What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336424 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5336424?

Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336424?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336424?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12889435-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336424 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5336424?

Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336424?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336424?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12889435-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

38A Wordsworth Crescent, Maraenui, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5336424 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336424. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
sTenants Exemplary Damages – breach of HH compliance obligations	$3,600.00		sTenants Exemplary Damages – breach of HH compliance obligations
Filing fee	$28.00		Filing fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Jim Brown Rentals Limited and Markus and Monika Boeschmust pay [The applicant/s] $3,628.00 immediately as follows.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This hearing was held with application 5336501, brought by [the tenant’s] and her partner, in respect of their tenancy at 38c Wordsworth Crescent.
The tenant applied for an Order setting aside a Notice of Termination dated 25 July 2025 on the grounds that it was retaliatory.
The Notice was set aside in an Order of the Tribunal made on 15 October 2025. The tenant has nevertheless vacated. An award of exemplary damages was made and has been paid.
The relevant background is set out in the 15 October Order and doesn’t need to be fully repeated.
This hearing considered the tenant’s claims that the landlords had breached their obligation to ensure the premises complied with Healthy Homes standards. Did the landlord breach their obligation to make sure the premises complied with

Healthy Homes standards?

The tenancy began on 2 April 2008 and was not renewed after that date. The premises were required to comply with Healthy Homes standards by 1 July 2025 1 .
Ms Haylock, an assessor from Te Whatu Ora healthy homes service, visited after providing an assessment at 38c, when she became aware that the tenant had a high needs child living with her at these premises.
She did an assessment then wrote to the landlord on 18 July 2025 noting that: a. both bathroom and kitchen extractor fans are now a legal requirement (as at 1 July 2025); and b. there has been a previous leak in bedroom ceiling, which the family had to patch themselves. This requires proper assessment/ repair.
A Healthy Homes assessment was carried out on 15 August 2025, which assessed the premises as: a. failing to meet the heating standard – because the output of the wood burner could not be determined; b. failing to meet the insulation standard – because some areas of the underfloor were not covered by the insulation; c. failing to meet the draught stopping standard – because installation of hardware to securely close and latch the windows was required, there were gaps of up to 10mm gap that required stopping, there was visible rot to timber joinery; 1 Schedule 1 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 d. failing to meet the ventilation standard because no extractors were installed in the kitchen or bathroom; e. failing to meet moisture ingress and drainage standard because the guttering was obstructed with debris and was ponding and there was perforated roofing f. the smoke alarms were not working.
The landlords have provided in evidence the specification panel for the wood burner installed at 38c showing a heat output of 6.2 – 7.0 Kw. The landlords say that exactly the same wood burner is installed at 38a.
I have no reason to disbelieve the landlords’ evidence. The Healthy Homes assessment calculated a required output for the heating at these premises of 5Kw. Considering that evidence I do not find it proved that the landlords breached their obligation to make sure the HH heating standard was met.
In other respects though, the Healthy Homes report proves that the landlords failed to meet their obligations to ensure that the premises complied with the Healthy Homes standards.
That breach is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded.

Should Exemplary Damages be Awarded?

[The tenant/s]
The landlord’s breach was intentional. The failure to install extractors in the kitchen and bathroom and to check for compliance with insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and smoke alarm requirements, was not accidental.
In terms of the s.109(3) criteria referred to: a. it seems likely from the evidence that the landlords intended to sell the premises at some stage. The decision was made not to bring the premises to HH compliance for that reason. They continued to rent the premises out; b. there is limited evidence about the effect on the tenant from the breaches. In essence, the tenant says that she had been living in the premises so long, and the landlords’ approach to maintenance and repair was so lax that she did not bother bringing up concerns about the state of the premises with the landlords and just got on with living there and dealing with repairs and maintenance herself; c. in return for the rent they receive, landlords have an obligation to provide premises that are reasonably well maintained and that meet the minimum requirements prescribed for a healthy living environment; d. The landlords did not do that and have financially benefitted from that decision. The public interest requires that landlord’s meet those core obligations.
To some extent, the Tribunal’s 15 October took into account the landlords’ decision to try and end the tenancy rather than comply with HH obligations.
Weighing those considerations, I find that an award of exemplary damages of 50% of the maximum would be just.
Because the tenant has succeeded with the claim reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336424. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
sTenants Exemplary Damages – breach of HH compliance obligations	$3,600.00		sTenants Exemplary Damages – breach of HH compliance obligations
Filing fee	$28.00		Filing fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Jim Brown Rentals Limited and Markus and Monika Boeschmust pay [The applicant/s] $3,628.00 immediately as follows.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This hearing was held with application 5336501, brought by [the tenant’s] and her partner, in respect of their tenancy at 38c Wordsworth Crescent.
The tenant applied for an Order setting aside a Notice of Termination dated 25 July 2025 on the grounds that it was retaliatory.
The Notice was set aside in an Order of the Tribunal made on 15 October 2025. The tenant has nevertheless vacated. An award of exemplary damages was made and has been paid.
The relevant background is set out in the 15 October Order and doesn’t need to be fully repeated.
This hearing considered the tenant’s claims that the landlords had breached their obligation to ensure the premises complied with Healthy Homes standards. Did the landlord breach their obligation to make sure the premises complied with

Healthy Homes standards?

The tenancy began on 2 April 2008 and was not renewed after that date. The premises were required to comply with Healthy Homes standards by 1 July 2025 1 .
Ms Haylock, an assessor from Te Whatu Ora healthy homes service, visited after providing an assessment at 38c, when she became aware that the tenant had a high needs child living with her at these premises.
She did an assessment then wrote to the landlord on 18 July 2025 noting that: a. both bathroom and kitchen extractor fans are now a legal requirement (as at 1 July 2025); and b. there has been a previous leak in bedroom ceiling, which the family had to patch themselves. This requires proper assessment/ repair.
A Healthy Homes assessment was carried out on 15 August 2025, which assessed the premises as: a. failing to meet the heating standard – because the output of the wood burner could not be determined; b. failing to meet the insulation standard – because some areas of the underfloor were not covered by the insulation; c. failing to meet the draught stopping standard – because installation of hardware to securely close and latch the windows was required, there were gaps of up to 10mm gap that required stopping, there was visible rot to timber joinery; 1 Schedule 1 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 d. failing to meet the ventilation standard because no extractors were installed in the kitchen or bathroom; e. failing to meet moisture ingress and drainage standard because the guttering was obstructed with debris and was ponding and there was perforated roofing f. the smoke alarms were not working.
The landlords have provided in evidence the specification panel for the wood burner installed at 38c showing a heat output of 6.2 – 7.0 Kw. The landlords say that exactly the same wood burner is installed at 38a.
I have no reason to disbelieve the landlords’ evidence. The Healthy Homes assessment calculated a required output for the heating at these premises of 5Kw. Considering that evidence I do not find it proved that the landlords breached their obligation to make sure the HH heating standard was met.
In other respects though, the Healthy Homes report proves that the landlords failed to meet their obligations to ensure that the premises complied with the Healthy Homes standards.
That breach is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded.

Should Exemplary Damages be Awarded?

[The tenant/s]
The landlord’s breach was intentional. The failure to install extractors in the kitchen and bathroom and to check for compliance with insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and smoke alarm requirements, was not accidental.
In terms of the s.109(3) criteria referred to: a. it seems likely from the evidence that the landlords intended to sell the premises at some stage. The decision was made not to bring the premises to HH compliance for that reason. They continued to rent the premises out; b. there is limited evidence about the effect on the tenant from the breaches. In essence, the tenant says that she had been living in the premises so long, and the landlords’ approach to maintenance and repair was so lax that she did not bother bringing up concerns about the state of the premises with the landlords and just got on with living there and dealing with repairs and maintenance herself; c. in return for the rent they receive, landlords have an obligation to provide premises that are reasonably well maintained and that meet the minimum requirements prescribed for a healthy living environment; d. The landlords did not do that and have financially benefitted from that decision. The public interest requires that landlord’s meet those core obligations.
To some extent, the Tribunal’s 15 October took into account the landlords’ decision to try and end the tenancy rather than comply with HH obligations.
Weighing those considerations, I find that an award of exemplary damages of 50% of the maximum would be just.
Because the tenant has succeeded with the claim reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5336424 — Exemplary damages at 38A Wordsworth Crescent, Maraenui, Napier 4110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5336424 — Exemplary damages at 38A Wordsworth Crescent, Maraenui, Napier 4110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Healthy Homes standards?

Should Exemplary Damages be Awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Healthy Homes standards?

Should Exemplary Damages be Awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions