What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341041 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 5341041?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Ingress: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Wall Remediation: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Window Glazing: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341041?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341041?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12839519-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341041 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 5341041?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Ingress: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Wall Remediation: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Window Glazing: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341041?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341041?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12839519-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5341041 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341041 — net $1,800.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Wall remediation	$150.00		Repairs: Wall remediation
Repairs: Window glazing	$300.00		Repairs: Window glazing
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS - heating		$500.00	Breach of HHS - heating
Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS - ventilation		$500.00	Breach of HHS - ventilation
Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS - water		$500.00	Breach of HHS - water
ingress		$500.00	ingress
Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS - draught		$250.00	Breach of HHS - draught
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$478.00	$2,278.00
Net award		$1,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,800.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341041 — net $1,800.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Wall remediation	$150.00		Repairs: Wall remediation
Repairs: Window glazing	$300.00		Repairs: Window glazing
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS - heating		$500.00	Breach of HHS - heating
Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS - ventilation		$500.00	Breach of HHS - ventilation
Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS - water		$500.00	Breach of HHS - water
ingress		$500.00	ingress
Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS - draught		$250.00	Breach of HHS - draught
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$478.00	$2,278.00
Net award		$1,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,800.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $2,278.00 immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by both the landlord and tenant. The tenancy has now ended, but there are disputes around various matters at the end of the tenancy.
Both parties appeared at the hearing. Background
The relevant background will be discussed more fully below. However, the tenancy commenced on 5 July 2025 with the fixed term due to end on 4 July 2026.
The tenancy ended on 4 August 2025.
Various matters arose between the parties which are now the subject of the claim before the Tribunal. Tenant’s claims
At the hearing the tenant confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Compensation for failing to provide the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. b. Compensation for failing to provide keys. c. Exemplary damages for breaches of the Healthy Homes Standard for: i. Insulation. ii. Heating. iii. Ventilation. iv. Moisture ingress. v. Draft stopping. d. Exemplary damages for failing to provide an insulation statement. e. Reimbursement of the filing fee. Landlord’s claims
At the hearing the landlord confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Rent arrears b. Compensation for damage to: i. Carpet. ii. Window glazing. iii. Holes in the wall. c. Compensation for installing electrical power points in the property. d. Exemplary damages for harassment. e. Reimbursement of the filing fee.
The Tribunal will deal with the tenant’s claims followed by the landlord’s claims.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
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.

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

The Tribunal must consider claims for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Act.
Section 109 of the Act relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act. History of the tenancy
The property is a flat above a shop. It was purchased by the landlord in November 2024. The tenant was the first person to occupy the property since it was purchased by the landlord.
On 30 June 2025 the parties entered into a residential tenancy agreement with the fixed term commencing on 5 July 2025 and ending on 4 July 2026.
As the property had been unoccupied since at least November 2024, the landlord gave the tenant one week’s free rent. The landlord did so as they were concerned there may be some latent maintenance issues which would only be discovered once the property was occupied.
The tenant agreed to clean the property to a reasonably clean and tidy standard in exchange for the first week’s free rent.
The pre-tenancy inspection was completed by one of the landlord’s tenants.
The tenant was given the keys to the property and had access from 1 July 2025.
On 2 July 2025 the landlord allowed the tenant’s cat to live at the property provided they were compensated for any damage caused. The landlord also permitted the tenant to wall mount their television providing the damage was repaired at the end of the tenancy.
On 3 July 2025 the tenant moved into the property with her husband.
On 4 July 2025 the tenant notified the landlord that the windows were leaking, the shower was leaking, and the drains were blocked.
On 5 July 2025 the tenant advised the landlord there was no heating in the property and asked the landlord to supply a heat pump. The landlord agreed to provide a heat pump and indicated that a healthy homes check of the property was also being arranged.
On 7 July 2025 the tenant contacted the landlord saying they had sealed the shower because they were concerned about using it and causing damage to the property.
The landlord responded saying they would follow up with their contractor. The landlord said they were arranging for an electrician to install a power point in the hallway. This was prompted by the tenant asking to borrow an extension cord from a neighbouring tenant.
On 8 July 2025 the landlord provided the tenant with the name and contact telephone number for their contractor to facilitate a time to repair the shower, clear the drains and fix the leaking windows.
That same day the tenant asked the landlord for an additional key to the front door as the key that she had cut did not work. The landlord agreed to provide a spare key, if she had one.
On or about 9 July 2025 a plumber attended the property. The shower was repaired, and the drain unblocked.
On 11 July 2025 the tenant contacted the landlord to report the hallway carpet was wet due to leaking windows. The tenant said that unless the issue was addressed the carpet would begin to smell. The tenant indicated that the property would fail a healthy homes assessment.
The landlord responded saying she would get her contractors to look at the issues and, in the meantime, asked the tenant to put a towel on the windowsill and something under the drips to catch the rain. The landlord stated in a message exchange: “By the way, if you don’t think the place is fit to live in, please feel free to find somewhere else. I hadn’t smelt any dampness so wasn’t aware that it leaked until now”.
The tenant declined the landlord’s offer saying she liked the property; the rent was cheap, and she enjoyed having her own home. She just required the property to be “fixed up”.
On 12 July 2025 at 1:13 pm the tenant contacted the landlord to say that she and her husband were having issues, and he was thinking of moving out. The tenant said that if this happened, she could not afford to pay the rent but acknowledged she had entered into a fixed term tenancy.
That same day the tenant gave the landlord notice of her intention to leave the property. The landlord required the tenant needed to find someone to take over the lease.
On 13 July 2025 the tenant advised the landlord she was looking for a boarded to help cover the rent.
Later that day the landlord provided the tenant with the contact details for her electrician so the electrical wiring could be checked. The landlord also advised she did not have spare keys for the property.
On 14 July 2025 the tenant asked the landlord when she could expect the healthy homes assessment to be completed. The tenant also confirmed that the roof and window leaks had not been investigated or repairs. The tenant told the landlord she was going to remain in the property and find a boarded to help with rent.
On 18 July 2025, the tenant offered to clean the landlord’s carpets for $50 per hour plus the cost of a carpet cleaning machine. The landlord asked for the work to be completed once the leaks were repaired.
The tenant also asked the landlord when she could expect the healthy homes assessment to be completed noting: a. The property has no heating and is very cold. The tenant asked for two heaters to be installed in the hallway and for a heat pump to be installed in the lounge b. The property leaks and the floors are wet. c. The louver windows in the dining room let in cold air. d. The louver windows in the bathroom leak and let in cold air.
On 20 July 2025 the tenant contacted the landlord asking for a time frame for the repairs and the healthy homes assessment to be completed. The tenant asked the landlord if she had any other properties she could rent if the repairs were not going to be undertaken within a short time frame. The tenant also asked if the landlord would let her vacate the property if the repairs were not “fixed any time soon”.
The landlord responded: “Hi [tenant], unfortunately the tradies are busy. It really depends on them. I don’t currently have anywhere to rent but absolutely, if you find another place you can definitely move out with no hassles”. The landlord invited the tenant to make contact with the contractors to establish a timeline for the repairs which the tenant agreed to do.
On 21 July 2025 the landlord contacted the tenant to say the leaks had not been repaired and the gutters checked because the tenant and plumber had not been able to arrange a mutually available time. The landlord asked if the tenant would be willing to leave a key to the property with one of her commercial tenants for the plumber to collect or these repairs could be completed.
On 22 July 2025 the tenant contacted the landlord agreeing to leave a key for the plumber. The tenant also said she was thinking of paying two weeks rent and moving out.
Later that day the landlord asked the tenant to: a. make contact with one of her contractors to arrange a time for the leaks and window drafts to be repaired – which the tenant agreed to do. b. Make contact with another contractor to arrange a time for the roof leaks to be repaired – which the tenant agreed to do.
On 24 July 2025 the tenant advised the landlord one of her contractors had been to the property and re-sealed the shower, the other contractor did not attend, and the disrepair issues remain outstanding.
On 25 July 2025 the landlord asked the tenant if the electrician had been to the property to install new power points. The tenant responded that she didn’t know and indicated that she did not cope well with stress.
On 28 July 2025 the tenant told the landlord that she was vacating the property. During the e-mail exchange the tenant asked the landlord to deduct one weeks rent from the bond and stated: “In reality the house not really suitable to live in or stay in until it was up to standards..can’t we use that as reason for me to move out and get my bond back.”
The landlord replied: “Yes, that’s true.”
Later in the email exchange the tenant sent through a list of issues with the property that read: “Leaking roof up top of the stairs. Window leaks throughout the hallway. No heating. Drafts get in. No ventilation in bathroom or kitchen. Possibly needs more smoke alarms in end rooms and other bedrooms. Needs curtains.” The tenant tells the landlord she needs her bond back and that she is moving out due to family harm and the property not being suitable to live in.
On 28 July 2025 the parties agree the bond refund form will be submitted after the exit inspection. The tenant then states that if she is unable to patch repair and paint the holes where the wall mount for her television was located, the landlord could deduct the repair cost from the bond.
On 29 July 2025 the landlord offered to reduced the rent by fifty per cent for six months while the repairs were being completed and asked the tenant if she would like to remain in the property on that basis.
Following a discussion between the parties the tenant declined the offer.
On 31 July 2025 the tenant vacated the property.
On 5 August 2025 the tenant returned the keys to another of the landlord’s tenants.
That tenant completed the exit inspection for the property. On the basis of that inspection, the landlord raises the following issues with the tenant: a. The property smells of cat urine. b. There was cat excrement in the kitchen. c. There was a red stain and a black mark on the carpet. The tenant responded the marks on the carpet were present at the commencement of the tenancy and had been recorded on the pre-tenancy inspection report.
On 6 August 2025 at 5:19am the landlord received a message from the tenant’s mother. The message was sent from the tenant’s e-mail. The message outlined multiple pre-existing issues with the property and challenged the assertion the property smelt of cat urine, saying the odour was caused by the wet carpet.
Immediately following this message, the tenant’s mother telephoned the landlord. They spoke for nearly 32 minutes.
Later that day the tenant and her mother returned to the property and advised the landlord there was no cat excrement in the kitchen and no cat urine odour. The tenant also challenged the landlord using two different people to complete the pre-tenancy and exit inspections. The bond refund form was completed. Tenant’s claims

Did the landlord provide the property in a clean and tidy condition?

The tenant claims the landlord failed to provide the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the commencement of the tenancy and seeks compensation. The tenant took issue with stains on the carpet and marks on the walls and said the property was not cleaned to her standard as a professional cleaner.
The landlord states that the property had been vacant since she purchased it and was of the view that the property was reasonably clean and tidy but, if cleaning was required, a simple wipe down of the surfaces and a vacuum was all that was necessary.
At the commencement of the tenancy the parties had agreed the tenant would clean the property and this would be done in exchange for one week’s free rent.
The Act requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, see section 45(1)(a).
The Act does not define reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available – particularly photographs presented, and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean. 1
There were no pre tenancy inspection photographs proving the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant claims the property was not provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and the landlord holds the opposite position.
On the available evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the landlord failed to provide the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and the claim is dismissed. Even if the Tribunal is wrong, and the property was not provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, the Tribunal would not have awarded compensation given the agreement between the parties where the tenant was provided with one week’s free rent in exchange for cleaning the property.

Did the landlord breach the Act by failing to provide keys?

The tenant seeks compensation from the landlord for failing to provide an additional set of keys to the property. The tenant said that she was provided with one set of keys for the property and as a result both she and her husband were inconvenienced.
The landlord said that she provided the tenant with the only key she had for the property and was aware that the tenant had had an additional key cut which failed to work in the lock.
Under section 46(1) of the Act, landlords are required to provide and maintain the locks and other similar devices necessary to ensure the premises are reasonably secure.
The landlord is only required to provide keys and security devices to the named tenant. There is no obligation on the landlord to provide keys or security devices to other people living at the property with the tenant’s consent. 1 Bevan Realty Limited – As Agent for Xian Jian Chew v Kristian Pilgrim [2025] NZTT 5153354
The Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord met their obligations under the Act. The tenant was provided a keys to the property. With the landlord’s consent the tenant arranged for a key to be cut for her husband to use. When the key failed to work the tenant’s remedy was to go back to the business that cut the key and have the key retooled. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the landlord breached their obligations under the Act and the claims for compensation are dismissed.

Did the landlord comply with the HHS for heating?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Act, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard by failing to provide any heating in the property.
The landlord acknowledged the property was provided without any heating, stating she did not realise when she purchased, and subsequently rented out the property, that no heating was installed. The landlord said that as soon as she became aware of the issue she tried to obtain a quote to have a heat pump and wall heaters installed. However, the landlord said she had difficulty securing contractors to undertake the work.
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.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
In this case I have determined that the landlord failed to provide to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level as required by the heating standard.
I find [The landlord/s] committed an unlawful act.
The issue of compensation will be addressed under the heading “exemplary damages”.

Did the landlord comply with the HHS for ventilation?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord breached their obligations under the Act as it related to the HHS ventilation standard because: a. The bedroom window was nailed shut from the outside. b. Five of the eight windows in the hallway were nailed shut from the outside. c. There were no windows in the lounge or dining room. d. The extraction fan in the kitchen and bathroom were not working.
The HHS provide for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to ventilation. The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, in particular, the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
At the hearing the landlord said she thought the property was habitable and did not know the windows had been nailed shut from the outside. The landlord also said she did not know the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen were not working as she had asked for an electrician to inspect the property and had assumed that this would form part of their checks.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the landlord has breached their obligations under the HHS ventilation standard as windows were nailed shut and the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen were not working.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
I find [The landlord/s] committed an unlawful act.
The issue of compensation will be addressed under the heading “exemplary damages”.

Did the landlord comply with the HHS for draught stopping?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord breached their obligations under the Act as it related to the HHS draught stopping standard.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant listed the following issues: a. There were gaps around external doors causing a draught. b. There were gaps around the windows and the putty securing the window glazing was in poor condition allowing draughts and rain to penetrate. c. The louver windows in the bathroom and dining room did not seal shut causing a draught. The tenant said the property was very cold and damp to live in. As a result the tenant said she and her husband mostly lived in their bedroom as this was the only room they were able to heat with a portable heater.
The landlord accepts the tenant notified her about the issues with draughts in the property. The landlord stated that when the issue was brought to her attention she tried to arrange for remediation work but struggled to find contractors who were available and willing to complete the necessary repairs.
In this case having heard from both parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal has determined that the landlord breached the HHS related to draught stopping. The tenant’s evidence clearly outlined that the gaps in the external windows and doors were sufficient to allow cold air and water to penetrate the property which was accepted by the landlord.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
I find [The landlord/s] committed an unlawful act.
The issue of compensation will be addressed under the heading “exemplary damages”.

Did the landlord comply with the HHS for water ingress?

[The tenant/s] landlord breached their obligation under the Act as it related to the HHS 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.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant states that when she moved into the property, she discovered the drains were blocked and the windows were leaking, and a water leak was present in the internal concrete stairwell. The tenant said that the water leaks from the bedroom and hallway windows were wetting the carpets causing them to smell musty, and the leak in the stairwell caused the steps to be slippery. As a result of this the tenant said that she started running a dehumidifier to help reduce moisture build up in the property and offered to clean the carpets for the landlord using a carpet cleaning machine to address the odour.
The landlord acknowledged the issue with moisture ingress caused by a blocked drain which she immediately remedied by having a plumber attend the property. With regards to the leaking windows in the bedroom the landlord said she was unaware of the issue. With regards to the leaking windows in the hallway and internal stairwell leak the landlord said she suspected this related to blocked guttering or possibly the direction of the rain. The landlord said that she tried unsuccessfully to arrange for a contractor to attend the property to investigate the leaks and inspect the guttering.
In this case having heard from both parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal has determined that the landlord breached the HHS related to moisture ingress. The tenant identified issues with leaking windows, a leaking ceiling and blocked drains. The landlord acknowledged the issues and tried unsuccessfully to resolve them.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
I find [The landlord/s] committed an unlawful act.

Did the landlord supply information about insulation in the tenancy agreement?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not included insulation details in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord accepts that the insulation statement in the tenancy agreement is silent and was unable to explain why this had occurred. The landlord stated that the property has ceiling insulation. The landlord said she understood the property was not required to have underfloor insulation because it was located on the second floor of the building.
A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed. See section 13A(1A) of the Act.
Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of 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) of the Act.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
[The landlord/s] failed to include information in the Healthy Homes Statement regarding the property’s insulation. I find [The landlord/s] has committed an unlawful act.
The issue of compensation will be addressed under the heading “exemplary damages”. Exemplary damages
The tenant seeks exemplary damages for breaches under the HHS.
The landlord stated that due to her own personal circumstances she was not aware the property needed to comply with the HHS as of 1 July 2025.
The changes to the date of compliance with HHS was well known and the District Court has generally rejected a landlord pleading confusion, lack of knowledge, or ignorance of the law. 2
The landlord said the property had not been occupied since she purchased it and gave the tenant one week’s free rent in anticipation of any latent maintenance issues being identified.
It is clear to the Tribunal that the landlord failed to undertake the necessary due diligence to ensure the property complied with the requirements of the HHS and the Act. By providing one week’s free rent, the landlord used the tenant to identify those latent defects and maintenance issues, believing she had 90 days to bring the property up to HHS standard. The Tribunal finds the landlord acted intentionally. 2 TMT New Zelanald Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.
The effect on the tenant was that she lived in a poorly maintained house which was wet and cold and smelt musty, which likely contributed to her general feelings of distress.
There is a strong interest for tenants and the public generally to live in a healthy environment and to be provided with information about the health of their homes.
Having considered all section 109 3 factors the Tribunal has determined that it is appropriate to award exemplary damages in the following amounts: a. For the breach of the HHS related to heating the amount of $500.00 is awarded. b. For the breach of the HHS related to ventilation the amount of $500.00 is awarded. c. For the breach of the HHS related to draught stopping the amount of $500.00 is awarded. d. For the breach of the HHS related to water ingress the amount of $500.00 is awarded. e. For the breach of failing to provide an insulation statement the Tribunal awards $250.00.
The Tribunal has made these awards in recognition of the landlord’s ongoing attempts to resolve the outstanding maintenance issues once identified, and in recognition of the landlord’s offer of an early break of the lease (which was taken up) due to the scope of the disrepair. Compensation for emotional harm
The tenant seeks compensation for emotional harm from the landlord saying that living in the property with all of the disrepair issues and dealing with the landlord’s contractors “got to be too much” and left her feeling “yuck”.
The tenant acknowledged that the situation was exacerbated by her mental health diagnosis and the breakdown of her relationship with her husband. She also said that she had no support network in Huntly and wanted to “run-away”
The landlord disputes the tenant’s claim for emotional harm compensation. The landlord said she tried to support the tenant in the following ways to maintain the tenancy while the repairs were undertaken: a. When the tenant initially indicated she wished to remain in the property the landlord said she tried to help find a boarder to assist with rent payments. 3 Residential tenancies Act 1986 b. When the tenant indicated she was leaving the property to live in her car the landlord said she offered to half the rent for six months, so the tenant had somewhere safer to live. c. When the tenant advised her husband had left the property and taken the furniture the landlord said she reached out to the Huntly Community Advice Trust to arrange for them to provide furniture and support for the tenant. d. When the tenant asked the landlord to refund the bond under the family harm provisions (to expedite the process) she did so.
At the hearing the tenant thanked the landlord for her support, acknowledging they had had a good relationship during the tenancy.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal does not find that the landlord’s breaches of the Act were the sole reason for the tenant’s distress. While there were outstanding maintenance and HHS issues with the property, which the landlord was actively working to resolve, the tenant was dealing with significant personal issues which contributed to her distress. The claim for general damages for emotional harm is dismissed. Landlord’s claims

Is the tenant liable to pay rent?

The landlord seeks rent totalling $3,600.00 after agreeing to an early termination of the fixed term. No rent schedule was provided.
The landlord acknowledged she had previously told the tenant they could leave the property prior to the end of the fixed term because of outstanding maintenance and HHS issues. However, the landlord now seeks compensation as she submits the tenant sought early release from the tenancy because she could not afford the rent.
Section 50(1)(d) of the Act states that tenancies may be terminated where the tenant surrenders the tenancy, or delivers up vacant possession of the premises, to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent.
Section 44A(1) of the Act states that landlords are entitled to recover from the tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the termination of the tenancy.
After hearing from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal declines to award rent. The landlord acknowledged the property was not HHS compliant and had outstanding maintenance issues. The landlord acknowledged she was having difficulty arranging for contractors to attend at the property and carry out repairs. On 20 July 2025 the tenant asked to be released from the fixed term if the repairs could not be completed in a timely fashion, which the landlord agreed to. No financial penalties for early termination were discussed or agreed.
The Tribunal finds the parties agreed to end the fixed term early because of ongoing HHS compliance and maintenance issues. At the date of hearing the property was not HHS compliant and had not been re-let. The claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the property?

With any claim from a landlord for compensation for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 49B, 66K(2)(a), and 66L of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 of the Act.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent. See section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) of the Act. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) of the Act.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) of the Act.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the carpet?

The landlord seeks $1,500.00 compensation to replace carpet they say was damaged by the tenant’s cat causing a strong urine odour. The landlord was unable to provide a quote or invoice for the amount claimed.
The landlord provided an e-mail from a carpet cleaner recommending the carpet in the affected area be replaced. The contractor was unable to provide an assurance the pet urine odour would be eliminated by professional carpet cleaning. The landlord acknowledged she had not personally attended at the property to investigate the odour and has relied on a third party to complete the exit inspection which is the basis of the claim.
The tenant denies the odour in the property was caused by her cat. The tenant said the windows leaked, as evidenced in the e-mail correspondence between the parties, and that was the reason for the smell.
No pre-tenancy inspection report or photographs were provided showing the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. No exit inspection report or photographs were provided showing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. There is evidence in the e-mail correspondence between the parties of the windows leaking, wetting the carpet and causing an odour which the tenant offered to clean with a carpet cleaning machine once the windows were repaired.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the carpet odour and the claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for broken window glazing?

The landlord seeks $300.00 compensation for broken window glazing. The landlord said that a window was broken during the tenancy and repaired with Perspex. The amount claimed was an estimate only and no quote or invoice was provided.
The tenant accepts responsibility for the broken window and does not take issue with the amount claimed.
The amount claimed is ordered.

Is the tenant responsible for wall damage?

The landlord seeks $150.00 compensation to remediate wall damage caused by the tenant affixing a television bracket to the wall. The amount claimed was an estimate only and no quote or invoice was provided.
The tenant accepted responsibility for the damage to the wall and said she had asked the landlord to deduct the repair costs from her bond. This agreement was recorded in the e-mail correspondence between the parties.
The amount claimed is ordered.

Is the tenant liable to pay for an electrical power point installed in the property?

The landlord seeks compensation of $368.00 after arranging for an additional power point to be installed in the property. The landlord said that she arranged for the power point to be installed after the tenant asked to borrow an extension lead off a neighbour so she could properly vacuum the carpet.
The tenant denies the power point was installed by the electrician and disputes liability for the cost.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act landlords are responsible for providing and maintaining a property in a reasonable state of repair. This includes ensuring the property meets all relevant building, health, and safety standards.
The landlord is responsible for ensuring the property has adequate power points. The landlord arranged for an additional power point to be installed as there were insufficient number located in the property. The Tribunal finds the tenant is not responsible for the cost of installing an additional power point and the claim is dismissed.

Can the landlord claim exemplary damages for harassment?

The landlord seeks exemplary damages for harassment by the tenant’s mother following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said she was contacted by the tenant’s mother at 5:19am on 6 August 2025. The tenant’s mother was upset and threatened to take her to Court over the state of the property. The landlord said the conversation was distressing and intimidating. The landlord said that as a result of this call she felt forced into refunding the tenant’s bond in full.
The tenant said she was present during the call and denied her mother bullied or intimidated the landlord.
Section 38 of the Act sets out the obligation not to harass. However, this obligation is specifically imposed on the landlord and their agents towards the tenant. There is no corresponding obligation on the tenant towards the landlord.
Exemplary damages can only be awarded for unlawful acts that are expressly listed in schedule 1A of the Act. Harassment by a tenant or their agent towards a landlord is not listed as an unlawful act for which exemplary damages can be awarded. On that basis the claim is dismissed. Costs
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimburse the filing fee.
Because [The respondent/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has been substantially successful and the Tribunal orders suppression of their name and identifying details.
The landlord has been substantially successful and the Tribunal orders suppression of their name and identifying details.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

Did the landlord provide the property in a clean and tidy condition?

Did the landlord breach the Act by failing to provide keys?

Did the landlord comply with the HHS for heating?

Did the landlord comply with the HHS for ventilation?

Did the landlord comply with the HHS for draught stopping?

Did the landlord comply with the HHS for water ingress?

Did the landlord supply information about insulation in the tenancy agreement?

Is the tenant liable to pay rent?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the property?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the carpet?

Is the tenant responsible for broken window glazing?

Is the tenant responsible for wall damage?

Is the tenant liable to pay for an electrical power point installed in the property?

Can the landlord claim exemplary damages for harassment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

Did the landlord provide the property in a clean and tidy condition?

Did the landlord breach the Act by failing to provide keys?

Did the landlord comply with the HHS for heating?

Did the landlord comply with the HHS for ventilation?

Did the landlord comply with the HHS for draught stopping?

Did the landlord comply with the HHS for water ingress?

Did the landlord supply information about insulation in the tenancy agreement?

Is the tenant liable to pay rent?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the property?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the carpet?

Is the tenant responsible for broken window glazing?

Is the tenant responsible for wall damage?

Is the tenant liable to pay for an electrical power point installed in the property?

Can the landlord claim exemplary damages for harassment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions