What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5341929?

The tribunal order states: Nick Ferrier must pay Fiona Jennifer Hallam $1,708.00 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5341929?

Property Damage: $310.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $620.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341929?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13372776-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5341929?

The tribunal order states: Nick Ferrier must pay Fiona Jennifer Hallam $1,708.00 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5341929?

Property Damage: $310.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $620.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341929?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13372776-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room The Victorian, 64 Brougham Street, Nelson South, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5341929 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Room The Victorian, 64 Brougham Street, Nelson South, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5341929 — Healthy homes | 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 5341929 — net $1,708.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation / general damages	$620.00	Compensation / general damages
Exemplary damages: HHS breach	$500.00	HHS breach
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$310.00	Failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide HHS statement	$250.00	Failure to provide HHS statement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,708.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,708.00

Claims and awards for application 5341929 — net $1,708.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation / general damages

Amount: $620.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation / general damages

Exemplary damages: HHS breach

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: HHS breach

Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond

Amount: $310.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to lodge bond

Exemplary damages: Failure to provide HHS statement

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to provide HHS statement

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage

Order

Nick Ferrier must pay Fiona Jennifer Hallam $1,708.00 immediately, calculated as follows:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlord. DescriptionTenant Compensation / general damages$620.00 Exemplary damages: HHS breach$500.00 Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond Exemplary damages: Failure to provide HHS statement $310.00 $250.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$1,708.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$1,708.00
Both parties appeared at the hearing with their respective legal representatives.

BACKGROUND

The premises are a boarding house in Nelson, known as ‘Warwick House’ or ‘The Castle’. I understand there are 11 boarding rooms, and the building is around 170 years of age.
The tenant has provided an audio recording of a communication she had with Dani Ferrier (acting as the property manager). The recording was prior to the parties agreeing on the rental. The first recording is a recording of a voice message left by the tenant, with the tenant emphasising to Ms Ferrier that she is sensitive to mould, and asking if it can be treated before she moves in. Ms Ferrier later responded, advising that she had spoken to a mould specialist who recommended a particular product, that Ms Ferrier undertook to obtain and have the premises treated with. Ms Ferrier also offered an alternate room if the tenant preferred.
Mr Ferrier subsequently undertook the mould treatment on 18 June 2025.
The parties agreed on the rental. The tenancy agreement records the tenant as Fiona Hallam. The agreement does not record who the landlord was, but at the hearing, the parties agree the landlord is Nick Ferrier.
The tenancy agreement records the tenancy commencement date of 24 June and while the year is not recorded, I accept it was 2025, and the weekly rental was $310.00. The agreement required two weeks of rent to be paid for the bond ($620.00).
In terms of the room rented, the landlord describes it as follows: The tenant’s room, known as the Victorian Suite, is located downstairs and is accessed via a separate common area (the Downstairs Common Area). The Downstairs Common Area leads to both the Victorian Suite and another boarding room separately let by another tenant, known as the Daisy Jenner Room. The Downstairs Common Area contains a communal kitchenette facility, and both the Victorian Suite and Daisy Jenner Room contain their own separate bathrooms and showers.
I understand that while this is a boarding house, the tenants’ boarding room is located downstairs with one other boarding room, and those two rooms primarily use the kitchenette located in the common area. Roof leak
The landlord states there was an area to the ceiling in the common area that was darkened. A photograph has been provided as follows:
The landlord considers that was probably a water mark from an earlier leak rather than mould, but around the time of the tenancy, this discolouration increased. The landlord states: The Ceiling Discolouration was suspected to be associated with a prior issue affecting a drain above. The landlord does not accept that the leak or any associated moisture ingress had been present for many years or had been ongoing. Rather, there had been a discrete leak approximately a year earlier, which was identified and repaired at the time through remedial work to the upstairs drain. The present issue was understood to reflect a failure or deterioration of that earlier repair.
As noted above, Mr Ferrier subsequently undertook the mould treatment on 18 June 2025, and he reports making arrangements for the builder to attend to a suspected leak. Because the builder was having medical treatment at the time, there was a delay in the builder attending until July.
On 13 July 2025 the tenant raised concerns with the landlord about mould.
On 15 July 2025, the landlord messaged the tenant to say that he had provided another treatment to the ceiling in the common area, and the builder would likely undertake another treatment the following week.
On or about 18 July 2025, the landlord messaged the tenant to report that the builder had indicated the extent of the repairs required, and that a solution may take longer than anticipated, given the insurer would need to be involved.
Landlord states that he told the tenant he would understand if she wished to move out, otherwise she could pay half of the rent for the period of the repairs. The rent ledger confirms the reduced payments.
The landlord reports that there were delays with the insurance assessor, but otherwise the necessary work was undertaken, that involved the builder doing work, a mould remediation expert being appointed. The landlord states there were delays with getting the work finished, because the builder needed to wait for surfaces to dry.
On 18 and 20 August 2025, the landlord offered the tenant three alternate premises to live during the repairs, that was in Allan Street, Kanini Street, and Atawhai. The tenant declined those three properties.
On 21 August 2025, the landlord advised the tenant the remediation work was scheduled for 26 August, and that plastic sheeting would be placed to isolate the affected area so drying, treatment and repairs could be completed.
On about 29 August 2025, the builder made an opening in the ceiling lining. The landlord states he was not aware that work was to be undertaken, and therefore no notice had been given to the tenant.
The following photograph shows the location of the leak, and the situation after the builder had opened the ceiling:
The open area was then covered:
Around 31 August 2025, following further rainfall, there was an additional leak in the ceiling. Tenant moves out
While there are differences of opinion between the parties about precisely what happened, what is not disputed is that the tenant moved out of the premises. The tenant says that the tenancy had been terminated, but the landlord’s position is that it was a voluntary decision from the tenant to move out for the duration of the remediation.
As noted above, it is the case that the landlord offered the tenant a number of alternate options to live on a temporary basis, but the tenant did not agree to those premises.
On 1 September 2025 the tenant moved out, but had left a range of her belongings in the room. The tenant stayed with a friend for two nights.
On 3 September 2025 the tenant returned to the premises, and found that her bedroom door was unlocked, and that someone had been in her room.
On 4 September 2025 the landlord advised that the tenant should not be at the premises while the works were being completed.
The tenant said that as she had no other options, she moved into AirBnB premises. The tenant indicates needing to move 6 times.
On 5 September 2025 the landlord updated the tenant that she would not have access to her room for about two weeks, but no timeline was provided. Remediation work
A report has been provided from the builder undertaking the remediation work, that report dated 8 December 2025. I will record it in full, because it provides an important summary of the issues, and work undertaken to remediate the leak: Procedure for remedying leak in the downstairs entrance way at Warwick House. In late June were engaged by Nick and Jenny Ferrier to investigate and remediate a leak that had appeared in the left hand corner of the downstairs entranceway to an apartment at 64 Brougham St, following several substantial heavy rain events. On investigation, the primary cause of this leak was thought to be the butynol formed drain on the upper verandah of the house, 2 floors above the downstairs entranceway. The process With the heavy rains that the area experienced during June-August 2025 it was clear that some part of the butanol drain that had suffered damage and needed replacement. Several dye tests were carried to confirm this. As butynol roofs and drains are a specialized area we then engaged Pyers Services as consultants to view the site and advise on the correct way to ensure that a replacement of the entire butanol drain would be effective and long lasting. Pyers provided myself with specialist training in this field and provided the replacement butynol grade recommended and the specialist adhesives required to ensure a waterproof seal. In earlier August we began with the process of removing the existing original bytanol from the plywood base that forms the entire upper deck drain. In order for the adhesives to provide long lasting durability it was necessary for the plywood base along the entire length of the approximate 11-meter-long drain to be entire dry and moisture free. Being mid-winter this proved a particularly difficult task has we then had 4 weeks of weather where it rained 3-4 days each week. During this period I made regularly visits every 2-3 days to the site to evaluate the dryness of the plywood substrate. With the butynol now entirely removed and the drain unable to be effectively covered for several weeks, there were some leakage along the full length of the front entrance wall beneath the drain. Finally we had a dry period of around 5 consecutive days and were able to close up the drain with the new butynol coating. We water tested this and were happy with the results. Immediately following this we were able to turn our attention to finally opening up the downstairs entrance way area where the leak had been showing through the ceiling gib. The moisture effected area from the leak was contained to just 1 relatively small corner of the entranceway approximately affecting an area about 300x300mm in the ceiling gib. Prior to commencement of these repairs, we enclosed the 6sqm meter with a full plastic curtain attached to both walls, ceiling and floor. The gib covering the corner and ceiling beams were stripped back and a patch of effected ceiling gib was removed. Dryers were then set up to reduce the moisture in the timbers, and the owners then engaged Restore Cleaning and Restoration of Blenheim to carry out Antimicrobial tests and treatment of the area. Once these treatments were completed by Restore we returned, resealed and relined the affected area. The job was now completed and waterproof.
On or around 3 September 2025, the landlord entered the tenant’s room to install new curtains, and to remove a dehumidifier (not owned by the tenant). Restore report
An assessment was undertaken by ‘Restore’ in relation to mould, at an inspection on 17 July 2025. My impression is that this was undertaken within the context of the insurance claim.
In any event, the report records the water ingress, and that visible microbial grown was present on the ceiling, and that concerns had been raised by the tenants.
Moisture testing was undertaken, and reported to show increased moisture levels in the ceiling and walls, indicative of water ingress (that was probably expected given the leak). A remediation plan was provided, including containment of the area, using air scrubbers, microbial treatment and drying.
A follow-up assessment on 11 August 2025 records that the planned work had been completed, and the structure had reached a “dry standard”. Tenant returns to premises
On 3 October 2025, the tenant returned to the premises. The landlord states that the tenant had not notified him that she was intending to return, and that he was otherwise not in agreement given the remediation work had not been completed. Some work was outstanding including painting, cleaning and tidying. Tenancy ends
On 10 October 2025, the tenant gave three weeks written notice to end the tenancy, and following discussion with the landlord, it was agreed the tenancy would end on 24 October 2024. HHS Assessment
The landlord had an HHS assessment undertaken by ‘Betta’.
The assessment identified some areas of work that were required, that work was completed, and an updated report provided, after which Betta on 13 January 2026 confirmed the premises to be HHS compliant Hearing
A hearing was held in Nelson on 31 March 2025. Both the tenant and landlord were in attendance, with the tenant legally represented by Mr Lawrence, and the landlord by Mr Osborne.

TENANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, Mr Lawrence confirmed the tenant’s claims are as follows: a. Refund of rent paid b. Exemplary damages for breach of HHS. c. Compensation for medical treatment d. General damages for stress e. Exemplary damages for unlawful entry f. Exemplary damages for unlawful eviction g. Compensation for accommodation costs. h. Exemplary damages for failure to lodge bond i. Exemplary damages for failure to provide HHS statement j. Costs.

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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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 various 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 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA 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.

ANALYSIS

The applicant seeks ten specific orders, I will consider those in turn. Claim 1 – Refund of rent
It was submitted that the premises were not a healthy home and should not have been rented. It is submitted that the premises were leaking and the leaks not adequately addressed. Previous tenants have reported leaks. The premises were mouldy and this was not remedied by the landlord.
On 17 July the landlord was advised there was microbial growth at the premises, as well as an appearance of mould on the ceiling.
The tenant was not advised of the issues.
In this case the tenant has a medical vulnerability which was notified to the landlord prior to the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord was slow to cordon the areas of mould and contamination. When the ceiling was opened, the tenant was not notified of this, which caused the tenant to have an allergic reaction.
Once the remedial work was undertaken, the ceiling began leaking.
The premises were otherwise damp and mouldy, and did not have adequate ventilation.
In response, the landlord submits that the house is some 170 years old, and the extent to which repairs are needed under the RTA, it must be with reference to the age of the house (section 66I(1)(b)).
The landlord’s position is that leaking at the premises was related to unusually heavy rainfall events.
In any event, when the issues with the leak arose, the landlord offered to release the tenant from the tenancy and even offered to provide her with alternate accommodation, which the tenant did not accept. Rather the landlord’s position is that when issues with the premises arose, the tenant made decisions to make things difficult or to capitalise on the situation for her benefit.
In terms of the rent refund, the landlord has applied a rent reduction already, There was a rend discount applied when the tenant was living in the premises, and full abatement when she relocated during the works.
At the hearing Mr Ferrier advised that the leak was from a drain on the roof, which required a period of time to dry before the waterproofing could be reapplied.
Mr Ferrier disputes this is a leaking property. There was one prior leak, this was raised with the tenant before she moved in.
The landlord notes that the leak was in an entry area (the common area), not the tenant’s dwelling room.
In conclusion, Ms Hallam maintains that she was exposed to some 16 weeks of mould, with the landlord not addressing the issue. Analysis
There is no dispute between the parties that there was a leak in the ceiling in the common area. At the start of the tenancy there was a dark patch in the ceiling which increased in size, and was then opened up by the builder. There is no doubt however that this was from the leak arising from the drain above.
No landlord can guarantee there would be no leaks or other problems arise with a dwelling over the course of the tenancy, that would be unrealistic. Houses are complex structures, and parts of all houses fail over time.
In my assessment, when the leak occurred, the obligation on the landlord was to fix the leak and remediate the ceiling, which falls within the landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises. Section 66I(1)(b) of the RTA confirms the landlord’s obligations around maintenance, and holds that the landlord must: ensure that the premises are in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes;
I agree with Mr Osborne’s submission, that the assessment of what maintenance the landlord must do, needs to take consideration of the “age and character” of the premises. Here the premises are some 170 years of age, that is a factor which must be considered.
A landlord must provide and maintain the premises (including the facilities which the common area is) in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. In Barfoot & Thompson v Casey the Court considered the extent of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The Court said that there was no absolute liability or responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time.
In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd 1 the Court stated: [15] I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be.
In this case, I am satisfied that the evidence shows that the landlord has been responsive with getting the repairs undertaken. When concerns were raised with the landlord prior to the tenancy commencing, the landlord obtained specialist advise on treating the area in the event it was mould, and then did that work. The landlord also instructed the builder around that time, and while there was a delay in the builder starting, that was a matter not of the landlords control (the builder was recovering from a procedure). Then the builder started, but there were delays because of a need to dry the exterior ply before it could be waterproofed. The landlord also instructed Resolve a specialist company, to assist with inspecting the leak and mould, and then undertook the work that company recommended. That all seems reasonable.
I have considered whether the landlord had contracted with the tenant to provide premises that were exceptionally free of mould for the duration of the tenancy, given the tenants medical circumstances, but I find he did not. I accept it was a term of the contract that the landlord would treat the dark area on the ceiling in the common area before the tenancy started, and he did that. But there is no evidence that I have seen or heard, where the landlord has otherwise contracted with the tenant to provide a more sterile tenancy than would otherwise be expected.
While I find that there was an unfortunately long period of time from the builder being instructed to the work being completed, that has been adequately explained. But the evidence does not support a situation of the landlord doing nothing, or delays arising with the landlord. I am satisfied that the landlord has complied with his obligation to maintain the premises, he has acted reasonably to have the premises repaired and maintained, so there is no breach of his obligations from that perspective.
One of the unusual circumstances that does arise in this case, is that the RTA provided both parties with a remedy to the precise situation that arose, but neither party took it.
Section 59 of the RTA relates to destruction of premises, not from a breach of an obligation where the premises are “so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable”, then to end the tenancy only two days notice would be needed from the tenant, or seven days from the landlord. If the premises were only partially destroyed, then the rent would abate, and either party could apply for orders from the Tribunal on whether the tenancy should end.
Section 59A would allow the tenant to terminate the tenancy if there had been a breach of an obligation on the part of the landlord (which the tenant submits occurred), which made the premises uninhabitable. If such notice was given, then the rent would abate, and 2 days notice would be required.
“Uninhabitable” means not fit to live in, not capable of habitation, occupation or tenancy, 2 not free of serious defects that might harm health or safety 3 or a substantial interference (more than temporary) with the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises. 4 That is what both parties have described here.
Ultimately, both parties assessed the premises as being uninhabitable, but rather than terminate the tenancy, the parties agreed the tenant should move out for the duration of the repairs (I will discuss this further below under the claim for unlawful termination).
I would accept that there has been a breach on the part of the landlord in a contractual sense, because the parties had contracted for the tenant to reside in the boarding room for the duration of the tenancy contract. While the landlord could have terminated the tenancy he did not, so breached his contractual obligation around providing the room until the tenant moved back in.
It was reasonable that the landlord provide compensation or general damages for that breach, because it can be accepted that needing to move out would have caused stress and inconvenience to the tenant, and probably some out-of-pocket expenses.
The question then is what level of compensation or general damages to provide. I am minded that the landlord applied a 50% rent reduction from 22 July 2025, and a 100% reduction when the tenant moved out, until she moved back in.
I am not persuaded it would be reasonable to require the landlord to reimburse the Airbnb rentals for these reasons: a. The rent has abated, as would be the outcome if the parties applied their statutory remedy. 2 Watkin v Brazier Property Investments Ltd [2012] DCR 186 at [10]; Harcourts Accommodation Centre Ltd v Faldut [2011] NZTT Christchurch 2307 at [36]–[42]. 3 McDonald v Hummelstad [2011] NZTT Christchurch 4001. 4 Keesing v Damerell Group Property Management Ltd trading as Ray White [2017] NZTT 4080301. b. The landlord had offered three alternate properties. I am not convinced they would not have been suitable or materially similar to the boarding house. If extra costs were incurred with say Taxi’s to the supermarket, the landlord may have been liable for those. c. I am not persuaded that the AirBnB properties would have been at a comparable standard as the boarding house, so betterment would be relevant.
However, I consider it would be reasonable to order the landlord to pay two weeks rental by way of a global order of compensation / general damages for the reasons discussed above. I cannot make a specific calculation of precise loss or inconvenience, but I consider an order at that level would be fair. Therefore the landlord is to pay the tenant $620.00. Claim 2 - Exemplary damages for breach of HHS.
The applicant submits that the premises fell short of the HHS ventilation, draughts, moisture ingress, and heating standards.
The landlord agrees that there was a breach of the ventilation standard, in that the rangehood was venting into a non-habitable space, rather than outside the dwelling, However it is submitted that there is no intention around this breach as the landlord was not aware this did not comply. This has since been resolved.
The draught stopping was not raised by the tenant, it was only found when the HHS assessment was undertaken following the tenancy, and it is now addressed.
As far as the leak is concerned, this is not a breach of the HHS as such, but a maintenance and weather issue. The builder has confirmed that given the underfloor area a ground moisture barrier would not be required.
In relation to heating, the landlord’s position is that there was heating provided in the tenants’ lounge.
In conclusion the tenants position is that the landlord is a large landlord and should have known the HHS obligations that applied. Analysis
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provided for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the HHS. A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered as set out in Schedule 1A to the RTA, is $7,200.00.
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/
In this case, because the premises are a boarding house, the HHS requires that the main living room of the boarding house be heated, not the boarding room itself. The tenant has not provided any evidence to show that the main living room in the premises does not comply with this standard. The fact of the HHS assessment report from Betta confirming the heating standard has been met, does not support a breach. I find that no breach of the heating standard has been established.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
In this case, the tenant submits there is a breach because the rangehood in the kitchen was not externally vented. The landlord accepts that is the case. I find the landlord has breached this HHS obligation.
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. In this case, the landlord appears to have accepted that there were unreasonable draughts present, in that the landlord had them addressed following the HHS assessment.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires 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.
In this case, I agree with the landlord that the leak is not an HHS issue, but a maintenance issue. Had the drain not failed, I accept that the leak would not have occurred, and presumably the storm water would be effectively drained from the dwelling.
I find therefore that there is a breach of the HHS with ventilation and draught stopping.
The HHS is a fundamental obligation on landlords. This is a sizeable landlord who should have been well aware of his obligations with the HHS. I consider that the landlords decisions around the HHS are likely to be intentional.
The effect for the tenant is likely to be modest. As far as the draught stopping is concerned, it appears that this was not an issue for the tenant in that it was not raised with the landlord during the tenancy. In terms of the rangehood, given how it was installed, the impact for the tenant is likely to have been limited.
However, there are strong interests for tenants and the public generally for premises to be HHS complaint, which these premises were not.
I consider it would be just to make an order of exemplary damages, which in this case I fix at $500.00. That is a modest order, but I consider would be proportional to the limited breaches of the HHS. Claim 3 - Compensation for medical treatment
The tenants position is that there is a link between the worsening of the her underlying health condition and the tenancy.
The tenant submits that are three practitioners who have linked the tenant’s symptoms to the premises.
Firstly a letter from the naturopath which confirms that the symptoms calmed down on leaving these premises.
Secondly a traditional Chinese medical practitioner referred to mould in the living space as a likely cause along with stress.
Thirdly a letter from Dr Haslam who also noted an exacerbation of the condition to mould. Ms Haslam states that her condition significantly worsened from living in the premises.
Mr Lawrence accepted that none of these practitioners have assessed the premises.
The landlord’s position is that the evidence supporting a link between the premises and the tenant’s condition is lacking, and based on self- reporting from the tenant. Furthermore, the ‘clinical’ evidence suggests there could be other causes for the symptoms.
The landlord also states that it is not consistent for the tenant to say that the premises were causing her significant health problems, then moving back into the premises before the work was completed.
The tenant said it is difficult to hear other people’s views when she was “seriously struggling” at the time, and while living at the premises were symptoms were getting “worse and worse”. Since moving out of the premises her condition improved. The tenant said that “You flare to everything with” her condition, and her landlord should have provided premises that avoided these flare-ups. Analysis
The tenant seeks compensation for medical treatments.
I agree with the landlord’s submission, that in order to find in favour of the tenant, I must find a causal link between a breach of some obligation that the landlord had, and the tenant’s condition for which the compensation is requested.
The tenants evidence is that she has significant vulnerability to even small amounts of mould, and therefore needs premises with very low levels of mould or contaminants. I have had difficulty reconciling why the tenant elected these premises to rent. The premises are old (170 years old), and from that fact alone, do not have the building and material standards that modern dwellings do. I have also had difficulty in understanding why the tenant moved back into the premises prematurely.
The tenant’s position is that her pre-existing condition has been worsened, given that she was living in mouldy premises, and the stress from needing to relocate during the repairs, etc.
As I indicated during the hearing, I am not convinced that the clinical evidence provided is sufficient to show a causal link between the tenants’ symptoms, and either mould or stress for the reasons that follow.
There are clinical letters on file well before the tenancy commenced, which confirmed that the tenant was having treatment for various matters, and that included a reference to widespread allergic rashes before the tenant moved into the dwelling. 5 I am not persuaded that the clinical evidence is sufficient to show that the rashes are materially worse.
Rather there is compelling evidence that the symptoms were significant before the tenant moved into the premises. For example, in an email to the Chinese Medical Practitioner, the tenant states she was looking for a practitioner because she had a chronic condition, some aspects of it she was struggling with.
In terms of the three letters supplied by the tenant, they have limited medicolegal weight. I agree with Mr Osborne that these are based on patient self-reporting. None of the clinicians have been to the premises to assess the extent of any mould themselves, nor have they based their opinion on an environmental experts assessment of the mould situation at the premises, not the period of time the tenant would be around the area of the water leak, which was not in the tenants room but shared facilities. 5 Clinic letter of 24 August 2023.
In my view, the requirement for an assessment would be critical in this case. The area of described mould in the common area was limited. There is no evidence that the black mark seen constituted mould as opposed to the effect of a water staining. Further, any mould that was inside the ceiling or wall cavity was sealed in, until the builder opened the ceiling and wall. Mould is ubiquitous, the clinicians opinions to carry weight, the clinicians would have needed to provide sufficient explaination to establish that it was the mould in the house that caused the tenants symptoms, rather than some other environmental mould cause.
While I have no doubt that the tenant has symptoms which may well be disabling, there is insufficient evidence to link those symptoms to the tenancy premises to the balance of probabilities, therefore this claim is dismissed. Claim 4 - General damages for stress
The tenant’s position is that general damages for stress should be provided in relation to the issues with the tenant’s health and approach of the landlord.
The landlord’s position is that in order to make a general damages order, it must first be linked to an express obligation under residential tenancy law, the usual principles of causation apply. Analysis
I have made an order of compensation and general damages above, that order would cover this claim. Claim 5 - Exemplary damages for unlawful entry
The tenant submits that exemplary damages should be ordered for unlawful entry. In that regard, when the tenant left on 1 September 2025 her dwelling door was unlocked, and when she returned on 3 September the door was unlocked, and the landlords dehumidifier had been moved out.
The landlord’s position is that there was an agreement to replace the curtains, and the tenant had moved out for the period of the repairs, and entry was therefore permitted. The entry was not unlawful because it was to do an agreed repair. The landlord’s perception was that he had authority to enter the dwelling. While the door may have been unlocked, the exterior door was locked at the end of the working days. Analysis
On 9 August 2025, Dani Ferrier emailed the tenant, advising they would get replacement curtains for the room, and my impression is that this was agreed work, certainly for the tenants benefit given she was dissatisfied with the state of the existing curtains.
I note that communications between the landlord and the tenant on file indicate that the tenant believes the landlord was required to give notice to undertake entry or work in the foyer area. That is not the case. The landlord certainly would be required to give notice to enter the boarding room, but the foyer would comprise facilities which the tenant did not have exclusive occupation over, but the key point being that the landlord did not need to give notice to enter the facilities.
However, as far as the entry to the room was concerned, in my view that was likely to have been an entry with notice, because plainly the tenant was aware that work was being undertaken to the downstairs area, which is why she had moved out. It is not unreasonable to consider that extended to the whole floor.
If I were wrong in that, I am not persuaded that the landlord’s actions were intentional (a prerequisite for exemplary damages), because I accept that the landlord had a genuine belief that he or the builder could enter the tenants room for the works.
I find this claim has not been established. Claim 6 - Exemplary damages for unlawful eviction
The tenants position is that she was unlawfully evicted in response to the tenant raising complaints around the premises.
It was submitted that the tenant needed access to the premises to access her health-related equipment, and it was not suitable to be separated from that equipment. While alternate lodgings were offered, they were not suitable, given as their distance from supermarkets or being on a hill, or the other occupants would not be compatible with the tenant’s needs.
In response, the landlord’s position is that the tenant voluntarily moved out on 1 September 2025.
The tenant returned on 3 September, and while the tenant considered she had moved back in, the landlord’s position is that the tenant needed to have moved out as the work had not been completed.
The landlord’s understanding is that tenant did not take all her belongings, which amounted to 2-3 suitcases, which is not consistent with the tenant being evicted.
Mr Ferrier said that ‘every time’ that he met the tenant, she would raise concerns about different things, so he was concerned about the tenant being litigious. Mr Ferrier said that he found the tenant had moved back in, and asked that she move out while the work was being undertaken given her described sensitivity. The premises were still a building site at this time, and no notice was provided.
The landlord disputes that the premises offered were not suitable. In fact, the tenant was also offered another room elsewhere in Warwick House, but that is disputed by the tenant. The landlord also notes that the tenant elected to go to an expensive Air BnB property, and overall there has been a lack of mitigation.
Note is made that if the tenant had not moved out, she would still have needed to pay rent at the premises to the sum of $1,550.00, which would need to be deducted if an order was made. Analysis
As far as this claim is concerned, the tenant’s position is that the tenancy was unlawfully terminated. If that were the case, then an exemplary damages could be ordered.
I find that the landlord has not terminated the tenancy as a matter of fact. There is no evidence before the Tribunal of the landlord giving a termination notice to the tenant of any variety.
In this case, the landlord certainly did request that the tenant stay away from the premises while the remediation work was being undertaken, but that did not constitute a termination. It is plain that there was an assumption the tenant would be returning. For example, a text message has been provided which unfortunately is undated, but records the following from the landlord: Hi Fiona You said you were moving out for the duration of these repairs and are now not paying rent there any more. It takes a lot of effort to get trades people to be able to the necessary work and we want to complete it in the minimum time period. Entire entrance downstairs is now a construction site and we can’t allow any other Cummings and goings that might affect the work being done.
And: Fiona Let clear. It was to move out during the repairs and not be paying rent while you weren’t here. ... After all your complaints about your health, we feel bound to ensure that we complete the job thoroughly. Involves using many different trades people who are only able to work one after the other. We will have to see what progress we make this week before having any idea when it will be complete.
And then later still the landlord states in part: Why would you now want to move back into a works site before the repairs are completed? You are both welcome to move out without notice if you choose.
On 31 August 2025, the landlord messaged the tenant asking that “if either of you decide not to move back in, that you let us know early so we can line up new renters”.
Those messages are important, because they provide a good indication as to what the landlord believed to be the situation, which is not that the Tenancy had terminated, but that the tenant had moved out temporarily while the remedial work was being undertaken. That was on the assumption that the tenant would then be returning to the premises.
There is also the approach taken by the tenant, which is strongly against the tenancy having been terminated. For example, the tenant too sharp issue with the landlord going into her room. If she were no longer a tenant there, it would not make sense that the entry would be an issue for her.
Furthermore, the evidence is that the tenant had left some of her belongings in the room at the Tenancy. There is no suggestion that the landlord believed those belongings have been abandoned, which would have been the situation if the landlord believed that the tenancy had been terminated.
Otherwise, I have not seen any evidence on the file supporting a conclusion that the landlord terminated the tenancy, that is, bringing the Tenancy contract to an end.
I find by a significant margin that the tenancy has not in fact terminated by the landlord, and therefore there would be no basis to consider an order of exemplary damages for an unlawful termination. Claim 7 - Compensation for accommodation costs.
At the hearing, both parties agreed that this claim has been addressed above, so I will not address it further. I have ordered compensation of two weeks rental, which I consider to be fair compensation for all costs the tenant has incurred. Claim 8 - Exemplary damages for failure to lodge bond
There is no dispute the bond was paid.
However, the landlords position is that there was an error in that the bond should have been only one week of rent, and one week’s rent in advance. When the error was raised, the landlord immediately offered to refund the excess bond to the tenant. Analysis
There is no dispute that the tenant paid two weeks of bond to the landlord at the start of the tenancy, as well as the first week of rent in advance.
If the bond was less than one week of rental, then the landlord did not need to lodge that with the Bond Centre, given this is a boarding house (see section 19(1A)), but given that two weeks bond was paid, then there was a requirement for bond lodgement. The landlord has not complied with that obligation.
The tenant claims exemplary damages on the basis that the landlord has breached section 19 of the RTA, for failing to lodge the bond with the Chief Executive.
Section 19 of the RTA sets out the “Duties of landlord on receipt of bond”, and confirms that the landlord: shall, within 23 working days after the payment is made, forward the amount received to the chief executive, together with a statement of particulars in the approved form signed by the landlord and the tenant.
For the purposes of this provision, the bond is considered to be lodged with the Chief Executive, by lodging the bond with the Bond Centre.
Section 19(2) of the RTA confirms that failure to lodge the bond following the section 19 requirements, is declared to be an unlawful Act, and therefore could be the subject of an order of exemplary damages.
At the hearing, it was submitted that the non-lodgement was an oversight on the part of the landlord, and therefore not intentional. I find that difficult to accept. The landlord is a sizable boarding house provider, and it can be accepted that the landlord would be well aware of the obligations around bond. As I indicated at the hearing, there are some obligations in the tenancy jurisdiction that are so fundamental, that there is an assumption that landlords know about them, bond is such an obligation. I am not persuaded that the breach was not intentional.
The impact for the tenant was that her bond was not held securely in the Bond Centre, noting that the bond is the tenants money until the tenant agrees it should be paid to the landlord or that outcome is ordered by the Tribunal. There is a very strong interest for tenants, landlords and the public generally, that the bond system be robust, which requires that parties comply with their bond obligations. In this case I consider that making an order would be just.
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered for failing to lodge the bond, is $1,500.00. In this case, I have determined that in order of $310.00, that is one week of rental, would be reasonable. Certainly the landlord has breached his obligation around the bond lodgement, but I am also minded that when the issue was raised, the landlord acted swiftly to try to put the situation right by offering to reimburse the money to the tenant, and I am also minded that the breach was limited to the effect of one week of rental. Claim 9 - Exemplary damages for failure to provide HHS statement
The tenant’s position is that the tenancy agreement is deficient and was missing required information such as the HHS statement. Had that information been provided, then the tenant may not have taken this tenancy.
The landlord’s position is that there is no evidence of systemic deficiencies, but it is accepted that an HHS statement was not provided. Analysis
There is no dispute that the HHS statement was not included in the tenancy agreement.
Section 13A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 sets out the requirements for tenancy agreements. Subsection (1CA) holds that: The landlord must also include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord,— (a) 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 (b) including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5).
Section 13A(1F) confirms that an unlawful act arises if a landlord fails to comply with section 13A(1CA).
The relevant regulations are the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. Regulation 33 sets out the information that must be provided in a tenancy agreement as being the information set out between regulations 34 to 39. I will not detail that here, but it requires very specific information about heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage. That information was not provided.
I have no reason to conclude that the landlords decision on what information is provided on the tenancy agreement was anything other than intentional. The effect for this tenant is that she was not provided with information around the HHS which I consider would have been important to her. There are interests for tenants and the public generally that this information is provided to tenants. Taking into consideration the circumstances of this case, making this order would be just.
I consider an order at one third of the maximum should be made, that is $250.00, and that is ordered. I note that I cannot see factors that would argue for a higher or lesser order. Claim 10 - Costs
There is an application for representation costs, but in this case I have determined that costs should lie where they fall. Both parties have been legally represented, and I cannot say that it would be reasonable to conclude that either party has had significant success. Each party should carry their own cost in this proceeding.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been partly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

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 5341929 — net $1,708.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation / general damages	$620.00	Compensation / general damages
Exemplary damages: HHS breach	$500.00	HHS breach
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$310.00	Failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide HHS statement	$250.00	Failure to provide HHS statement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,708.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,708.00

Claims and awards for application 5341929 — net $1,708.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation / general damages

Amount: $620.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation / general damages

Exemplary damages: HHS breach

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: HHS breach

Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond

Amount: $310.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to lodge bond

Exemplary damages: Failure to provide HHS statement

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to provide HHS statement

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage

Order

Nick Ferrier must pay Fiona Jennifer Hallam $1,708.00 immediately, calculated as follows:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlord. DescriptionTenant Compensation / general damages$620.00 Exemplary damages: HHS breach$500.00 Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond Exemplary damages: Failure to provide HHS statement $310.00 $250.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$1,708.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$1,708.00
Both parties appeared at the hearing with their respective legal representatives.

BACKGROUND

The premises are a boarding house in Nelson, known as ‘Warwick House’ or ‘The Castle’. I understand there are 11 boarding rooms, and the building is around 170 years of age.
The tenant has provided an audio recording of a communication she had with Dani Ferrier (acting as the property manager). The recording was prior to the parties agreeing on the rental. The first recording is a recording of a voice message left by the tenant, with the tenant emphasising to Ms Ferrier that she is sensitive to mould, and asking if it can be treated before she moves in. Ms Ferrier later responded, advising that she had spoken to a mould specialist who recommended a particular product, that Ms Ferrier undertook to obtain and have the premises treated with. Ms Ferrier also offered an alternate room if the tenant preferred.
Mr Ferrier subsequently undertook the mould treatment on 18 June 2025.
The parties agreed on the rental. The tenancy agreement records the tenant as Fiona Hallam. The agreement does not record who the landlord was, but at the hearing, the parties agree the landlord is Nick Ferrier.
The tenancy agreement records the tenancy commencement date of 24 June and while the year is not recorded, I accept it was 2025, and the weekly rental was $310.00. The agreement required two weeks of rent to be paid for the bond ($620.00).
In terms of the room rented, the landlord describes it as follows: The tenant’s room, known as the Victorian Suite, is located downstairs and is accessed via a separate common area (the Downstairs Common Area). The Downstairs Common Area leads to both the Victorian Suite and another boarding room separately let by another tenant, known as the Daisy Jenner Room. The Downstairs Common Area contains a communal kitchenette facility, and both the Victorian Suite and Daisy Jenner Room contain their own separate bathrooms and showers.
I understand that while this is a boarding house, the tenants’ boarding room is located downstairs with one other boarding room, and those two rooms primarily use the kitchenette located in the common area. Roof leak
The landlord states there was an area to the ceiling in the common area that was darkened. A photograph has been provided as follows:
The landlord considers that was probably a water mark from an earlier leak rather than mould, but around the time of the tenancy, this discolouration increased. The landlord states: The Ceiling Discolouration was suspected to be associated with a prior issue affecting a drain above. The landlord does not accept that the leak or any associated moisture ingress had been present for many years or had been ongoing. Rather, there had been a discrete leak approximately a year earlier, which was identified and repaired at the time through remedial work to the upstairs drain. The present issue was understood to reflect a failure or deterioration of that earlier repair.
As noted above, Mr Ferrier subsequently undertook the mould treatment on 18 June 2025, and he reports making arrangements for the builder to attend to a suspected leak. Because the builder was having medical treatment at the time, there was a delay in the builder attending until July.
On 13 July 2025 the tenant raised concerns with the landlord about mould.
On 15 July 2025, the landlord messaged the tenant to say that he had provided another treatment to the ceiling in the common area, and the builder would likely undertake another treatment the following week.
On or about 18 July 2025, the landlord messaged the tenant to report that the builder had indicated the extent of the repairs required, and that a solution may take longer than anticipated, given the insurer would need to be involved.
Landlord states that he told the tenant he would understand if she wished to move out, otherwise she could pay half of the rent for the period of the repairs. The rent ledger confirms the reduced payments.
The landlord reports that there were delays with the insurance assessor, but otherwise the necessary work was undertaken, that involved the builder doing work, a mould remediation expert being appointed. The landlord states there were delays with getting the work finished, because the builder needed to wait for surfaces to dry.
On 18 and 20 August 2025, the landlord offered the tenant three alternate premises to live during the repairs, that was in Allan Street, Kanini Street, and Atawhai. The tenant declined those three properties.
On 21 August 2025, the landlord advised the tenant the remediation work was scheduled for 26 August, and that plastic sheeting would be placed to isolate the affected area so drying, treatment and repairs could be completed.
On about 29 August 2025, the builder made an opening in the ceiling lining. The landlord states he was not aware that work was to be undertaken, and therefore no notice had been given to the tenant.
The following photograph shows the location of the leak, and the situation after the builder had opened the ceiling:
The open area was then covered:
Around 31 August 2025, following further rainfall, there was an additional leak in the ceiling. Tenant moves out
While there are differences of opinion between the parties about precisely what happened, what is not disputed is that the tenant moved out of the premises. The tenant says that the tenancy had been terminated, but the landlord’s position is that it was a voluntary decision from the tenant to move out for the duration of the remediation.
As noted above, it is the case that the landlord offered the tenant a number of alternate options to live on a temporary basis, but the tenant did not agree to those premises.
On 1 September 2025 the tenant moved out, but had left a range of her belongings in the room. The tenant stayed with a friend for two nights.
On 3 September 2025 the tenant returned to the premises, and found that her bedroom door was unlocked, and that someone had been in her room.
On 4 September 2025 the landlord advised that the tenant should not be at the premises while the works were being completed.
The tenant said that as she had no other options, she moved into AirBnB premises. The tenant indicates needing to move 6 times.
On 5 September 2025 the landlord updated the tenant that she would not have access to her room for about two weeks, but no timeline was provided. Remediation work
A report has been provided from the builder undertaking the remediation work, that report dated 8 December 2025. I will record it in full, because it provides an important summary of the issues, and work undertaken to remediate the leak: Procedure for remedying leak in the downstairs entrance way at Warwick House. In late June were engaged by Nick and Jenny Ferrier to investigate and remediate a leak that had appeared in the left hand corner of the downstairs entranceway to an apartment at 64 Brougham St, following several substantial heavy rain events. On investigation, the primary cause of this leak was thought to be the butynol formed drain on the upper verandah of the house, 2 floors above the downstairs entranceway. The process With the heavy rains that the area experienced during June-August 2025 it was clear that some part of the butanol drain that had suffered damage and needed replacement. Several dye tests were carried to confirm this. As butynol roofs and drains are a specialized area we then engaged Pyers Services as consultants to view the site and advise on the correct way to ensure that a replacement of the entire butanol drain would be effective and long lasting. Pyers provided myself with specialist training in this field and provided the replacement butynol grade recommended and the specialist adhesives required to ensure a waterproof seal. In earlier August we began with the process of removing the existing original bytanol from the plywood base that forms the entire upper deck drain. In order for the adhesives to provide long lasting durability it was necessary for the plywood base along the entire length of the approximate 11-meter-long drain to be entire dry and moisture free. Being mid-winter this proved a particularly difficult task has we then had 4 weeks of weather where it rained 3-4 days each week. During this period I made regularly visits every 2-3 days to the site to evaluate the dryness of the plywood substrate. With the butynol now entirely removed and the drain unable to be effectively covered for several weeks, there were some leakage along the full length of the front entrance wall beneath the drain. Finally we had a dry period of around 5 consecutive days and were able to close up the drain with the new butynol coating. We water tested this and were happy with the results. Immediately following this we were able to turn our attention to finally opening up the downstairs entrance way area where the leak had been showing through the ceiling gib. The moisture effected area from the leak was contained to just 1 relatively small corner of the entranceway approximately affecting an area about 300x300mm in the ceiling gib. Prior to commencement of these repairs, we enclosed the 6sqm meter with a full plastic curtain attached to both walls, ceiling and floor. The gib covering the corner and ceiling beams were stripped back and a patch of effected ceiling gib was removed. Dryers were then set up to reduce the moisture in the timbers, and the owners then engaged Restore Cleaning and Restoration of Blenheim to carry out Antimicrobial tests and treatment of the area. Once these treatments were completed by Restore we returned, resealed and relined the affected area. The job was now completed and waterproof.
On or around 3 September 2025, the landlord entered the tenant’s room to install new curtains, and to remove a dehumidifier (not owned by the tenant). Restore report
An assessment was undertaken by ‘Restore’ in relation to mould, at an inspection on 17 July 2025. My impression is that this was undertaken within the context of the insurance claim.
In any event, the report records the water ingress, and that visible microbial grown was present on the ceiling, and that concerns had been raised by the tenants.
Moisture testing was undertaken, and reported to show increased moisture levels in the ceiling and walls, indicative of water ingress (that was probably expected given the leak). A remediation plan was provided, including containment of the area, using air scrubbers, microbial treatment and drying.
A follow-up assessment on 11 August 2025 records that the planned work had been completed, and the structure had reached a “dry standard”. Tenant returns to premises
On 3 October 2025, the tenant returned to the premises. The landlord states that the tenant had not notified him that she was intending to return, and that he was otherwise not in agreement given the remediation work had not been completed. Some work was outstanding including painting, cleaning and tidying. Tenancy ends
On 10 October 2025, the tenant gave three weeks written notice to end the tenancy, and following discussion with the landlord, it was agreed the tenancy would end on 24 October 2024. HHS Assessment
The landlord had an HHS assessment undertaken by ‘Betta’.
The assessment identified some areas of work that were required, that work was completed, and an updated report provided, after which Betta on 13 January 2026 confirmed the premises to be HHS compliant Hearing
A hearing was held in Nelson on 31 March 2025. Both the tenant and landlord were in attendance, with the tenant legally represented by Mr Lawrence, and the landlord by Mr Osborne.

TENANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, Mr Lawrence confirmed the tenant’s claims are as follows: a. Refund of rent paid b. Exemplary damages for breach of HHS. c. Compensation for medical treatment d. General damages for stress e. Exemplary damages for unlawful entry f. Exemplary damages for unlawful eviction g. Compensation for accommodation costs. h. Exemplary damages for failure to lodge bond i. Exemplary damages for failure to provide HHS statement j. Costs.

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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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 various 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 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA 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.

ANALYSIS

The applicant seeks ten specific orders, I will consider those in turn. Claim 1 – Refund of rent
It was submitted that the premises were not a healthy home and should not have been rented. It is submitted that the premises were leaking and the leaks not adequately addressed. Previous tenants have reported leaks. The premises were mouldy and this was not remedied by the landlord.
On 17 July the landlord was advised there was microbial growth at the premises, as well as an appearance of mould on the ceiling.
The tenant was not advised of the issues.
In this case the tenant has a medical vulnerability which was notified to the landlord prior to the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord was slow to cordon the areas of mould and contamination. When the ceiling was opened, the tenant was not notified of this, which caused the tenant to have an allergic reaction.
Once the remedial work was undertaken, the ceiling began leaking.
The premises were otherwise damp and mouldy, and did not have adequate ventilation.
In response, the landlord submits that the house is some 170 years old, and the extent to which repairs are needed under the RTA, it must be with reference to the age of the house (section 66I(1)(b)).
The landlord’s position is that leaking at the premises was related to unusually heavy rainfall events.
In any event, when the issues with the leak arose, the landlord offered to release the tenant from the tenancy and even offered to provide her with alternate accommodation, which the tenant did not accept. Rather the landlord’s position is that when issues with the premises arose, the tenant made decisions to make things difficult or to capitalise on the situation for her benefit.
In terms of the rent refund, the landlord has applied a rent reduction already, There was a rend discount applied when the tenant was living in the premises, and full abatement when she relocated during the works.
At the hearing Mr Ferrier advised that the leak was from a drain on the roof, which required a period of time to dry before the waterproofing could be reapplied.
Mr Ferrier disputes this is a leaking property. There was one prior leak, this was raised with the tenant before she moved in.
The landlord notes that the leak was in an entry area (the common area), not the tenant’s dwelling room.
In conclusion, Ms Hallam maintains that she was exposed to some 16 weeks of mould, with the landlord not addressing the issue. Analysis
There is no dispute between the parties that there was a leak in the ceiling in the common area. At the start of the tenancy there was a dark patch in the ceiling which increased in size, and was then opened up by the builder. There is no doubt however that this was from the leak arising from the drain above.
No landlord can guarantee there would be no leaks or other problems arise with a dwelling over the course of the tenancy, that would be unrealistic. Houses are complex structures, and parts of all houses fail over time.
In my assessment, when the leak occurred, the obligation on the landlord was to fix the leak and remediate the ceiling, which falls within the landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises. Section 66I(1)(b) of the RTA confirms the landlord’s obligations around maintenance, and holds that the landlord must: ensure that the premises are in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes;
I agree with Mr Osborne’s submission, that the assessment of what maintenance the landlord must do, needs to take consideration of the “age and character” of the premises. Here the premises are some 170 years of age, that is a factor which must be considered.
A landlord must provide and maintain the premises (including the facilities which the common area is) in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. In Barfoot & Thompson v Casey the Court considered the extent of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The Court said that there was no absolute liability or responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time.
In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd 1 the Court stated: [15] I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be.
In this case, I am satisfied that the evidence shows that the landlord has been responsive with getting the repairs undertaken. When concerns were raised with the landlord prior to the tenancy commencing, the landlord obtained specialist advise on treating the area in the event it was mould, and then did that work. The landlord also instructed the builder around that time, and while there was a delay in the builder starting, that was a matter not of the landlords control (the builder was recovering from a procedure). Then the builder started, but there were delays because of a need to dry the exterior ply before it could be waterproofed. The landlord also instructed Resolve a specialist company, to assist with inspecting the leak and mould, and then undertook the work that company recommended. That all seems reasonable.
I have considered whether the landlord had contracted with the tenant to provide premises that were exceptionally free of mould for the duration of the tenancy, given the tenants medical circumstances, but I find he did not. I accept it was a term of the contract that the landlord would treat the dark area on the ceiling in the common area before the tenancy started, and he did that. But there is no evidence that I have seen or heard, where the landlord has otherwise contracted with the tenant to provide a more sterile tenancy than would otherwise be expected.
While I find that there was an unfortunately long period of time from the builder being instructed to the work being completed, that has been adequately explained. But the evidence does not support a situation of the landlord doing nothing, or delays arising with the landlord. I am satisfied that the landlord has complied with his obligation to maintain the premises, he has acted reasonably to have the premises repaired and maintained, so there is no breach of his obligations from that perspective.
One of the unusual circumstances that does arise in this case, is that the RTA provided both parties with a remedy to the precise situation that arose, but neither party took it.
Section 59 of the RTA relates to destruction of premises, not from a breach of an obligation where the premises are “so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable”, then to end the tenancy only two days notice would be needed from the tenant, or seven days from the landlord. If the premises were only partially destroyed, then the rent would abate, and either party could apply for orders from the Tribunal on whether the tenancy should end.
Section 59A would allow the tenant to terminate the tenancy if there had been a breach of an obligation on the part of the landlord (which the tenant submits occurred), which made the premises uninhabitable. If such notice was given, then the rent would abate, and 2 days notice would be required.
“Uninhabitable” means not fit to live in, not capable of habitation, occupation or tenancy, 2 not free of serious defects that might harm health or safety 3 or a substantial interference (more than temporary) with the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises. 4 That is what both parties have described here.
Ultimately, both parties assessed the premises as being uninhabitable, but rather than terminate the tenancy, the parties agreed the tenant should move out for the duration of the repairs (I will discuss this further below under the claim for unlawful termination).
I would accept that there has been a breach on the part of the landlord in a contractual sense, because the parties had contracted for the tenant to reside in the boarding room for the duration of the tenancy contract. While the landlord could have terminated the tenancy he did not, so breached his contractual obligation around providing the room until the tenant moved back in.
It was reasonable that the landlord provide compensation or general damages for that breach, because it can be accepted that needing to move out would have caused stress and inconvenience to the tenant, and probably some out-of-pocket expenses.
The question then is what level of compensation or general damages to provide. I am minded that the landlord applied a 50% rent reduction from 22 July 2025, and a 100% reduction when the tenant moved out, until she moved back in.
I am not persuaded it would be reasonable to require the landlord to reimburse the Airbnb rentals for these reasons: a. The rent has abated, as would be the outcome if the parties applied their statutory remedy. 2 Watkin v Brazier Property Investments Ltd [2012] DCR 186 at [10]; Harcourts Accommodation Centre Ltd v Faldut [2011] NZTT Christchurch 2307 at [36]–[42]. 3 McDonald v Hummelstad [2011] NZTT Christchurch 4001. 4 Keesing v Damerell Group Property Management Ltd trading as Ray White [2017] NZTT 4080301. b. The landlord had offered three alternate properties. I am not convinced they would not have been suitable or materially similar to the boarding house. If extra costs were incurred with say Taxi’s to the supermarket, the landlord may have been liable for those. c. I am not persuaded that the AirBnB properties would have been at a comparable standard as the boarding house, so betterment would be relevant.
However, I consider it would be reasonable to order the landlord to pay two weeks rental by way of a global order of compensation / general damages for the reasons discussed above. I cannot make a specific calculation of precise loss or inconvenience, but I consider an order at that level would be fair. Therefore the landlord is to pay the tenant $620.00. Claim 2 - Exemplary damages for breach of HHS.
The applicant submits that the premises fell short of the HHS ventilation, draughts, moisture ingress, and heating standards.
The landlord agrees that there was a breach of the ventilation standard, in that the rangehood was venting into a non-habitable space, rather than outside the dwelling, However it is submitted that there is no intention around this breach as the landlord was not aware this did not comply. This has since been resolved.
The draught stopping was not raised by the tenant, it was only found when the HHS assessment was undertaken following the tenancy, and it is now addressed.
As far as the leak is concerned, this is not a breach of the HHS as such, but a maintenance and weather issue. The builder has confirmed that given the underfloor area a ground moisture barrier would not be required.
In relation to heating, the landlord’s position is that there was heating provided in the tenants’ lounge.
In conclusion the tenants position is that the landlord is a large landlord and should have known the HHS obligations that applied. Analysis
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provided for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the HHS. A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered as set out in Schedule 1A to the RTA, is $7,200.00.
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/
In this case, because the premises are a boarding house, the HHS requires that the main living room of the boarding house be heated, not the boarding room itself. The tenant has not provided any evidence to show that the main living room in the premises does not comply with this standard. The fact of the HHS assessment report from Betta confirming the heating standard has been met, does not support a breach. I find that no breach of the heating standard has been established.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
In this case, the tenant submits there is a breach because the rangehood in the kitchen was not externally vented. The landlord accepts that is the case. I find the landlord has breached this HHS obligation.
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. In this case, the landlord appears to have accepted that there were unreasonable draughts present, in that the landlord had them addressed following the HHS assessment.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires 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.
In this case, I agree with the landlord that the leak is not an HHS issue, but a maintenance issue. Had the drain not failed, I accept that the leak would not have occurred, and presumably the storm water would be effectively drained from the dwelling.
I find therefore that there is a breach of the HHS with ventilation and draught stopping.
The HHS is a fundamental obligation on landlords. This is a sizeable landlord who should have been well aware of his obligations with the HHS. I consider that the landlords decisions around the HHS are likely to be intentional.
The effect for the tenant is likely to be modest. As far as the draught stopping is concerned, it appears that this was not an issue for the tenant in that it was not raised with the landlord during the tenancy. In terms of the rangehood, given how it was installed, the impact for the tenant is likely to have been limited.
However, there are strong interests for tenants and the public generally for premises to be HHS complaint, which these premises were not.
I consider it would be just to make an order of exemplary damages, which in this case I fix at $500.00. That is a modest order, but I consider would be proportional to the limited breaches of the HHS. Claim 3 - Compensation for medical treatment
The tenants position is that there is a link between the worsening of the her underlying health condition and the tenancy.
The tenant submits that are three practitioners who have linked the tenant’s symptoms to the premises.
Firstly a letter from the naturopath which confirms that the symptoms calmed down on leaving these premises.
Secondly a traditional Chinese medical practitioner referred to mould in the living space as a likely cause along with stress.
Thirdly a letter from Dr Haslam who also noted an exacerbation of the condition to mould. Ms Haslam states that her condition significantly worsened from living in the premises.
Mr Lawrence accepted that none of these practitioners have assessed the premises.
The landlord’s position is that the evidence supporting a link between the premises and the tenant’s condition is lacking, and based on self- reporting from the tenant. Furthermore, the ‘clinical’ evidence suggests there could be other causes for the symptoms.
The landlord also states that it is not consistent for the tenant to say that the premises were causing her significant health problems, then moving back into the premises before the work was completed.
The tenant said it is difficult to hear other people’s views when she was “seriously struggling” at the time, and while living at the premises were symptoms were getting “worse and worse”. Since moving out of the premises her condition improved. The tenant said that “You flare to everything with” her condition, and her landlord should have provided premises that avoided these flare-ups. Analysis
The tenant seeks compensation for medical treatments.
I agree with the landlord’s submission, that in order to find in favour of the tenant, I must find a causal link between a breach of some obligation that the landlord had, and the tenant’s condition for which the compensation is requested.
The tenants evidence is that she has significant vulnerability to even small amounts of mould, and therefore needs premises with very low levels of mould or contaminants. I have had difficulty reconciling why the tenant elected these premises to rent. The premises are old (170 years old), and from that fact alone, do not have the building and material standards that modern dwellings do. I have also had difficulty in understanding why the tenant moved back into the premises prematurely.
The tenant’s position is that her pre-existing condition has been worsened, given that she was living in mouldy premises, and the stress from needing to relocate during the repairs, etc.
As I indicated during the hearing, I am not convinced that the clinical evidence provided is sufficient to show a causal link between the tenants’ symptoms, and either mould or stress for the reasons that follow.
There are clinical letters on file well before the tenancy commenced, which confirmed that the tenant was having treatment for various matters, and that included a reference to widespread allergic rashes before the tenant moved into the dwelling. 5 I am not persuaded that the clinical evidence is sufficient to show that the rashes are materially worse.
Rather there is compelling evidence that the symptoms were significant before the tenant moved into the premises. For example, in an email to the Chinese Medical Practitioner, the tenant states she was looking for a practitioner because she had a chronic condition, some aspects of it she was struggling with.
In terms of the three letters supplied by the tenant, they have limited medicolegal weight. I agree with Mr Osborne that these are based on patient self-reporting. None of the clinicians have been to the premises to assess the extent of any mould themselves, nor have they based their opinion on an environmental experts assessment of the mould situation at the premises, not the period of time the tenant would be around the area of the water leak, which was not in the tenants room but shared facilities. 5 Clinic letter of 24 August 2023.
In my view, the requirement for an assessment would be critical in this case. The area of described mould in the common area was limited. There is no evidence that the black mark seen constituted mould as opposed to the effect of a water staining. Further, any mould that was inside the ceiling or wall cavity was sealed in, until the builder opened the ceiling and wall. Mould is ubiquitous, the clinicians opinions to carry weight, the clinicians would have needed to provide sufficient explaination to establish that it was the mould in the house that caused the tenants symptoms, rather than some other environmental mould cause.
While I have no doubt that the tenant has symptoms which may well be disabling, there is insufficient evidence to link those symptoms to the tenancy premises to the balance of probabilities, therefore this claim is dismissed. Claim 4 - General damages for stress
The tenant’s position is that general damages for stress should be provided in relation to the issues with the tenant’s health and approach of the landlord.
The landlord’s position is that in order to make a general damages order, it must first be linked to an express obligation under residential tenancy law, the usual principles of causation apply. Analysis
I have made an order of compensation and general damages above, that order would cover this claim. Claim 5 - Exemplary damages for unlawful entry
The tenant submits that exemplary damages should be ordered for unlawful entry. In that regard, when the tenant left on 1 September 2025 her dwelling door was unlocked, and when she returned on 3 September the door was unlocked, and the landlords dehumidifier had been moved out.
The landlord’s position is that there was an agreement to replace the curtains, and the tenant had moved out for the period of the repairs, and entry was therefore permitted. The entry was not unlawful because it was to do an agreed repair. The landlord’s perception was that he had authority to enter the dwelling. While the door may have been unlocked, the exterior door was locked at the end of the working days. Analysis
On 9 August 2025, Dani Ferrier emailed the tenant, advising they would get replacement curtains for the room, and my impression is that this was agreed work, certainly for the tenants benefit given she was dissatisfied with the state of the existing curtains.
I note that communications between the landlord and the tenant on file indicate that the tenant believes the landlord was required to give notice to undertake entry or work in the foyer area. That is not the case. The landlord certainly would be required to give notice to enter the boarding room, but the foyer would comprise facilities which the tenant did not have exclusive occupation over, but the key point being that the landlord did not need to give notice to enter the facilities.
However, as far as the entry to the room was concerned, in my view that was likely to have been an entry with notice, because plainly the tenant was aware that work was being undertaken to the downstairs area, which is why she had moved out. It is not unreasonable to consider that extended to the whole floor.
If I were wrong in that, I am not persuaded that the landlord’s actions were intentional (a prerequisite for exemplary damages), because I accept that the landlord had a genuine belief that he or the builder could enter the tenants room for the works.
I find this claim has not been established. Claim 6 - Exemplary damages for unlawful eviction
The tenants position is that she was unlawfully evicted in response to the tenant raising complaints around the premises.
It was submitted that the tenant needed access to the premises to access her health-related equipment, and it was not suitable to be separated from that equipment. While alternate lodgings were offered, they were not suitable, given as their distance from supermarkets or being on a hill, or the other occupants would not be compatible with the tenant’s needs.
In response, the landlord’s position is that the tenant voluntarily moved out on 1 September 2025.
The tenant returned on 3 September, and while the tenant considered she had moved back in, the landlord’s position is that the tenant needed to have moved out as the work had not been completed.
The landlord’s understanding is that tenant did not take all her belongings, which amounted to 2-3 suitcases, which is not consistent with the tenant being evicted.
Mr Ferrier said that ‘every time’ that he met the tenant, she would raise concerns about different things, so he was concerned about the tenant being litigious. Mr Ferrier said that he found the tenant had moved back in, and asked that she move out while the work was being undertaken given her described sensitivity. The premises were still a building site at this time, and no notice was provided.
The landlord disputes that the premises offered were not suitable. In fact, the tenant was also offered another room elsewhere in Warwick House, but that is disputed by the tenant. The landlord also notes that the tenant elected to go to an expensive Air BnB property, and overall there has been a lack of mitigation.
Note is made that if the tenant had not moved out, she would still have needed to pay rent at the premises to the sum of $1,550.00, which would need to be deducted if an order was made. Analysis
As far as this claim is concerned, the tenant’s position is that the tenancy was unlawfully terminated. If that were the case, then an exemplary damages could be ordered.
I find that the landlord has not terminated the tenancy as a matter of fact. There is no evidence before the Tribunal of the landlord giving a termination notice to the tenant of any variety.
In this case, the landlord certainly did request that the tenant stay away from the premises while the remediation work was being undertaken, but that did not constitute a termination. It is plain that there was an assumption the tenant would be returning. For example, a text message has been provided which unfortunately is undated, but records the following from the landlord: Hi Fiona You said you were moving out for the duration of these repairs and are now not paying rent there any more. It takes a lot of effort to get trades people to be able to the necessary work and we want to complete it in the minimum time period. Entire entrance downstairs is now a construction site and we can’t allow any other Cummings and goings that might affect the work being done.
And: Fiona Let clear. It was to move out during the repairs and not be paying rent while you weren’t here. ... After all your complaints about your health, we feel bound to ensure that we complete the job thoroughly. Involves using many different trades people who are only able to work one after the other. We will have to see what progress we make this week before having any idea when it will be complete.
And then later still the landlord states in part: Why would you now want to move back into a works site before the repairs are completed? You are both welcome to move out without notice if you choose.
On 31 August 2025, the landlord messaged the tenant asking that “if either of you decide not to move back in, that you let us know early so we can line up new renters”.
Those messages are important, because they provide a good indication as to what the landlord believed to be the situation, which is not that the Tenancy had terminated, but that the tenant had moved out temporarily while the remedial work was being undertaken. That was on the assumption that the tenant would then be returning to the premises.
There is also the approach taken by the tenant, which is strongly against the tenancy having been terminated. For example, the tenant too sharp issue with the landlord going into her room. If she were no longer a tenant there, it would not make sense that the entry would be an issue for her.
Furthermore, the evidence is that the tenant had left some of her belongings in the room at the Tenancy. There is no suggestion that the landlord believed those belongings have been abandoned, which would have been the situation if the landlord believed that the tenancy had been terminated.
Otherwise, I have not seen any evidence on the file supporting a conclusion that the landlord terminated the tenancy, that is, bringing the Tenancy contract to an end.
I find by a significant margin that the tenancy has not in fact terminated by the landlord, and therefore there would be no basis to consider an order of exemplary damages for an unlawful termination. Claim 7 - Compensation for accommodation costs.
At the hearing, both parties agreed that this claim has been addressed above, so I will not address it further. I have ordered compensation of two weeks rental, which I consider to be fair compensation for all costs the tenant has incurred. Claim 8 - Exemplary damages for failure to lodge bond
There is no dispute the bond was paid.
However, the landlords position is that there was an error in that the bond should have been only one week of rent, and one week’s rent in advance. When the error was raised, the landlord immediately offered to refund the excess bond to the tenant. Analysis
There is no dispute that the tenant paid two weeks of bond to the landlord at the start of the tenancy, as well as the first week of rent in advance.
If the bond was less than one week of rental, then the landlord did not need to lodge that with the Bond Centre, given this is a boarding house (see section 19(1A)), but given that two weeks bond was paid, then there was a requirement for bond lodgement. The landlord has not complied with that obligation.
The tenant claims exemplary damages on the basis that the landlord has breached section 19 of the RTA, for failing to lodge the bond with the Chief Executive.
Section 19 of the RTA sets out the “Duties of landlord on receipt of bond”, and confirms that the landlord: shall, within 23 working days after the payment is made, forward the amount received to the chief executive, together with a statement of particulars in the approved form signed by the landlord and the tenant.
For the purposes of this provision, the bond is considered to be lodged with the Chief Executive, by lodging the bond with the Bond Centre.
Section 19(2) of the RTA confirms that failure to lodge the bond following the section 19 requirements, is declared to be an unlawful Act, and therefore could be the subject of an order of exemplary damages.
At the hearing, it was submitted that the non-lodgement was an oversight on the part of the landlord, and therefore not intentional. I find that difficult to accept. The landlord is a sizable boarding house provider, and it can be accepted that the landlord would be well aware of the obligations around bond. As I indicated at the hearing, there are some obligations in the tenancy jurisdiction that are so fundamental, that there is an assumption that landlords know about them, bond is such an obligation. I am not persuaded that the breach was not intentional.
The impact for the tenant was that her bond was not held securely in the Bond Centre, noting that the bond is the tenants money until the tenant agrees it should be paid to the landlord or that outcome is ordered by the Tribunal. There is a very strong interest for tenants, landlords and the public generally, that the bond system be robust, which requires that parties comply with their bond obligations. In this case I consider that making an order would be just.
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered for failing to lodge the bond, is $1,500.00. In this case, I have determined that in order of $310.00, that is one week of rental, would be reasonable. Certainly the landlord has breached his obligation around the bond lodgement, but I am also minded that when the issue was raised, the landlord acted swiftly to try to put the situation right by offering to reimburse the money to the tenant, and I am also minded that the breach was limited to the effect of one week of rental. Claim 9 - Exemplary damages for failure to provide HHS statement
The tenant’s position is that the tenancy agreement is deficient and was missing required information such as the HHS statement. Had that information been provided, then the tenant may not have taken this tenancy.
The landlord’s position is that there is no evidence of systemic deficiencies, but it is accepted that an HHS statement was not provided. Analysis
There is no dispute that the HHS statement was not included in the tenancy agreement.
Section 13A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 sets out the requirements for tenancy agreements. Subsection (1CA) holds that: The landlord must also include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord,— (a) 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 (b) including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5).
Section 13A(1F) confirms that an unlawful act arises if a landlord fails to comply with section 13A(1CA).
The relevant regulations are the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. Regulation 33 sets out the information that must be provided in a tenancy agreement as being the information set out between regulations 34 to 39. I will not detail that here, but it requires very specific information about heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage. That information was not provided.
I have no reason to conclude that the landlords decision on what information is provided on the tenancy agreement was anything other than intentional. The effect for this tenant is that she was not provided with information around the HHS which I consider would have been important to her. There are interests for tenants and the public generally that this information is provided to tenants. Taking into consideration the circumstances of this case, making this order would be just.
I consider an order at one third of the maximum should be made, that is $250.00, and that is ordered. I note that I cannot see factors that would argue for a higher or lesser order. Claim 10 - Costs
There is an application for representation costs, but in this case I have determined that costs should lie where they fall. Both parties have been legally represented, and I cannot say that it would be reasonable to conclude that either party has had significant success. Each party should carry their own cost in this proceeding.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been partly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341929 — Healthy homes at Room The Victorian, 64 Brougham Street, Nelson South,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341929 — Healthy homes at Room The Victorian, 64 Brougham Street, Nelson South,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions