What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338873 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details

How much money was awarded in case 5338873?

And Fail To Maintain: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Breach HH Standards: $2,240.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,089.26 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338873?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338873?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12992617-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338873 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details

How much money was awarded in case 5338873?

And Fail To Maintain: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Breach HH Standards: $2,240.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,089.26 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338873?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338873?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12992617-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5338873 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5338873 — net $1,450.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,089.26		Rent arrears
Compensation: breach HH standards		$2,240.00	breach HH standards
and fail to maintain		$1,000.00	and fail to maintain
Exemplary Damages: fail to maintain		$300.00	fail to maintain
Total award	$2,089.26	$3,540.00
Net award		$1,450.74
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,450.74

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5338873 — net $1,450.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,089.26		Rent arrears
Compensation: breach HH standards		$2,240.00	breach HH standards
and fail to maintain		$1,000.00	and fail to maintain
Exemplary Damages: fail to maintain		$300.00	fail to maintain
Total award	$2,089.26	$3,540.00
Net award		$1,450.74
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,450.74

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details because of the personal nature of some of the evidence referred to in this Order 1 .
The Bond Centre must pay the general bond of $1,440.00 to [the tenant/s], immediately.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,450.74 (as well as returning any payments made by him after 10 December 2025) immediately, as below: 1 See s.95A(4) RTA

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Claims
The issues to be decided were set out in the Tribunal’s Order issued on 4 November 2025, after an initial case conference.
Those issues are: a. did the tenancy end on 15 September 2025 as claimed by the landlord, or on 5 September 2025, by the tenant withdrawing from the tenancy under s.56B RTA; and i. were there grounds for the withdrawal; and ii. was the landlord shown a copy of the Protection Order in favour of the tenant’s daughter? b. what arrears are owed? c. Did the landlord breach its obligations by: i. failing to lodge the tenant’s bond increase payment within the time required (s.19(1)) RTA; ii. failing to ensure that the premises were Healthy Homes compliant when required (draughts and underfloor insulation) (s.45(1)(bb)) RTA; iii. failing to provide HH information within 21 days of the tenant’s request (s.45(1AC) RTA); iv. failing to ensure the premises were kept in a reasonable state of maintenance and repair (water leaks and general maintenance); (s.45(1)(b) RTA); v. breaching his right to quiet enjoyment of the premises (taking intrusive photographs during inspections, requiring the tenant to provide confidential personal information in support of the request to withdraw) (s.38(1) RTA).
At the hearing held on 17 December 2025, the tenant was given leave to file any further evidence, limited to the questions of: a. whether the landlord was aware during the tenancy, of the possibility that underfloor insulation could be installed; and b. whether photographs taken during routine inspections breached the tenant’s right to privacy and quiet enjoyment.
The landlord was given leave to file evidence in reply by 9 January.
The Order takes into account the additional evidence filed.

When did the tenancy end?

This was a periodic tenancy. Normally 21 days’ notice would be required for the tenant to end it 2 .
A tenant may however withdraw from a tenancy by giving 2 days’ notice where the tenant or a dependant has been a victim of family violence while a tenant of the premises. The notice needs to be supported by qualifying evidence 3 :
On 3 September 2025 the tenant gave 2 days’ notice of withdrawal on the basis that his daughter, his dependent, had been a victim of family violence during the tenancy and had sought a Protection Order against her mother. A copy of that protection Order would be qualifying evidence.
Evidence given at the hearing by the tenant, was that the existing Protection Order he had previously referred to, was a Protection Order issued against him in favour of his daughter’s mother. His daughter was included as a protected person in that Order.
While creating a dilemma for tenant, the making of that Order is not proof of his daughter being victim of family violence by a person other than the tenant, for the purposes of s.56B RTA.
The tenant says that his daughter did apply for a protection order against her mother but ultimately no order was granted.
Proving that his daughter had been a victim of family violence, to support his withdrawal from the tenancy, therefore required some other form of qualifying evidence. None was provided.
My finding is that the notice given by the tenant was not effective to end the tenancy by withdrawal. The tenancy therefore ended on 15 September 2025 as agreed by the landlord.

What rent arrears are owed?

The landlord has provided rent records proving that at the date of the hearing rent arrears of $2,089.26 were owed. That includes allowance for continuing payments made by the tenant after the tenancy ended, up to and including a payment of $5.00 made on 10 December 2025. The tenant must be given credit for any payments made since that date. 2 S.51(2A) RTA 3 S. 56B RTA Did the landlord fail to lodge the tenant’s bond increase payment within the time required?
The tenant paid a bond “top up” of $200.00 on 18 December 2024.
The landlord was required to pay that additional bond to the Bond Centre within 23 working days of receiving it. 4
The landlord has provided proof that the $200.00 bond top up payment was paid to the Bond Centre on 6 January 2025, which is within that 23 working day period.
Although the tenant may not have received notification from the Bond Centre of the payment having been processed until after that date, the landlord met its obligations. That claim is dismissed. Did the landlord fail to ensure that the premises were Healthy Homes compliant when required (draughts and underfloor insulation)? Draught stopping
The date by which the premises were required to comply with the Healthy Homes draught stopping standard was 1 July 2025. 5
The landlord had a Healthy Homes assessment done by Tether Tick on 5 July 2023 which confirmed that the premises met Healthy Homes standards.
A later report, from Healthy Homes New Zealand Limited, on 7 October 2025, assessed the premises as failing to comply with the Healthy Homes draught stopping standard, noting unacceptable draughts and gaps in several areas of the property.
If I take that evidence at face value, the premises must have become non- compliant at some time between those two reports.
The premises being affected by draughts and resulting cold, is consistent with the tenant’s evidence that he raised those type of concerns with the property managers during the tenancy.
Photographic evidence provided shows very significant gaps around joinery.
I find it proved more likely than not that the premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes draught stopping standard on 1 July 2025 when compliance was required. Non-compliance continued through to the end of the tenancy. 4 S.19(1)(b) RTA 5 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 Insulation
The requirement to have qualifying insulation installed in residential rental properties pre-dates the requirement for compliance with Healthy Homes standards.
The landlord had an assessment done in 2017 by Smart Energy solutions which assessed the premises as exempt from the requirement to have ceiling insulation installed, due to the “raking ceiling”.
It was also assessed as exempt from the requirement to have underfloor insulation installed due to the underfloor being too low for access.
During 2023 the tenant discovered another access hatch to the underfloor. The landlord suggests the tenant cut the accessway, thereby causing damage to the premises. That allegation is denied by the tenant and is not supported by any evidence. I find it to be an existing underfloor access point.
The tenant then arranged for [Home insulation company 1] to prepare a quote to the landlord c/- the tenant, to install underfloor insulation and a ground moisture barrier. The quote provided shows that [Home insulation company 1] had assessed it as practicable to install underfloor insulation.
No action was taken in response to that quote.
After the tenancy ended, Smart Energy Solutions (by then rebranded Brightr) did another assessment and provided a quote for insulation of underfloor insulation and a ground moisture barrier noting, “Most of the underfloor will be to [sic] low to insulate due to the lack of height in the underfloor, there is a lot of rubble in the underfloor which may hamper the installers [sic] ability to install some area. “
I find it proved on balance that throughout the tenancy, there was the possibility of having underfloor insulation and a ground moisture barrier (only a requirement from 1 July 2025) fitted under a significant (around 30%) portion of the underfloor.
The landlord was in breach of its obligations by failing to have any underfloor insulation installed, when in fact it was reasonably practical to install it in those areas. Did the landlord breach its obligation to provide HH information
S.45(1AC) provides that: “If the tenant requests the landlord to provide information described in section 123A(1)(e) (relating to the healthy homes standards) to the tenant, the landlord must, within 21 days after the date of receiving the request, provide the information to the tenant.”
It seems clear from the evidence that the tenant was aware of the reasons for no insulation having been installed ie. that it was a “raked ceiling’ and that the underfloor was considered too low to install underfloor insulation.
Although that might, in light of later information, have been incorrect, it is not proved that the landlord refused to let the tenant know what the situation was, as the landlord understood it to be, regarding Heathy Homes compliance.
That claim is dismissed. Did the landlord fail to ensure the premises were kept in a reasonable state of maintenance and repair?
Photographic evidence provided by the tenant shows significant areas where the condition of the premises had been allowed to deteriorate over the course of this almost 9 year the tenancy.
That evidence shows cracking and chipping of the linoleum tiles, poor maintenance of window joinery with obvious need for repainting of sills, very worn carpets and damage through dampness and carpet bugs.
In those respects I find that the landlord breach its obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The extent of expenditure on the property shown by the landlord’s maintenance records, does not show a different picture. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises (taking intrusive photographs during inspections, requiring the tenant to provide confidential personal information in support of the request to withdraw)
The landlord was entitled to be provided with “qualifying evidence’ in support of the tenant’s notice to withdraw from the tenancy.
Asking for evidence that the tenant is required to provide in support of that notice, although by nature intensely personal, is not a breach of the tenant’s privacy or right to quiet enjoyment.
When it comes to the photographs the property manager took and shared with the owner as part of routine inspection reports, the landlord must be careful to ensure that its right to conduct inspections is not exercised in a way that breaches the tenant’s right to privacy and to quiet enjoyment of the premises.
As noted for landlords’ guidance on the Tenancy Services website, “If you are taking any photos during an inspection, be careful not to include the tenant's belongings if this is possible.”
Evidence provided by the tenant shows that inspection photographs included in the landlord’s report to the owners, included images showing the tenant, his daughter and his daughter’s underwear on the clothesline.
Although the report was for the owners as part of the property manager’s inspection report and there is no suggestion that it was circulated or published beyond that, my view is that the landlord did not exercise the caution it ought to have in taking photographs at the tenant’s home. They were unnecessary to providing useful information to the owner about the condition of or need for repair of the premises. The tenant had been clear that he did not want such photos taken.
The tenant has no control over what happens with those images once they are taken.
I agree with the tenant that these photographs were unduly intrusive and taking them and providing them to the owner was a breach of the tenant’s right to privacy and to quiet enjoyment of the premises. Should compensation be awarded – repair/ maintenance/ Healthy Homes obligations?
I have found that the landlord breached its obligation to comply with Healthy Homes requirements for insulation and draught stopping at the premises and to keep the premises reasonably maintained.
The tenant has provided evidence showing that his concerns about the warmth and dampness of the premises had been raised with the landlord on multiple occasions.
I find that these were issues significantly impacting on the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises that might have been lessened had the landlord met its obligations. Consequences were likely higher heating costs, cold and discomfort in living in the premises and potentially health issues.
Arithmetic calculation of the loss caused to the tenant by the landlords’ breach is difficult so a general assessment is required.
I assess fair compensation to the tenant for the landlord’s breach of its obligation to ensure the premises were insulated, met Healthy Homes draught stopping standards and were kept in a reasonable state of maintenance and repair, at 4 weeks’ rent. Should exemplary damaged be awarded
Intentional breach of a landlord’s obligations to comply with Healthy Homes standards and repair and maintenance obligations is, in each case, an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded. 6
The landlord took the appropriate step of having a Healthy Homes assessment completed before compliance date. It was entitled to rely on the report it obtained that the premises were Healthy Homes compliant. I do not find the landlord’s breach of its obligation to comply with Health Homes standards or insulation requirements was intentional.
No award of exemplary damages can therefore be made.
As regards the landlord’s general repair and maintenance obligations, the evidence shows the landlord having continued to receive full rent for the premises, while allowing the condition of the premises to decline. The evidence shows that the tenant brought his concerns about the deteriorating condition of the premises to the landlord’s attention. He was clearly dissatisfied with the landlord raising the rent when, in the tenant’s view, the landlord had allowed the premises to deteriorate and provide less amenity to him.
The landlord’s breach was intentional.
In deciding whether to award exemplary damages for that breach, the Tribunal must consider the criteria in s. 109(3) RTA being, the party’s intention in committing the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the other parties’ interest and the public interest,
Payment of rent by a tent is a fundamental obligation. Providing the premises in a reasonable sate of repair and maintenance is a fundamental reciprocal obligation on the landlord.
The landlord’s intention in allowing deterioration of the premises, I can only assume to be financial.
The public interest requires that landlords take seriously their obligation to make sure that in return for the rent they receive, they meet their obligation to provide adequately maintained premises – not just respond to immediate repair needs or to wait until a tenancy ends before doing work to keep the premises up to reasonable standard.
Weighing those considerations and taking into account that the tenant has also been awarded compensation for the landlord’s breaches, I consider that a modest award of exemplary damages of $1,000.00 would be just. Should compensation be awarded – breach of right to quiet enjoyment 6 See ss.45(1A) and 109 RTA
The evidence shows that finding out that photographs of the tenant, his daughter and of personal clothing on the clothesline were included in inspection photographs, was upsetting to the tenant.
The tenant’s evidence, which is consistent with other evidence provided, is that he tried to make very clear to the property manager, his and his daughter’s sensitivity about such photos being taken. He asked for more notice of intended inspections so he could make sure any personal items were removed from view.
There is no suggestion of any intention on the property manager’s part to cause harm or upset to the tenant. Simply, there was a lack of care to ensure the tenant’s privacy was protected while taking routine inspection photographs.
I found that a modest award of compensation would be appropriate to recognise the upset caused.
Each party has had claims upheld and no order is made about the filing fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338873 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338873 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

When did the tenancy end?

What rent arrears are owed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

When did the tenancy end?

What rent arrears are owed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions