenants requested a healthy homes assessment report as the three leaks made the tenants question whether the premise complies with all five of the standards.
The landlord came to do an inspection on 4 August 2025 and told the tenants the leaks would be fixed, and the mildew/mould would be cleaned after the roof was fixed.
The tenants issued the landlord a 14-day notice on 6 August 2025 as nothing had been done to address the leaks.
On 8 August 2025 a plumber came to investigate the leak issue and said he could not access the roof safely as it was raining.
The parties confirmed the three leaks were all fully remediated by 7 October 2025.
The landlord says it got reports from different people about the cause of the leaks and was told it may be the wind lifting the roofing nails and the iron roofing and letting water get into the ceiling cavity and sit there leaking slowly down into the ceilings of the rooms below. The contractor also told the landlord it can take time for a leaky roof to show up in the ceiling after sitting in the cavity for a while. The landlord’s representative says it is a good landlord and when Mrs Reedy gets a call, she attends to problems raised promptly but sometimes things must wait.
One of the landlord’s tradespeople told it that the leak issue could be major, so the landlord notified its insurer. The landlord says the insurer assessed the dampness issues in October 2025 with a moisture meter and confirmed that there is no dampness now in the ceiling or anywhere else. This indicates the roofing remediation done in late September/early October 2025 had resolved the issue and the ceiling cavity had dried out fully. The landlord stated it is still waiting for a formal report about the moisture readings from Vero.
I find the landlord failed to investigate and remediate the second and third leak issues in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances and that the tenants should receive a rent rebate of $200.00 per week for the period of 10 weeks (29 July 2025 to 7 October 2025) they suffered the loss of amenity of the affected bedrooms as well as the stress and inconvenience of having to live with the leaks and having to follow up the landlord and issue a fourteen day notice. The total rent rebate ordered for this breach is $2,000.00
I also find that this breach was an intentional unlawful act for which exemplary damages should be awarded.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A maximum of $7,200.00 exemplary damages can be awarded for all s45(1) of the RTA breaches and as such, the quantum ordered under this section will be set out at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this order. House damp and mildew/mould on ceilings
The tenants say the house was damp and mildew/mould had formed on the ceilings of the two living rooms and that it was there when they moved in.
The tenants proved they emailed the landlord about this issue on 10 April 2025 and she did not respond so they raised it again on 31 July 2025 at the same time the leaks happened.
In an email dated 2 August 2025, the landlord said it would have this mildew/mould removed after leak was fixed. The tenants included this issue in their 14-day notice on 6 August 2025 and confirm the mildew/mould has never been fixed. They stated in mid-August the real estate agent selling the house had cleaned some mould in one lounge as it was so visible but it needed to be treated so that it did not come back.
The tenants have provided photographs of the high levels of mould in the living rooms and communications that prove they have raised the dampness and mould issues with the landlord and the landlord had failed to address these issues in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances.
I find the landlord failed to investigate and remediate the pest issues in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances and that the tenant should receive a rent rebate of $100.00 per week for the period of 29 weeks and 6 days (10 April 2025 to 5 November 2025) they have suffered the stress and inconvenience of having to live with the mouldy ceilings, being a rent rebate of $2,985.74
I also find that this breach was an intentional unlawful act for which exemplary damages should be awarded.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A maximum of $7,200.00 exemplary damages can be awarded for all s45(1) of the RTA breaches and as such, the quantum ordered under this section will be set out at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this order.

Did the landlord breach the healthy homes standards?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Dalisizwe Ndebele and Dhaneshree Ndebele considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 1 April 2025. The landlord had to ensure the premise complied with all the healthy homes standards by 1 July 2025. A. Insulation
The tenants claims that the landlord has failed to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Not long after the second leak, the tenants went under the house and found the underfloor insulation was patchy and not covering the entire floor and was not thick enough to be compliant with the standard and took photographic evidence of non-compliance with the insulation standard.
The parties confirmed a contractor came on 25 September 2025 and found the underfloor insulation was falling down. It put polyethylene under the insulation, so insulation would not continue to fall down and also put polyethylene all around the foundation of the house.
The tenants have proven the house did not meet the insulation standard by 1 April 2025, when the tenancy commenced.
There was no third party independent detailed healthy homes assessment and report undertaken by either party until 26 September 2025, after the house was fully compliant.
The landlord has a responsibility to ensure a rental premise complies with the insulation standard from the start of the tenancy. Failure to ensure a healthy homes assessment is undertaken on a regular basis so that the landlord is aware of any potential breaches and can remedy any such breaches before the compliance date is a deliberate choice made by a landlord. This landlord had not undertaken a healthy homes assessment itself nor had it engaged a contractor to do so. Therefore, I find that this breach was an intentional unlawful act for which exemplary damages should be awarded.
A maximum of $7,200.00 exemplary damages can be awarded for all s45(1) of the RTA breaches and as such, the quantum ordered under this section will be set out at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this order. B. Moisture Ingress and Drainage
Then tenants claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space if it is reasonably practical to do so.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The parties have confirmed that there was no ground moisture barrier installed until 25 September 2025 and therefore the house did not comply with the moisture and drainage standard by 1 July 2025.
There was no third party independent detailed healthy homes assessment and report undertaken by either party until 26 September 2025, after the house was fully compliant.
The landlord has a responsibility to ensure a rental premise complies with this standard by the compliance date, being 1 July 2025. The landlord had 3 months to ensure the premise was compliant with this standard from the commencement of the tenancy and it took no steps to assess the premise against this standard until 25 September 2025. Therefore, I find that this breach was an intentional unlawful act for which exemplary damages should be awarded.
A maximum of $7,200.00 exemplary damages can be awarded for all s45(1) of the RTA breaches and as such, the quantum ordered under this section will be set out at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this order. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed two intentional breaches of s45(1)(b), and one of s45(1)(bb). These breaches resulted in the tenants being exposed to damp and mouldy conditions that created a loss of the amenities the tenants were paying rent to enjoy, in addition to causing stress and inconvenience to the tenants of living in these conditions and having to continually follow up an unresponsive landlord.
I have found the landlord has committed these unlawful acts intentionally.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $2,400.00 exemplary damages to the tenants, being one quarter of the maximum penalty available for s45(1) of the RTA breaches. Did the landlord provide the statutorily required healthy homes compliance statement, insulation statement, healthy homes standards information and smoke alarm information in the tenancy agreement?
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 13A(1A), 13A(1CA) (a) and (b) and 13A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1A) the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord that describes whether or not there is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, any insulation installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises and the details of the location, type, and condition of all insulation that is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises.
Under s13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the five healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions. These five standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping. This provision also requires the landlord to record how many smoke alarms are in the premise, when the smoke alarms were last tested and when they expire.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
If the landlord is unable to provide some or all the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1A) or (1CA) of the RTA obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants received a tenancy agreement, that did not contain an insulation statement, a healthy homes compliance statement, any of any of the required healthy homes standards information or why such information could not be provided or any smoke alarm or insurance information (e.g how many smoke alarms there were, when they were last tested and when they expire). As such, the tenants had no idea when they took on the tenancy, whether the premises were fully healthy homes compliant, whether any exemptions apply to the premises, whether there were smoke alarm(s) that were compliant with statutory requirements and whether the landlord had insurance that limited the tenants liability for costs associated with any careless or deliberate damages to the premise.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, pursuant to section 13A(1F)(a) of the RTA, the Tribunal may award up to a maximum of $750.00 in 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied the landlord failed to provide the tenants with the required completed and signed healthy homes compliance statement, insulation statement, healthy homes standards information on all five standards and smoke alarm information prescribed by sections 13A(1A),13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, or the insurance information prescribed by s13A(2) of the RTA.
I find the landlord intentionally breached 13A(1CA) of the RTA and that it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $750.00 exemplary damages because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known that it is required by to provide the tenants with healthy homes, insurance and smoke alarm information with a written tenancy agreement b. The tenants are entitled to rely on their statutory right to receive information about: i. whether the premise was healthy homes compliant and if it wasn’t, was it exempt from these requirements; ii. whether the premise has compliant smoke alarms, where they are located, when they were last tested and when they expire; and iii. If the house has the required insulation and meets the standard or is exempt for any reason; iv. Whether the premise is insured for tenant damage, by which company and the excess applicable; c. t is in the interests of the tenants to receive compensation for the landlord’s breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations ensure the tenants have insurance information, healthy homes compliance information, smoke alarm information and healthy homes standards information given to them prior to the commencement of the tenancy so they can make an informed decision whether or not to rent a non-compliant premise.
I note for completeness, the tenants received a tenancy agreement to sign prior to the tenancy commencing but were not given a full copy of the tenancy agreement signed by the landlord. They had kept screen shots of some of the pages of this agreement. The landlord confirmed it subsequently misplaced/lost this tenancy agreement and at some time in mid-September 2025 the real estate agent selling the house got the tenants to sign a different version of the tenancy agreement. This tenancy agreement deceptively contained a fixed term clause that was not in the original tenancy agreement and was not explicitly disclosed to the tenants before they signed it. The tenants were surprised to learn during the hearing that this tenancy agreement did not reflect the same terms and conditions as the original. The landlord could not produce a copy of this fixed term agreement signed by the tenants. Therefore, I find this version of the agreement is not valid or enforceable. The parties confirmed that the original tenancy agreement was signed by the landlord and tenant parties and the signature page produced by the tenants confirms this. Therefore I find that this version of the tenancy agreement is the binding and enforceable version.
The agreements the parties provided to the tribunal confirmed that both the original and the updated tenancy agreements did not comply with the statutory requirements set out in sections 13A(1A), 13A(1CA) (a) and (b) and 13A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Did the landlord fail to provide healthy homes information requested by the tenants?

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1AC) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45 (1AC) of the RTA, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants requested healthy homes compliance information on 31 July 2025 by email.
On 6 August 2025 the tenants issued the landlord with a 14 days’ notice requiring it to provide healthy homes standards assessment and compliance information.
On 20 August 2025 the tenants followed the landlord up again by email and got no response
On 22 August 2025 the tenants received some photographs of the house and some insulation but no healthy homes standards report or information was provided.
There was never any of the statutorily required healthy homes standards information contained in the tenancy agreements and no such information was provided to the tenants until 26 September 2025.
The landlord notes that Gforce came on 15 September 2025 to carryout the assessment but issued the healthy homes assessment report on 26 September 2025, as the ground moisture barrier and insulation needed to be remedied before the house could be signed off.
The tenants have proven they first requested healthy homes standards information on 31 July 2025 and did not receive it until 26 September 2025, being 8 weeks and 1 day. It was required to provide the tenants with this information in 3 weeks from the date of request.
I find the landlord intentionally breached s45(1AC) of the RTA and that it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $750.00 exemplary damages because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known that it was required by to provide the tenant with healthy homes information within 21 days of a request being made by the tenants; b. The tenants are entitled to rely on their statutory right to receive this information in a timely manner; c. t is in the interests of the tenants to receive compensation for the landlord’s breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations ensure the tenants have healthy homes information provided to them within 21 days of the tenants requesting it. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premise?
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”
The RTA further confirms that contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenant confirmed that the basis for this claim was that the tenants repeatedly asked for healthy homes information and were told by the landlord that it was not warranted, not necessary and that they could not bring their healthy homes issues to Mrs Reedy, who was the only representative of the landlord available for the tenants to discuss any tenancy related issues with. When they pressed her for this information or tried to enforce their rights, she became rude, threatening and abusive to them and told the tenants to stop sending her smart arse emails, she was not interested in hearing about their concerns, they were not to quote their rights to her, they are the tenants from hell and she will start to charge them for the use of the chattels included in the tenancy if they do not stop making claims against the landlord.
Additionally, the tenants claim that their quiet enjoyment was breached when the landlord decided to sell the premise, and a real estate agent held open homes each weekend for two months. The first month these open homes were Saturday and Sundays and the second month these were once a week. No rent relief was offered for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience these open homes resulted in.
Further, the tenants claim the landlord has repeatedly stated she could sell the house anytime and they would be out and that if they kept causing issues, she would charge them for the use of her furniture and other chattels that are already included in the current $1,750.00 rent the tenants pay each week.
I find the landlord has breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premise by continually threatening them with selling the house at any time and or charging them more for the use of her furniture and chattels each time they seek to enforce their rights and the landlord’s obligations as well as expecting them to accommodate two months of open homes without any rent relief for the stress and inconvenience caused. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord intentionally breached s38(2) of the RTA and that it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $1,500.00 exemplary damages (half of the maximum penalty available) because: a. The landlord should respect the tenants rights to have the quiet enjoyment of the premise they pay $1,750.00 per week to enjoy ; b. The tenants are entitled to rely on their statutory right to have the quiet enjoyment of the premise; c. t is in the interests of the tenants to receive compensation for the landlord’s breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations ensure the tenants have the quiet enjoyment of the premise.
Additionally, I award the tenants compensation of $100.00 per week for the stress and inconvenience they suffered during the 8 weeks of open homes, being $800.00.

Did the landlord fail to meet her obligations on receipt of the bond?

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant confirmed the $5,250.00 bond was paid on 25 February 2025, and was not lodged with the Bond Centre until 6 October 2025, despite the tenants following the landlord up on 6 August 2025.
The landlord says Mrs Reedy paid the bond within a week or 10 days to an account and it went to the wrong people. It says this is due to eyesight issues and that the tenants knew about her disabilities when they took the tenancy so she should not be held to ensuring the bond was lodged correctly within 23 working days after her receipt of it.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not take steps to ensure she lodged the bond correctly with the Bond Centre in the statutorily required timeframe. Further, when the tenants discovered their bond was not in the Bond Centre and raised it with her, she did not remedy her error until 6 October 2025. This was two months after the tenants raised the error with her. The landlord says she had to wait for someone to assist her to pay the bond to the correct account and confirmed she has access to a family member and a support worker. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by not lodging the bond in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances .
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by not lodging the bond within the required timeframe and intentionally compounding that breach by failing to lodge the bond after the tenants brought the issue to Mrs Reedy’s attention on 6 August 2025 and when they lodged their application with the Tribunal on 28 August 2025. If the landlord’s representative has disabilities that result in it breaching its statutory obligations to the tenants, it may need to consider appointing a property manager or agent to manage the tenancy in accordance with its statutory obligations rather than relying on Mrs Reedy’s disabilities to justify the landlord’s continual breaches of its obligations to the tenants.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $1,500.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord intentionally did not ensure that the bond was lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after 25 February 2025 and still had not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre until 6 October 2025 despite being aware of the breach since 6 August 2025; b. The tenants are entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting their bond money that should have been placed in it on trust for the tenants benefit, unless it is proven the tenants owe the landlord a debt that both parties agree can be paid by the Bond Centre to the landlord or on order from the Tribunal. The tenant’s money was not protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for a period of 31 weeks and 6 days, and it should have been. The landlord had retained the bond without the tenants’ knowledge of who held their bond until they enquired about it on 6 August 2025; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of its obligations to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations pay the bond received into the Bond Centre promptly for the protection of both parties’ interests.
I consider the award of the maximum penalty available because of the duration of the breach, the continuity of breach after the landlord became aware of the breach when the tenants raised concerns and the increased risk to the tenants of not being able to recover this bond when the money should have been on trust for them with the Bond Centre. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

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 5335259 — net $12,713.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Healthy homes information not provided on request	$750.00	Healthy homes information not provided on request
Exemplary damages: Breach of requirement to provide HHS, insurance and smoke alarm information in the tenancy agreement	$750.00	Breach of requirement to provide HHS, insurance and smoke alarm information in the tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$1,500.00	Bond not lodged
Compensation: Failure to maintain- leaks	$2,000.00	Failure to maintain- leaks
Compensation: Failure to maintain- mould and dampness	$2,985.74	Failure to maintain- mould and dampness
Exemplary damages: s45(1) of the RTA breaches	$2,400.00	s45(1) of the RTA breaches
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment	$1,500.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Cmpensation: Open homes	$800.00	Cmpensation: Open homes
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$12,713.74
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$12,713.74

Claims and awards for application 5335259 — net $12,713.74 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages: Healthy homes information not provided on request

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Healthy homes information not provided on request

Exemplary damages: Breach of requirement to provide HHS, insurance and smoke alarm information in the tenancy agreement

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of requirement to provide HHS, insurance and smoke alarm information in the tenancy agreement

Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Bond not lodged

Compensation: Failure to maintain- leaks

Amount: $2,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- leaks

Compensation: Failure to maintain- mould and dampness

Amount: $2,985.74

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Replace Smoke Alarms Filing Fee

Order

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 5 December 2025: a. The mildew/mould in the two lounges must be professionally cleaned by a mould removal specialist.
As an alternative to compliance with Order 1, the landlord must pay the tenants $1,500.00 immediately for them to engage a mould removal specialist to carry out this work.
If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 2 or 3 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $2,000.00. This cost may be set off against rent payable.
Busy Eyes Investment Limited must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $12,713.74 immediately.
The parties have agreed by consent to the landlord swapping the following chattels rented to the tenants with similar items that are of similar quality and size, as the tenants acknowledge these items are special to the landlord’s representative, Mrs Reedy: a. Long Wooden Dinner Table and eight high back chairs; b. Second lounge-1x 1 seater, 1x 2 seater couches and 1 x 3 Seater Couch (1 seater has already been removed); c. Main lounge- 1x2 and 1x3 seater couches; d. Tall boys upstairs; e. Two Persian rugs- (located in the front door, and front lounge).
The parties are to agree to mutually acceptable times and dates for the landlord to carry out the swapping over of these items and to carry out the swap process in a manner that is the least disruptive to the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premise.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 5 November 2025.The landlord was represented by Lusia Reedy and her support person Andrew Sampson. The tenants were represented by Alexander Gaimster and his support person/flatmate, Liam John McHenry.
The tenants applied for work orders, compensation, general damages and/or exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
This premise is a 7-bedroom home rented by the tenants, who have flatmates. The house was rented fully furnished. The tenancy is current.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo 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 or 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. TENANT’S CLAIMS Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b), (ba) and (bb) obligations to the tenant?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
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 and/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 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A of the RTA.
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 for all the s45(1) of the RTA breaches the tenants are claiming. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants.
In order to award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally, and it would be just to award 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. exemplary damages, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Work Orders Sought
The tenants claim that the landlord has not addressed the mildew/mould growing on the ceilings of the two living rooms, which are the primary living spaces used by the tenants and their flatmates. The tenants want the problem fixed.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the tenants to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants have provided photographic evidence that proves the ceilings in the two living rooms have a mould issue that needs addressing by a professional mould removal specialist because the mould is more than can be cleaned away with exit mould or the like and it at a height that is difficult for the tenants to reach without some risk.
The mildew/mould in the two lounges must be professionally cleaned by a mould removal specialist by 5 December 2025 at the landlord’s cost or the landlord may pay the tenants $1,500.00 immediately for them to engage a mould removal specialist to carry out this work. Failure to do so will result in tenants engaging a contractor to carry out this and charging the landlord the costs of this work up to $2,000.00. This cost may be set off against rent payable.
The tenants withdrew their work order claim for the leaks in the roof as this issue had been addressed by the date of the hearing. TENANT’S CLAIMS Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b) and (bb) obligations to the tenant?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 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 and/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 8 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 9 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 10 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 for all the s45(1) of the RTA breaches the tenants are claiming. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. 6 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 7 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 9 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
In order to award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally, and it would be just to award exemplary damages, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Failure to maintain
The tenants say the landlord has failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. Leaks
The tenants claim that there have been three leaks in the premise.
The tenants confirmed the first leak appeared in bedroom ceiling on second floor. The tenants say they raised this issue by email with the landlord shortly after the start of the tenancy in April 2025. They say they did not receive a response from the landlord, but a contractor came to address this leak within a week of the email being sent and there were no further leaks until July 2025.
The tenants say the second leak appeared again after some heavy rain, on 29 July 2025, in the same second-floor bedroom as the first leak. The tenants emailed landlord on 29 July 2025 and say they got no response.
On 31 July 2025, the tenants say the roof leaked again and this time it affected two-bedroom rooms below in level 1 as the bedroom on the second floor. At this time the tenants requested a healthy homes assessment report as the three leaks made the tenants question whether the premise complies with all five of the standards.
The landlord came to do an inspection on 4 August 2025 and told the tenants the leaks would be fixed, and the mildew/mould would be cleaned after the roof was fixed.
The tenants issued the landlord a 14-day notice on 6 August 2025 as nothing had been done to address the leaks.
On 8 August 2025 a plumber came to investigate the leak issue and said he could not access the roof safely as it was raining.
The parties confirmed the three leaks were all fully remediated by 7 October 2025.
The landlord says it got reports from different people about the cause of the leaks and was told it may be the wind lifting the roofing nails and the iron roofing and letting water get into the ceiling cavity and sit there leaking slowly down into the ceilings of the rooms below. The contractor also told the landlord it can take time for a leaky roof to show up in the ceiling after sitting in the cavity for a while. The landlord’s representative says it is a good landlord and when Mrs Reedy gets a call, she attends to problems raised promptly but sometimes things must wait.
One of the landlord’s tradespeople told it that the leak issue could be major, so the landlord notified its insurer. The landlord says the insurer assessed the dampness issues in October 2025 with a moisture meter and confirmed that there is no dampness now in the ceiling or anywhere else. This indicates the roofing remediation done in late September/early October 2025 had resolved the issue and the ceiling cavity had dried out fully. The landlord stated it is still waiting for a formal report about the moisture readings from Vero.
I find the landlord failed to investigate and remediate the second and third leak issues in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances and that the tenants should receive a rent rebate of $200.00 per week for the period of 10 weeks (29 July 2025 to 7 October 2025) they suffered the loss of amenity of the affected bedrooms as well as the stress and inconvenience of having to live with the leaks and having to follow up the landlord and issue a fourteen day notice. The total rent rebate ordered for this breach is $2,000.00
I also find that this breach was an intentional unlawful act for which exemplary damages should be awarded.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A maximum of $7,200.00 exemplary damages can be awarded for all s45(1) of the RTA breaches and as such, the quantum ordered under this section will be set out at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this order. House damp and mildew/mould on ceilings
The tenants say the house was damp and mildew/mould had formed on the ceilings of the two living rooms and that it was there when they moved in.
The tenants proved they emailed the landlord about this issue on 10 April 2025 and she did not respond so they raised it again on 31 July 2025 at the same time the leaks happened.
In an email dated 2 August 2025, the landlord said it would have this mildew/mould removed after leak was fixed. The tenants included this issue in their 14-day notice on 6 August 2025 and confirm the mildew/mould has never been fixed. They stated in mid-August the real estate agent selling the house had cleaned some mould in one lounge as it was so visible but it needed to be treated so that it did not come back.
The tenants have provided photographs of the high levels of mould in the living rooms and communications that prove they have raised the dampness and mould issues with the landlord and the landlord had failed to address these issues in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances.
I find the landlord failed to investigate and remediate the pest issues in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances and that the tenant should receive a rent rebate of $100.00 per week for the period of 29 weeks and 6 days (10 April 2025 to 5 November 2025) they have suffered the stress and inconvenience of having to live with the mouldy ceilings, being a rent rebate of $2,985.74
I also find that this breach was an intentional unlawful act for which exemplary damages should be awarded.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A maximum of $7,200.00 exemplary damages can be awarded for all s45(1) of the RTA breaches and as such, the quantum ordered under this section will be set out at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this order.

Did the landlord breach the healthy homes standards?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Dalisizwe Ndebele and Dhaneshree Ndebele considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 1 April 2025. The landlord had to ensure the premise complied with all the healthy homes standards by 1 July 2025. A. Insulation
The tenants claims that the landlord has failed to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Not long after the second leak, the tenants went under the house and found the underfloor insulation was patchy and not covering the entire floor and was not thick enough to be compliant with the standard and took photographic evidence of non-compliance with the insulation standard.
The parties confirmed a contractor came on 25 September 2025 and found the underfloor insulation was falling down. It put polyethylene under the insulation, so insulation would not continue to fall down and also put polyethylene all around the foundation of the house.
The tenants have proven the house did not meet the insulation standard by 1 April 2025, when the tenancy commenced.
There was no third party independent detailed healthy homes assessment and report undertaken by either party until 26 September 2025, after the house was fully compliant.
The landlord has a responsibility to ensure a rental premise complies with the insulation standard from the start of the tenancy. Failure to ensure a healthy homes assessment is undertaken on a regular basis so that the landlord is aware of any potential breaches and can remedy any such breaches before the compliance date is a deliberate choice made by a landlord. This landlord had not undertaken a healthy homes assessment itself nor had it engaged a contractor to do so. Therefore, I find that this breach was an intentional unlawful act for which exemplary damages should be awarded.
A maximum of $7,200.00 exemplary damages can be awarded for all s45(1) of the RTA breaches and as such, the quantum ordered under this section will be set out at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this order. B. Moisture Ingress and Drainage
Then tenants claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space if it is reasonably practical to do so.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The parties have confirmed that there was no ground moisture barrier installed until 25 September 2025 and therefore the house did not comply with the moisture and drainage standard by 1 July 2025.
There was no third party independent detailed healthy homes assessment and report undertaken by either party until 26 September 2025, after the house was fully compliant.
The landlord has a responsibility to ensure a rental premise complies with this standard by the compliance date, being 1 July 2025. The landlord had 3 months to ensure the premise was compliant with this standard from the commencement of the tenancy and it took no steps to assess the premise against this standard until 25 September 2025. Therefore, I find that this breach was an intentional unlawful act for which exemplary damages should be awarded.
A maximum of $7,200.00 exemplary damages can be awarded for all s45(1) of the RTA breaches and as such, the quantum ordered under this section will be set out at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this order. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed two intentional breaches of s45(1)(b), and one of s45(1)(bb). These breaches resulted in the tenants being exposed to damp and mouldy conditions that created a loss of the amenities the tenants were paying rent to enjoy, in addition to causing stress and inconvenience to the tenants of living in these conditions and having to continually follow up an unresponsive landlord.
I have found the landlord has committed these unlawful acts intentionally.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $2,400.00 exemplary damages to the tenants, being one quarter of the maximum penalty available for s45(1) of the RTA breaches. Did the landlord provide the statutorily required healthy homes compliance statement, insulation statement, healthy homes standards information and smoke alarm information in the tenancy agreement?
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 13A(1A), 13A(1CA) (a) and (b) and 13A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1A) the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord that describes whether or not there is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, any insulation installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises and the details of the location, type, and condition of all insulation that is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises.
Under s13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the five healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions. These five standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping. This provision also requires the landlord to record how many smoke alarms are in the premise, when the smoke alarms were last tested and when they expire.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
If the landlord is unable to provide some or all the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1A) or (1CA) of the RTA obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants received a tenancy agreement, that did not contain an insulation statement, a healthy homes compliance statement, any of any of the required healthy homes standards information or why such information could not be provided or any smoke alarm or insurance information (e.g how many smoke alarms there were, when they were last tested and when they expire). As such, the tenants had no idea when they took on the tenancy, whether the premises were fully healthy homes compliant, whether any exemptions apply to the premises, whether there were smoke alarm(s) that were compliant with statutory requirements and whether the landlord had insurance that limited the tenants liability for costs associated with any careless or deliberate damages to the premise.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, pursuant to section 13A(1F)(a) of the RTA, the Tribunal may award up to a maximum of $750.00 in 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied the landlord failed to provide the tenants with the required completed and signed healthy homes compliance statement, insulation statement, healthy homes standards information on all five standards and smoke alarm information prescribed by sections 13A(1A),13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, or the insurance information prescribed by s13A(2) of the RTA.
I find the landlord intentionally breached 13A(1CA) of the RTA and that it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $750.00 exemplary damages because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known that it is required by to provide the tenants with healthy homes, insurance and smoke alarm information with a written tenancy agreement b. The tenants are entitled to rely on their statutory right to receive information about: i. whether the premise was healthy homes compliant and if it wasn’t, was it exempt from these requirements; ii. whether the premise has compliant smoke alarms, where they are located, when they were last tested and when they expire; and iii. If the house has the required insulation and meets the standard or is exempt for any reason; iv. Whether the premise is insured for tenant damage, by which company and the excess applicable; c. t is in the interests of the tenants to receive compensation for the landlord’s breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations ensure the tenants have insurance information, healthy homes compliance information, smoke alarm information and healthy homes standards information given to them prior to the commencement of the tenancy so they can make an informed decision whether or not to rent a non-compliant premise.
I note for completeness, the tenants received a tenancy agreement to sign prior to the tenancy commencing but were not given a full copy of the tenancy agreement signed by the landlord. They had kept screen shots of some of the pages of this agreement. The landlord confirmed it subsequently misplaced/lost this tenancy agreement and at some time in mid-September 2025 the real estate agent selling the house got the tenants to sign a different version of the tenancy agreement. This tenancy agreement deceptively contained a fixed term clause that was not in the original tenancy agreement and was not explicitly disclosed to the tenants before they signed it. The tenants were surprised to learn during the hearing that this tenancy agreement did not reflect the same terms and conditions as the original. The landlord could not produce a copy of this fixed term agreement signed by the tenants. Therefore, I find this version of the agreement is not valid or enforceable. The parties confirmed that the original tenancy agreement was signed by the landlord and tenant parties and the signature page produced by the tenants confirms this. Therefore I find that this version of the tenancy agreement is the binding and enforceable version.
The agreements the parties provided to the tribunal confirmed that both the original and the updated tenancy agreements did not comply with the statutory requirements set out in sections 13A(1A), 13A(1CA) (a) and (b) and 13A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Did the landlord fail to provide healthy homes information requested by the tenants?

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1AC) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45 (1AC) of the RTA, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants requested healthy homes compliance information on 31 July 2025 by email.
On 6 August 2025 the tenants issued the landlord with a 14 days’ notice requiring it to provide healthy homes standards assessment and compliance information.
On 20 August 2025 the tenants followed the landlord up again by email and got no response
On 22 August 2025 the tenants received some photographs of the house and some insulation but no healthy homes standards report or information was provided.
There was never any of the statutorily required healthy homes standards information contained in the tenancy agreements and no such information was provided to the tenants until 26 September 2025.
The landlord notes that Gforce came on 15 September 2025 to carryout the assessment but issued the healthy homes assessment report on 26 September 2025, as the ground moisture barrier and insulation needed to be remedied before the house could be signed off.
The tenants have proven they first requested healthy homes standards information on 31 July 2025 and did not receive it until 26 September 2025, being 8 weeks and 1 day. It was required to provide the tenants with this information in 3 weeks from the date of request.
I find the landlord intentionally breached s45(1AC) of the RTA and that it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $750.00 exemplary damages because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known that it was required by to provide the tenant with healthy homes information within 21 days of a request being made by the tenants; b. The tenants are entitled to rely on their statutory right to receive this information in a timely manner; c. t is in the interests of the tenants to receive compensation for the landlord’s breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations ensure the tenants have healthy homes information provided to them within 21 days of the tenants requesting it. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premise?
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”
The RTA further confirms that contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenant confirmed that the basis for this claim was that the tenants repeatedly asked for healthy homes information and were told by the landlord that it was not warranted, not necessary and that they could not bring their healthy homes issues to Mrs Reedy, who was the only representative of the landlord available for the tenants to discuss any tenancy related issues with. When they pressed her for this information or tried to enforce their rights, she became rude, threatening and abusive to them and told the tenants to stop sending her smart arse emails, she was not interested in hearing about their concerns, they were not to quote their rights to her, they are the tenants from hell and she will start to charge them for the use of the chattels included in the tenancy if they do not stop making claims against the landlord.
Additionally, the tenants claim that their quiet enjoyment was breached when the landlord decided to sell the premise, and a real estate agent held open homes each weekend for two months. The first month these open homes were Saturday and Sundays and the second month these were once a week. No rent relief was offered for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience these open homes resulted in.
Further, the tenants claim the landlord has repeatedly stated she could sell the house anytime and they would be out and that if they kept causing issues, she would charge them for the use of her furniture and other chattels that are already included in the current $1,750.00 rent the tenants pay each week.
I find the landlord has breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premise by continually threatening them with selling the house at any time and or charging them more for the use of her furniture and chattels each time they seek to enforce their rights and the landlord’s obligations as well as expecting them to accommodate two months of open homes without any rent relief for the stress and inconvenience caused. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord intentionally breached s38(2) of the RTA and that it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $1,500.00 exemplary damages (half of the maximum penalty available) because: a. The landlord should respect the tenants rights to have the quiet enjoyment of the premise they pay $1,750.00 per week to enjoy ; b. The tenants are entitled to rely on their statutory right to have the quiet enjoyment of the premise; c. t is in the interests of the tenants to receive compensation for the landlord’s breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations ensure the tenants have the quiet enjoyment of the premise.
Additionally, I award the tenants compensation of $100.00 per week for the stress and inconvenience they suffered during the 8 weeks of open homes, being $800.00.

Did the landlord fail to meet her obligations on receipt of the bond?

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant confirmed the $5,250.00 bond was paid on 25 February 2025, and was not lodged with the Bond Centre until 6 October 2025, despite the tenants following the landlord up on 6 August 2025.
The landlord says Mrs Reedy paid the bond within a week or 10 days to an account and it went to the wrong people. It says this is due to eyesight issues and that the tenants knew about her disabilities when they took the tenancy so she should not be held to ensuring the bond was lodged correctly within 23 working days after her receipt of it.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not take steps to ensure she lodged the bond correctly with the Bond Centre in the statutorily required timeframe. Further, when the tenants discovered their bond was not in the Bond Centre and raised it with her, she did not remedy her error until 6 October 2025. This was two months after the tenants raised the error with her. The landlord says she had to wait for someone to assist her to pay the bond to the correct account and confirmed she has access to a family member and a support worker. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by not lodging the bond in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances .
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by not lodging the bond within the required timeframe and intentionally compounding that breach by failing to lodge the bond after the tenants brought the issue to Mrs Reedy’s attention on 6 August 2025 and when they lodged their application with the Tribunal on 28 August 2025. If the landlord’s representative has disabilities that result in it breaching its statutory obligations to the tenants, it may need to consider appointing a property manager or agent to manage the tenancy in accordance with its statutory obligations rather than relying on Mrs Reedy’s disabilities to justify the landlord’s continual breaches of its obligations to the tenants.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $1,500.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord intentionally did not ensure that the bond was lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after 25 February 2025 and still had not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre until 6 October 2025 despite being aware of the breach since 6 August 2025; b. The tenants are entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting their bond money that should have been placed in it on trust for the tenants benefit, unless it is proven the tenants owe the landlord a debt that both parties agree can be paid by the Bond Centre to the landlord or on order from the Tribunal. The tenant’s money was not protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for a period of 31 weeks and 6 days, and it should have been. The landlord had retained the bond without the tenants’ knowledge of who held their bond until they enquired about it on 6 August 2025; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of its obligations to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations pay the bond received into the Bond Centre promptly for the protection of both parties’ interests.
I consider the award of the maximum penalty available because of the duration of the breach, the continuity of breach after the landlord became aware of the breach when the tenants raised concerns and the increased risk to the tenants of not being able to recover this bond when the money should have been on trust for them with the Bond Centre. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5335259 — Exemplary damages at 9 Churton Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5335259 — Exemplary damages at 9 Churton Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Did the landlord breach the healthy homes standards?

Did the landlord fail to provide healthy homes information requested by the tenants?

Did the landlord fail to meet her obligations on receipt of the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Did the landlord breach the healthy homes standards?

Did the landlord fail to provide healthy homes information requested by the tenants?

Did the landlord fail to meet her obligations on receipt of the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions