What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343521 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5343521?

11 Weeks And 4 Days: $231.43 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Deck- rotten boards, n…: $591.42 awarded to tenant; Compensation: laundry tub not functi…: $1,308.57 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of amenity, stres…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rotten floorboards in…: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Inconvenience Waste Disposal And Blo…: $140.00 awarded to tenant; Out And Slippery: $888.57 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,780.00 awarded to landlord; Week For 278 Weeks And 2 Days: $1,391.43 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343521?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343521?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13084385-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343521 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5343521?

11 Weeks And 4 Days: $231.43 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Deck- rotten boards, n…: $591.42 awarded to tenant; Compensation: laundry tub not functi…: $1,308.57 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of amenity, stres…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rotten floorboards in…: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Inconvenience Waste Disposal And Blo…: $140.00 awarded to tenant; Out And Slippery: $888.57 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,780.00 awarded to landlord; Week For 278 Weeks And 2 Days: $1,391.43 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343521?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343521?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13084385-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5343521 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343521 — net $5,421.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 February 2026	$1,780.00		Rent arrears to 2 February 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
11 weeks and 4 days		$231.43	11 weeks and 4 days
week for 278 weeks and 2 days		$1,391.43	week for 278 weeks and 2 days
Compensation: laundry tub not functional		$1,308.57	laundry tub not functional
Compensation: Deck- rotten boards, nails sticking		$591.42	Deck- rotten boards, nails sticking
out and slippery		$888.57	out and slippery
Compensation: Rotten floorboards in corridor (44		$350.00	Rotten floorboards in corridor (44
Compensation: Loss of amenity, stress		$500.00	Loss of amenity, stress
inconvenience waste disposal and blocked sink		$140.00	inconvenience waste disposal and blocked sink
Exemplary damages: S45(1) of the RTA breaches		$1,800.00	S45(1) of the RTA breaches
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,808.00	$7,229.42
Net award		$5,421.42
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$5,421.42

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343521 — net $5,421.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 February 2026	$1,780.00		Rent arrears to 2 February 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
11 weeks and 4 days		$231.43	11 weeks and 4 days
week for 278 weeks and 2 days		$1,391.43	week for 278 weeks and 2 days
Compensation: laundry tub not functional		$1,308.57	laundry tub not functional
Compensation: Deck- rotten boards, nails sticking		$591.42	Deck- rotten boards, nails sticking
out and slippery		$888.57	out and slippery
Compensation: Rotten floorboards in corridor (44		$350.00	Rotten floorboards in corridor (44
Compensation: Loss of amenity, stress		$500.00	Loss of amenity, stress
inconvenience waste disposal and blocked sink		$140.00	inconvenience waste disposal and blocked sink
Exemplary damages: S45(1) of the RTA breaches		$1,800.00	S45(1) of the RTA breaches
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,808.00	$7,229.42
Net award		$5,421.42
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$5,421.42

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s names and identifying details.
Excel Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant] $5,421.42 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 6 March 2026 (4 weeks): a. Sunroom polycarbonate roof to be replaced and checked for leaks and any water damage done by the leaking roof to be investigated and fully remediated; b. Dining room ceiling hole to be repaired, sanded and painted; c. Deck to be water blasted, stained, rotten boards replaced and any nails sticking out to be removed and replaced with new decking nails; d. Mould in bathroom ceiling, sealant, and around window frames throughout the premise, and on the carpet in front of the ranch slider to be treated by professional mould removal contractors. Bathroom ceiling to be sanded and repainted with mould resistant paint and mouldy sealant to be removed and replaced.
If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 4 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $20,000.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 5 February 2026. The parties confirmed the tenancy is still on foot.
The tenant applied for work orders, compensation, general damages and exemplary damages for breaches of the landlord’s obligations. He also applied for reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord made a cross application for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Proving claims in the Tribunal
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents, photographs and videos are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

LANDLORD CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

As of 2 February 2026, the landlord’s rent summary showed the tenant owed $1,940.00 rent arrears.
The tenant disputed the rent summary, saying payments of $100.00 and $60.00 he made on 31 October 2025 had not been entered into the rent summary ledger. He produced bank statements that prove the landlord’s rent record was inaccurate.
The parties agree the tenant owes $1,780.00 rent arrears, after the $160.00 deduction has been made from the rent record. Did the tenant exceed the maximum number of occupants allowed in the tenancy agreement ?
The landlord claims the tenant has three flatmates and his wife living in the house with him, resulting in there being at least 5 adults occupying the premise, when the tenancy agreement only provides for a maximum of 4 adults to occupy the house.
Section 40(3) of the RTA states: “Where the tenancy agreement specifies a maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant shall ensure that no more than that number ordinarily reside in the premises at any time during the tenancy”.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00. Refer to section 40 (3A)(e) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has produced evidence that proves the tenant had more than the maximum number of occupants living in the house for most of the tenancy. However, the landlord also gave evidence that it had never asked the tenant to remove the excess number of persons living at the premise nor had it issued the tenant with a 14-day notice in relation to this issue. Instead, the landlord They increased rent from $570.00 per week to $690.00 per week from 25 June 2024 due to the tenant renting out the three rooms in the main house to flatmates and sleeping with his wife in the separate sleepout/storage room. The parties negotiated a reduction in the rent increase and agreed drop the price to $650.00 per week in recognition of the tenant and his wife undertaking property maintenance and repairs as well as having removed the prior tenants’ rubbish.
The landlord stated that it new the sleepout/storage room does not meet the healthy homes standards and stated it had told the tenant at the start of the tenancy that he must not rent it out to a flatmate or border and must only use the room for storage. This condition of tenancy is not recorded in the tenancy agreement or in writing. The tenant denies being told this and states that he and his wife moved out to the sleep out after the landlord unreasonably refused to allow them to install a cat door for their cat. The tenant says his flatmates complained about the smell of the kitty litter tray and so he and his wife considered they had no other option but to move with the cat to the sleep out.
The landlord has condoned the use of the sleepout as a bedroom by not addressing it as soon as it became aware that the tenant and his wife were living in that room. Instead, the landlord turned a blind eye to this and then decided to cash in on the tenant and his wife being prepared to live in substandard conditions by increasing his rent by just over 21%. Then more latterly agreeing to a lesser increase of just over 14%. It is of note that in 2024 New Zealand rents rose by between 4.5% to 7.8%.
The clean hand doctrine applies to this claim. The clean hands doctrine is an equitable defence preventing a party from obtaining relief if it acted unethically, in bad faith, or dishonestly regarding the subject of their claim. It requires that those seeking justice must act fairly and not benefit from their own wrongdoing.
In this case, the landlord has not only condoned the tenant and his wife living in the sleepout and renting the three rooms in the main house to flatmates, but it has also benefited financially from the breach of the tenancy agreement. It has chosen to turn a blind eye to the tenant and his wife living in the sleepout when it is fully aware that the sleep out is not healthy homes compliant. It failed to record in the tenancy agreement that the sleepout must only be used for storage and cannot prove it told the tenant he could only use the room for storage. The landlord therefore has come to the Tribunal with dirty hands seeking orders for a tenant breach that it has condoned and financially benefited from. The claim must be dismissed as the landlord has failed to act fairly and must not be allowed to benefit from its own wrongdoing. TENANT’S CLAIMS Work Orders
The tenant claims that the landlord did not kept the sunroom roof in a reasonable state of repair in all the circumstances, has left the dining room ceiling with a hole in it that let draughts and dampness into the house and has failed to fix rotten deck boards with nails sticking out of deck boards and the deck boards not being regularly cleaned to ensure they are not mossy and slippery. The tenant wants these problems fixed.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds, the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

I am satisfied that the tenant has proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has failed to comply with its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations by not: a. keeping the sunroom roof in a reasonable state of repair in all the circumstances, causing the tenant to live in a damp leaky environment because the polycarbonate roofing continued to crack and leak from the start of the tenancy and has eventually broken down so badly the cracks can no longer be repaired and the roof needs replacing to stop water leaks and damage in the sunroom; b. Fixing a hole in the dining room ceiling that let draughts and dampness into the house since the start of the tenancy in September 2020; c. Fixing/replacing rotten deck boards or the nails sticking out of the deck boards. Additionally, not making sure the deck boards were regularly cleaned to ensure they are not mossy and slippery and dangerous to walk on.
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 6 March 2026: e. Sunroom polycarbonate roof to be replaced and checked for leaks and any water damage done by the leaking roof to be investigated and fully remediated; f. Dining room ceiling hole to be repaired, sanded and painted; g. Deck to be water blasted, stained, rotten boards repaired/replaced and any nails sticking out to be removed and replaced with new decking nails; and h. Mould in bathroom ceiling, sealant, and around window frames throughout the premise, and on the carpet in front of the ranch slider to be treated by professional mould removal contractors. Bathroom ceiling to be sanded and repainted with mould resistant paint and mouldy sealant to be removed and replaced.
If the landlord fails to comply with these Orders, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $20,000.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable. Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(a), (b) and (bb) obligations to the tenant?
The tenant says the landlord has breached its s45(1)(a), (b) and (bb) of the RTA obligations to him.
Section 45(1)(a) of the RTA confirms the landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Breaching any of these s45(1) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. 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.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Did the landlord provide the premise to the tenant in a reasonable state of cleanliness?
The tenant says the landlord has failed to provide the rental premise in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Specifically, the tenant claimed he had to clean the carpet, wipe surfaces, the property manager had to wipe the hob down on entry day, the ceiling and light fittings had fly excrement all over them and the range hood full of oil. Additionally, he stated that the rangehood was loose and fell on entry day and broke the hob when the property manager was trying to clean it. The parties confirmed the hob was not replaced straight away and the tenant was left for 5 days with no means to cook food.
A landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 6 , even if the tenant has noticed the state of the premise when entering into the tenancy agreement 7 . However, a reasonable state of cleanliness does not mean spotless. 8
A tenant might be awarded compensation if premises are offered in a generally untidy condition but cannot immediately terminate the tenancy 9 . Unless the premise is uninhabitable, a landlord is entitled to reasonable time to remedy. 10
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 11 , not commercially clean 12 , spotless 13 or 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s45(1)(a). 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s45(3). 8 FTER Ltd v Knight [2015] NZTT Napier 1136 at [25]. 9 Re Grant NZTT North Shore TT112/87, 24 December 1987 at [10]-[11]. 10 FTER Ltd v Knight [2015] NZTT Napier 1136 at [26]. 11 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 12 Mills v kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 at [15]-[17]. 13 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]; Herbert v Garton [2013] NZTT Hastings 237 at [42]; Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [206] NZTT Auckland 3149 at [6]. to a hotel or motel standard 14 . The better the premise and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected 15 .
The landlord stated that after one month it sent a handyman to check everything was working in the premise and found that the sensor light outside not working, among other things. The handyman found the laundry sink taps were ceased and unable to be used, but he was unable to fix these taps.
The tenant had no photographic or video evidence of the state of the premise on move in day. The landlord’s entry inspection photographs shows the house was in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. It was clear that there were some issues that needed to be addressed, but overall, the landlord’s photographs prove the house was reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant was unable to produce sufficient evidence to prove the premise meets the evidential burden of proof that the premise would not be considered to be reasonably clean by the standard an average reasonable bystander. Therefore, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation and/or exemplary damages under this head of claim.

Did the landlord fail to repair and maintain the premise in a reasonable condition?

The tenant says the landlord has failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. And has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 16
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 17 . However, 14 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 15 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. 16 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 17 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 18 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 19 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 20 .
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which general and/or exemplary damages may be awarded. Sunroom leak
The tenant proved he raised this issue for the first time in an email to the property manager, dated 23 March 2023. The tenant confirmed he sealed the first large crack with silicone after the landlord ignored his complaint about the crack that was causing leaks and water damage in the sunroom. The tenant says the landlord never had the polycarbonate roof investigated to see why it was failing and if it needed repair or replacement. The property manager stated that main focus of the 23 March 2023 email was a cracked window and that she simply missed the sunroom roof issue that was raised in that email.
The tenant says the sealant he applied failed over the length of time it was there and thereafter more crack appeared and the sunroom wall became damaged by the leaks. The tenant says this issue was raised at each routine house inspection. The 10 November 2023 inspection report provided by the landlord does not make mention of this issue. The 6 November 2024 inspection report notes that there is light mould on the ceiling and the inspection report on 7 July 2025 records that a wall panel has been damaged by water and there is moss on the outside of the roof.
On14 July 2025, the tenant issued a14 day notice to the landlord that includes the water damage from the leaking sunroom roof. The landlord says she sent two groups of handymen to address all the repair and maintenance concerns set out in the 14-day notice. The tenant confirmed the contracts did the gutter cleaning, maintenance, mould cleaning around the ranch slider door frame, and door repairs but didn’t do anything else on the list. The tenant rang the handyman to follow up with him when the sunroom leaks would be addressed and was told he was too busy, and the weather was too bad for him to undertake this work. The tenant confirmed the handyman never came back to address the sunroom leaks. The tenant says he just kept using silicone sealant as a temporary fix, but the polycarbonate just kept cracking as it has broken down to the point that it needs to be replaced. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 19 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
The tenant says the handy man eventually came and sealed the sunroom cracks with silicone in late September 2025. He stated there had been no further leaking until the recent high winds which have caused the roof to crack again. The tenant confirms that patching with silicone is no longer an effective option as the roof is not structurally sound and it requires replacing.
The landlord says it sent someone to fix the roof in 2023, but at that time the tenant had fixed the roof himself. The landlord gave conflicting evidence during the hearing, stating that she had missed the part of the 23 arch 2023 email raising the issue of the cracked and leaking roof so had not sent anyone to investigate or remediate it. The tenant’s wife had a WeChat message that she sent to the property manager that confirmed her husband had fixed the original 2023 crack.
I find that the landlord has intentionally committed an unlawful act when it failed to repair and maintain the sunroom roof to a reasonable standard in all the circumstances for a period of 11 weeks and 4 days, from 7 July 2025 to 26 September 2025. I award the tenant compensation of $20.00 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants during this period. This is a total rent rebate of $231.43.
Because the issue had first been raised by the tenant on 23 March 2023, the tenant is barred by s109(2)(b) of the RTA for claiming exemplary damages for this breach, because this provision places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. The application was made on 15 September 2025, more than 12 months after 23 March 2023. Dining room ceiling
The tenant first raised the issue of the hole in the dining room ceiling on 7 October 2020 and says he had also pointed it out when he and his wife moved into the property on 29 September 2020.
The hole is evident in the entry inspection photographs and the checklist attached to the tenancy agreement states there is “one damage mark on the ceiling” in kitchen and dining area.
It is of note that all the routine inspection reports drafted by the property manager records the dining room ceiling as being in “excellent” condition. However, the photographs disprove these statements.
The landlord says this was not mentioned by the tenant as needing to be fixed and it was a small hole in 2020, and it was not mentioned in the tenant’s 7 July 2025 14-day notice. However, the photographs provided by the tenant show the hole exists and has existed since the start of the tenancy. These photographs shows a long slit in the ceiling and the ceiling paint curls up around the hole and mould is growing around it due to dampness.
The landlord says the house passed its April 2025 healthy homes inspection the 9 April 2025 assessment report does not mention this hole. It relies on this report to prove there is no breach of s45(1)(b) or (bb).
I am satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, the landlord knew the hole existed and the tenant’s photos show the same hole is still present but with mould around it. It would be hard to miss in an inspection. The landlord made a comment during the hearing that it thought this was just a mark and not a hole and there was no urgency in addressing it.
I find that the landlord has intentionally committed an unlawful act when it failed to repair and maintain the dining room ceiling to a reasonable standard in all the circumstances for a period of 278 weeks and 2 days, from 7 October 2020 to 6 February 2026. I award the tenant compensation of $5.00 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants during this period. This is a total rent rebate of $1,391.43.
Because the issue had first been raised by the tenant on 7 October 2020, the tenant is barred by s109(2)(b) of the RTA for claiming exemplary damages for this breach, because this provision places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. The application was made on 15 September 2025, more than 12 months after 23 March 2023. Laundry sink taps
The tenant has provided evidence that proves he and his wife could not use the laundry sink taps from the beginning of the tenancy as they were old and ceased so they either could not be turned on or not turned off and came off in the tenant’s hands. The tenant says he raised it with the property manager at the beginning of the tenancy.
All inspection reports and the checklist in the tenancy agreement all say the wash tub is in excellent condition when it clearly was not.
The parties confirmed that on 18 September 2025, the landlord’s handyman installed some old taps in the laundry tub, but they were also seized and not usable. If turned on they could not be turned off.
The tenant confirmed, on 5 October 2025 the whole laundry tub unit was replaced with a new one that is fit for purpose.
I am satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, the landlord knew the laundry tub taps were not working and could not be used. I am also satisfied that the tenant raised this issue at routine property inspections.
I find that the landlord has intentionally committed an unlawful act when it failed to repair and maintain the dining room ceiling to a reasonable standard in all the circumstances for a period of 261 weeks and 5 days, from 7 October 2020 to 5 October 2025. I award the tenant compensation of $5.00 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants during this period. This is a total rent rebate of $1,308.57.
Because the issue had first been raised by the tenant on 7 October 2020, the tenant is barred by s109(2)(b) of the RTA for claiming exemplary damages for this breach, because this provision places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. The application was made on 15 September 2025, more than 12 months after 23 March 2023. Deck
The tenant produced photographic evidence that proves when he and his wife moved the deck had not been cleaned or stained and it was slippery. The tenant did not raise this as an issue with the property manager and instead hired a water blaster on four separate occasions and did clean it himself. He also stated that he had pressure washed the house outside as well on these four occasions.
The tenant confirmed that he was getting frustrated at the lack of routine maintenance on the premise and so he first raised issues with the deck on 14 July 2025 in his 14-day notice. Had stated the owner lives in Hong Kong and has not approved the investment into carrying out basic routine maintenance of the property and that everything done on the house has been reactive.
The tenant confirmed that nothing had been done about the dangerously slippery deck after his 14-day notice and that the handyman sent by the landlord for other issues said he couldn’t do anything to the deck at that time because of the weather and that he has not been back since.
The tenant has proven the deck requires a clean to remove moss/slim on the boards and that there are several rotten boards that need replacing. Additionally, there are deck nails sticking out of some boards causing a health and safety risk to the tenant and his flatmates.
The landlord says it gave the details to the handyman of all the issues raised in the tenants 14-day notice and was not aware that the deck issues had not been remediated. I am not satisfied the landlord did not know the deck issues had not been remediated as this work does not appear on any of the repair and maintenance invoices provided to the Tribunal.
I am satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, the landlord knew the deck was in poor condition when it undertook its 7 July 2025 routine inspection but had come to rely on the tenant carrying out a yearly water pressure clean of the deck and so ignored the rotten boards and sticking out nails and slimy growth that would have been hard to miss in an inspection.
I find that the landlord has intentionally committed an unlawful act when it failed to repair and maintain the deck to a reasonable standard in all the circumstances for a period of 29 weeks and 4 days, from 14 July 2025 to 6 February 2026. I award the tenant compensation of $20.00 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants during this period. This is a total rent rebate of $591.42.
The quantum of exemplary damages will be addressed below, at the end of the breaches of s45(1) of the RTA section of this Order.
The tenant also claimed $200.00 compensation for the cost of hiring the water blaster for the four previous years he had cleaned the deck and house. This claim is dismissed as the tenant confirmed he had not given the landlord the opportunity to undertake this work because he had not raised the maintenance issues with the landlord. Corridor floor collapsed
The tenant states that he raised the rotten floorboards with the landlord at the 6 November 2024 property inspection and that it was not fixed until 13 September 2025.
The tenant provided evidence the floor was concaving where the hot water cylinder had leaked and had rotted the floorboards in two places (hallway and near a bedroom) This issue is also raised in the tenant’s 14-day notice on 14 July 2025.
The tenant says these rotten floorboards were in a heavy foot traffic area that had been heavily soaked from when the hot water cylinder had leaked in 2020. He states that no one looked at the flooring or the wet carpet at that time and simply installed a new hot water cylinder without checking for water damage to the plywood floors.
The landlord confirmed it has felt the floor was soft under the carpet in these areas, but did not think it was an issue at that stage so decided to leave it.
After receiving the tenants 14 July 2025 14-day notice, the landlord sent the handyman with the list of issues raised and says it thought the rotten flooring had been addressed. The 7 August 2025 invoice shows that this had not been addressed but he had fixed the side door, tool shed, sunroom crack and some other things.
The landlord finally had the rotten floorboards remediated on 13 September 2025.
I find that the landlord has intentionally committed an unlawful act when it failed to repair and maintain the corridor flooring to a reasonable standard in all the circumstances for a period of 44 weeks and 3 days, from 6 November 2024 to 13 September 2025. I award the tenant compensation of $20.00 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants during this period. This is a total rent rebate of $888.57.
The quantum of exemplary damages will be addressed below, at the end of the breaches of s45(1) of the RTA section of this Order. Sink blocked and waste disposal not working
The tenant’s wife first raised the issue with the blocked sink pipe and waste disposal unit not working on 20 June 2025 in a WeChat message. At this time the tenant was on an overseas deployment and had left his wife to manage the house.
The tenant’s wife says the sink drain was blocked completely and was unusable. After the property inspection on 7 July 2025, the landlord conveyed to the tenant’s wife that the owner thought the waste disposal was too expensive to replace, even though it was part of the amenities the tenant paid rent to enjoy.
The tenant says the handyman came around and unblocked the drain but that it had blocked again soon after. Although he had unblocked the sink, the waste disposal still broken.
The landlord says the tenant and his wife were overseas in April 2025 and that the flatmates did not look after the house well. The tenant’s wife says she was in touch with the flatmates, and they gave access to handyman to unblock the sink in April 2025. The landlord says the handyman found sticking plaster in disposal unit and removed it and that was the cause of the blockage. The tenant says there is a mesh cover that is always over the disposal sink and the plaster could not have been in the drainpipes, that it must have been in the mesh plug cover.
The landlord says the second time the tenant’s wife raised the issue that she told the property manager the drain blockage was not urgent. The tenant’s wife denies this. She says she was patient, but it became urgent when she and the flatmates could not use the sink at al at a time when they could also not use the laundry tub to wash dishes, due to the taps being unusable. The tenant’s wife said she had got used to the landlord taking a long time to get things done and that this issue arose when her husband was away, or it would have been fixed by him immediately as they would usually.
The tenant’s wife says that she got fed up and gave the property manager an ultimatum. If the sink blockage was not fixed, they would not pay rent until it was. The landlord, in response, removed the waste disposal pipes and put in normal drainage pipes on 19 July 2025.
I find that the landlord has intentionally committed an unlawful act when it failed to repair and maintain the kitchen drainpipes and the waste disposal to a reasonable standard in all the circumstances for a period of 4 weeks and 1 days, from 20 June 2025 to 19 July 2025. Additionally, the tenants have suffered the loss of amenity of the waste disposal the landlord effused to replace from April 2025. I award the tenant a compensation of $350.00 for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants as a result of losing the amenity of the waste disposal and not being able to use the sink for 4 weeks and 1 day.
The quantum of exemplary damages will be addressed below, at the end of the breaches of s45(1) of the RTA section of this Order. Window broken in bedroom
The parties agreed the cracked window in a bedroom took 25 days to fix.
The tenant says this was an unreasonably long timeframe and that he had to tape the cracks up to stop the window falling out f the frame.
The landlord has given evidence the window was replaced under the owner’s insurance, and it was the insurers processes that caused the delay. It says it followed the claim up regularly and did all it could to progress the repair in a timely manner.
I am satisfied that the delay was outside of the landlord’s hands and that the timeframe was reasonable in all the circumstances. The claim is therefore dismissed as the landlord’s defence has disproven the claim. Gutters leaking in the rain
The photographs provided by tenant that show algae build up and a hole in the guttering on the living room side of the house.
The tenant has given evidence that he has cleaned the gutters four times during the tenancy, but found some areas are too high to reach.
The tenant accepts that he has not raised the gutter issues until his 14 July 2025 14-day notice. He stated that he considered it should be as part of a routine maintenance schedule. He confirmed that the gutter issues were fixed on 15 July 2025, but he wants $300.00 compensation for the gutter cleans he has done over the first four years of the tenancy.
I find that the landlord fixed the gutter issues in a timely manner after the tenant had raised the issue. I cannot award compensation for gutter cleaning the tenant did of his own volition without raising the issue with the landlord and giving it a chance to have the gutter cleaning undertaken by a contractor of its choice. The tenant’s claim must therefore be dismissed. Mould
The tenant says he raised the mould embedded in the dilapidated wooden window frames and the bathroom ceiling and the mould on the carpet by the ranch slider at all the property inspections and in the 14-day notice. The tenant’s wife claimed she cleans this mould every two weeks, but it comes back quickly.
The tenant produced photographic evidence that proves there is still black mould on the bathroom ceiling and in the bathroom sealant as well as ingrained in the window frames, where the paint has broken down and on the carpet in front of the ranch slider.
The landlord claims the tenant was away from New Zealand for 6 months of 2025 and his flatmates did not clean the windows and around the door. Further, the landlord says that [City] is damp and when the house had not been cleaned for a year or ventilated properly that mildew had formed. Further, the property manager stated that it is the tenant’s job to wash down mouldy surfaces regularly, rather than being the landlord’s responsibility. The tenant’s wife says they clean the mouldy surfaces every two weeks, but it just grows back again. The tenant’s wife also gave evidence the flatmates cleaned the house regularly, including the mould, when she was away for two months.
The landlord stated that no one did the cleaning in the living room, and that the flatmates only cleaned their bedrooms. It reiterated the view that it is tenant’s responsibility to clean the mould.
I find that the landlord has intentionally committed an unlawful act when it failed to address what the photographic evidence shows is a black mould and not mildew caused by a lack of ventilation.
While the photographic evidence shows the mould, it is unlikely to be the black toxic mould known as Stachybotrys chartarum. The photographs suggest the mould is more likely to be Cladosporium (a very common mould that can appear black or olive-green. It grows in both cool and warm areas, often on textiles, wood, and surfaces with poor ventilation). Alternatively it may be Aspergillus niger (a common black mould frequently found on damp walls, paper, and in bathrooms).
However, the black mould in the carpet, on the bathroom ceiling and bathroom sealant and around the window frames could still cause the tenant and his flatmates respiratory issues or skin issues.
The tenant and his flatmates have suffered a loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience over the period of the tenancy because of the landlord’s insistence the tenant is responsible for having the black mould cleaned/removed. I award the tenant a compensation of $500.00 for this loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience.
Because the issue had first been raised by the tenant on prior to 15 September 2024, the tenant is barred by s109(2)(b) of the RTA for claiming exemplary damages for this breach, because this provision places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. The application was made on 15 September 2025. Shower mixer leaking
The tenant says the shower head was dripping water all the time and had low water pressure, so he raised this with the landlord in his email dated 23 March 2023. He says the landlord did nothing to investigate or remediate the issue, so he changed the shower head, but it still kept leaking.
The tenant says the next time he raised the issue was during the routine house inspection on 6 April 2023 and his wife followed this up with the property manager again in April by WeChat.
The landlord confirmed it did not know when the shower issue was fixed but that it sent a job request to the handyman to fix it. The landlord produced an invoice for 11 May 2023 for the shower mixer repair.
I find that the landlord has intentionally committed an unlawful act when it failed to investigate and remediate the shower mixer leak in a reasonable time in all the circumstances for a period of 7 weeks, from 23 March 2023 to 11 May 2023. I award the tenants compensation of $20.00 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants. This is a total rent rebate of $140.00.
Because the issue had first been raised by the tenant on prior to on 23 March 2023, the tenant is barred by s109(2)(b) of the RTA for claiming exemplary damages for this breach, because this provision places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. The application was made on 15 September 2025.

Did the landlord fail to meet its healthy homes standards obligations?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS), specifically the draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage and ventilation standards.
Breaching the healthy homes standards is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 29 September 2020. The landlord had until 1 July 2025 to comply with the healthy homes’ standards. Ventilation Standard
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.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant claims the bathroom fan does not meet the ventilation standard because the fan is not 120mm or more in diameter. However, the ventilation standard confirms in any room with a shower or bath, new fans installed after 1 July 2019 must have a minimum diameter (including ducting) of 120mm or an exhaust capacity of at least 25 litres per second.
The landlord confirms that the bathroom fan was installed prior to 1 July 2019 as it has photographs of the premise at that time that prove the fan was installed prior to July 2019 and that it had more recently been ducted externally. This is why the healthy homes assessment report HHS confirms that on 22 April 2025 the bathroom fan was assessed as being compliant with the ventilation requirements of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
The tenant has failed to provide evidence to prove a breach of the ventilation standard and the landlord has produced evidence that disproves this claim. The claim is dismissed. Draught Stopping Standard
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant states that the 9 April 2025 healthy homes assessment report is incorrect in that the dining room ceiling has had a hole in it since the beginning of the tenancy and this hole lets in draughts and moisture and makes the house hard to heat. The tenant has produced photographic evidence that proves his claim as it shows a hole in the dining room ceiling that existed in the entry inspection photographs and was still in existence on the date the tenant’s application was made. Further, the tenant and his wife confirmed the hole is still there and it has some mould growing around it from the damp air and moisture coming through it.
In this case I have determined that the landlord is in breach of the draught stopping standard and that its healthy homes assessor failed to pick this breach up when undertaking his assessment.
I find Excel Property Management Limited committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that the landlord knew about the hole from the start of the tenancy and has intentionally failed to remediate it and has relied on an inaccurate healthy homes assessment that was carried out by its handyman. Therefore, I am satisfied that exemplary damages should be awarded for this breach.
The quantum of exemplary damages will be addressed below, at the end of the breaches of s45(1) of the RTA section of this Order. Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard
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.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant has provided photographic evidence that the one part of the guttering had a hole in it and the gutters overall were blocked with dirt and healthily growing grass on 1 July 2025, when the premise was required to meet this healthy homes’ standard.
The landlord sought to rely on the 9 April 2025 healthy homes assessment report undertaken by its handyman. The tenant’s photographic evidence proves that on 1 July 2025 and on the date the assessment was carried out by the handyman, the gutters were blocked and/or had a hole and did not meet the standard.
The landlord has provided invoice evidence that proves it had the gutters cleaned and made fit for purpose on 15 July 2025, after receiving the tenant’s 14 day notice to remedy the gutter blockages and leaks, among other things.
In this case I have determined that the landlord is in breach of the moisture ingress and drainage standard and that its healthy homes assessor failed to pick this breach up when undertaking his assessment.
I find Excel Property Management Limited committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that the gutters were so obviously blocked and growing grass and were leaking during period of rain that the landlord ought reasonably to have known about the blocked guttering after it conducted its routine property inspections every 6 months. Additionally, its handyman must have been able to see the grass growing in the guttering and the hole in the guttering when he undertook the assessment in April 2025. I am satisfied that intentionally failed to remediate it and has relied on an inaccurate healthy homes assessment that was carried out by its handyman. Therefore, I am satisfied that exemplary damages should be awarded for this breach.
The quantum of exemplary damages will be addressed below, at the end of the breaches of s45(1) of the RTA section of this Order. Exemplary damages for all the s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed five intentional breaches of s45(1)(b) of the RTA in the 12 months prior to the tenant’s application to the Tribunal on 15 September 2025 and one of s45(1)(bb) of the RTA. These breaches were prolonged and resulted in the tenant, his wife and his flatmates experiencing considerable periods of stress, inconvenience, and loss of the amenities they were paying rent to enjoy. The landlord did not offer any rent relief for these plights the tenant, his wife and his flatmates endured.
I find the landlord has committed these six unlawful acts intentionally and compounded those breaches by, failing to offer the tenants a rent rebate for the stress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenant, his wife and his flatmates many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $1,800.00 exemplary damages to the tenant, being a quarter of the maximum penalty available for s45(1) of the RTA breaches.

OTHER CLAIMS

Tenant compensation claims

The tenant seeks compensation for the following costs he has incurred repairing and maintaining the premises himself, when the repairs/maintenance ought to have been addressed by the landlord at its cost: a. Door locks at $100.00; b. Gutter cleaning and house washing x 4 at $300.00 hire age cost for the water blaster; c. Carpet cleaning hire of $100.00 for entry cleaning of dirty carpet left by prior tenants; d. The cost of paying for meals when the hob was broken for four days at $300.00; e. Hireage cost for water blaster and chemicals for cleaning the deck at $200.00.
The tenant has not proven he incurred these costs after he has raised the repair and maintenance issues with the landlord and the landlord had failed to address the complaints in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances. The claims are therefore dismissed. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because both parties have substantially succeeded with their claims, I must reimburse the filing fee to both parties. Name Suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of his name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of the tenant’s names and identifying details is ordered.
The landlord also applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
I consider publication of the landlord’s name in this matter is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct and the type of breaches the tenant has proven it has engaged in.
The landlord’s application for non-publication of its name and identifying details is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343521 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343521 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORD CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Did the landlord fail to repair and maintain the premise in a reasonable condition?

Did the landlord fail to meet its healthy homes standards obligations?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORD CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Did the landlord fail to repair and maintain the premise in a reasonable condition?

Did the landlord fail to meet its healthy homes standards obligations?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions