What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5344361 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $328.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 5344361?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5344361?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5344361?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13772449-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5344361 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $328.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 5344361?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5344361?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5344361?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13772449-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 614, 10 Waterloo Quadrant, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5344361 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5344361 — net $328.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failure to provide healthy homes compliance records	$150.00	failure to provide healthy homes compliance records
Compensation: loss of amenity	$150.00	loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$328.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$328.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5344361 — net $328.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failure to provide healthy homes compliance records	$150.00	failure to provide healthy homes compliance records
Compensation: loss of amenity	$150.00	loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$328.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$328.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $328.00 immediately.

Reasons

Introduction

The hearing was held in person on 18 June 2026.
The tenant, Mr Cui, attended the hearing.
The landlord, Ms Lee, attended the hearing.
Mr Ding attended the hearing and assisted Ms Lee with maintenance and management matters relating to the tenancy.
Mr Zhang attended as the Tribunal-appointed Mandarin interpreter.
The hearing commenced in English but subsequently proceeded in Mandarin to enable the parties to give their evidence more comfortably. Mr Zhang remained available throughout the hearing to assist with interpretation where required. Background
Prior to arriving in New Zealand, the tenant was seeking accommodation in Auckland while commencing postgraduate study.
The tenant's evidence was that he initially believed he would be renting Unit 2301, a unit owned by the landlord. He said viewing arrangements had been discussed before his arrival.
The landlord's evidence was that Unit 2301 remained under hotel management and ultimately could not be made available at the time required. She said she explained this to the tenant and his agent and made considerable efforts to locate alternative accommodation in the same building.
Shortly before the tenant arrived in New Zealand, arrangements were made for him to occupy Unit 614.
The tenant arrived in Auckland on 9 August 2024 and took possession of Unit 614 that evening.
The tenancy agreement recorded weekly rent of $410. The agreement also provided for an additional payment of $30 per week for power and internet services.
A bond of $1,640 was lodged with Tenancy Services.
The tenant remained in Unit 614 until 15 October 2024, a period of approximately nine weeks and six days, before transferring to Unit 2301. He remained in Unit 2301 until the tenancy ended in August 2025.
During September 2024, the tenant raised concerns regarding the condition of Unit 614, including mould, insects, insect corpses, dust and a rusted microwave.
The parties subsequently exchanged numerous emails and messages regarding these issues. The tenant’s claims
Mr Cui's application raises four principal issues; a. The landlord failed to lodge the correct bond amount with Tenancy Services; b. The premises were not provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and were not adequately maintained; c. The landlord failed to include a statement relating to the Healthy Homes Standards in the tenancy agreement and failed to provide Healthy Homes compliance records upon request; and d. Compensation should be awarded. The tenant’s submissions
The tenant said that when he arrived in Auckland on 9 August 2024 he met Mr Ding at Unit 614 and signed the tenancy agreement electronically.
He said that it was winter, the premises were viewed in the evening after dark, and he conducted only a brief inspection because he had recently arrived in New Zealand and was carrying multiple suitcases.
The tenant stated that after settling into the premises he discovered a number of problems which were not apparent during the initial inspection.
These included mould on curtains, visible black mould along the edge of a wall adjacent to a recessed surface, insect bodies, an insect (a spider), excessive dust, a rusted microwave, and general cleanliness concerns.
The tenant said he formally complained by email on 5 September 2024.
He disputed the landlord's assertion that he waited two months before complaining and pointed to the email correspondence showing that his complaint was made less than one month after taking possession.
The tenant produced photographs and a video recorded on 10 September 2024 showing mould, an insect, insect corpses, dust and the condition of the microwave.
He submitted that the mould could not have developed within a matter of days and that the rust visible in the microwave must have existed long before he moved into the premises.
The tenant argued that the landlord's pre-tenancy video failed to show important areas where mould was later identified, including behind curtains and certain corners of the room.
He said he had no reason to create or exaggerate the issues because he was living in the premises himself.
The tenant further submitted that the landlord consistently refused to acknowledge responsibility for any of the issues identified.
In relation to the bond, the tenant said that he paid a total of $440 per week and therefore believed the bond should have been calculated using that amount.
He accepted that the tenancy agreement referred to rent of $410 per week but maintained that he had paid a bond equivalent to four weeks at $440 per week.
The tenant also complained that the Healthy Homes Standards and insurance sections of the tenancy agreement had been crossed out.
He said he was unfamiliar with New Zealand tenancy law when he arrived and did not understand the significance of those provisions.
He submitted that no Healthy Homes report or compliance records were ever provided for Unit 614 despite his request.
The tenant stated that the tenancy caused him considerable frustration and stress and that he sought recognition that the landlord had acted unlawfully. The landlord’s submissions
The landlord said she became involved in assisting the tenant because he required accommodation shortly before arriving in New Zealand. Unit 2301 could not be made available because it remained under hotel management. The landlord said she made extensive efforts to find alternative accommodation within the same building and ultimately arranged for the tenant to occupy Unit 614.
The landlord said that before the tenancy commenced, Mr Ding attended the property with building management and recorded a video showing its condition. She submitted that the video demonstrated the apartment was reasonably clean and tidy immediately before commencement of the tenancy. The landlord disputed the tenant's suggestion that he was pressured into signing the tenancy agreement and said photographs and video footage had been provided beforehand.
The landlord initially stated that the tenant did not complain until approximately two months after moving into the premises. During the hearing she accepted that this was incorrect and corrected her evidence, acknowledging that the first formal complaint was made in early September 2024, approximately one month after the tenancy commenced.
The landlord submitted that mould can develop because of humidity, condensation and ventilation issues. She argued that the mould identified in September 2024 did not establish that the property was in that condition when possession was given. Similar submissions were made regarding the insect and insect corpses. The landlord said the apartment contained a large sliding door and balcony area and that insects entering the premises was not unusual.
The landlord accepted that the microwave was in an unsatisfactory condition. She said that once the issue was brought to her attention she contacted building management and sought a replacement. When the replacement microwave supplied by management was also unsatisfactory, she arranged for a new microwave to be purchased and delivered to the tenant. The landlord submitted that she responded promptly to the tenant's maintenance concerns and also offered pest treatment and replacement or cleaning of the curtains.
Regarding the bond, the landlord submitted that the tenancy agreement clearly separated rent from utility charges. She said the weekly rent was $410 and the additional $30 represented power and internet costs. Accordingly, she submitted that the bond was correctly lodged at $1,640.
In relation to Healthy Homes obligations, the landlord stated that she believed the apartment complied because it formed part of a hotel-style apartment complex operating under body corporate arrangements. She accepted that the Healthy Homes statement in the tenancy agreement had been crossed out but denied any intention to mislead the tenant or avoid legal obligations. Mr Ding’s evidence
Mr Ding confirmed that he attended Unit 614 before commencement of the tenancy and recorded a video showing the condition of the premises. He believed the apartment complied with the Healthy Homes Standards and acknowledged crossing out the Healthy Homes statement in the tenancy agreement because he considered the apartment already met the applicable requirements. Discussions and findings Bond lodgement
The tenant claims the landlord did not correctly lodge the bond with Tenancy Services within the required time.
A landlord must lodge a bond with Tenancy Services within 23 working days after receiving it. See s 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant submits that because he paid $440 per week, the bond should have been calculated using that amount.
I do not accept that submission.
The tenancy agreement clearly records weekly rent of $410. The agreement separately records a payment of $30 per week for power and internet services.
Section 19 of the Act permits a bond of up to four weeks' rent. Four weeks' rent at $410 per week equals $1,640.
The landlord lodged $1,640 with Tenancy Services.
Accordingly, the landlord complied with her obligations regarding bond lodgement.
The bond claim is dismissed. Maintenance issues
The tenant claims that the landlord breached her obligations under s 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under s 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and comply with any relevant enactment relating to buildings, health and safety.
The tenant alleges that the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
It is unfortunate that the landlord did not complete a written pre-tenancy inspection report. However, a video recorded on 8 August 2024 was produced.
Having viewed that video, I am satisfied that on its face the premises appeared reasonably clean and tidy immediately before commencement of the tenancy.
I accept the tenant's submission that the video does not show every area of the premises. I also accept that some of the mould identified by the tenant was located in places not clearly visible in the landlord's video.
However, there is approximately one month between the landlord's video and the tenant's video.
I cannot simply assume that mould, dust, insects or insect corpses present in September 2024 were necessarily present when possession was given in August 2024. Mould growth may result from a range of factors including humidity, condensation and inadequate ventilation. Curtains and corner wall areas are common locations where mould may develop and where dust may accumulate. Similarly, while the tenant's photographs demonstrate the presence of an insect and insect corpses in September 2024, I cannot conclude they were present when possession was given, nor can I exclude the possibility that they entered the premises after the tenancy commenced.
On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the mould, insects, insect corpses or dust establish a breach of the landlord's obligations at the commencement of the tenancy.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the tenant has discharged the burden of proving that the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The claims relating to mould, insects, insect corpses and dust are dismissed. Microwave
The microwave requires separate consideration.
The photographs clearly show rust within the microwave. Unlike mould or insects, rust does not develop over a short period.
I infer that the rust was present well before the tenant took possession of the premises.
I accept that the landlord subsequently arranged replacement of the microwave.
However, the condition of the original microwave resulted in a loss of amenity to the tenant.
The tenant expressed genuine concerns regarding its safety and was unable to use it comfortably.
There is insufficient evidence to establish that the microwave was unsafe or that the landlord breached s 45(1)(c) of the Act. Nevertheless, compensation is appropriate for the loss of amenity experienced.
I assess that compensation at $150. Failure to include a Healthy Homes statement in the tenancy agreement
The issue concerning the Healthy Homes statement relates to s 13A(1CA) of the Act.
It is common ground that the Healthy Homes statement in the tenancy agreement was completely crossed out. The landlord accepts this occurred.
The landlord relies on the fact that the apartment formed part of a hotel-style complex. However, no evidence was produced establishing that this relieved the landlord of her statutory obligations under the Act.
Section 13A(1CA) requires a tenancy agreement to contain a signed statement regarding Healthy Homes compliance.
The statutory language is mandatory. By crossing out the statement entirely, the landlord failed to comply with that requirement.
I therefore find that the landlord committed an unlawful act.
However, the tenant has not established any identifiable loss arising specifically from the omission of the statement.
Accordingly, no compensatory award is made for failure to provide a Healthy Homes statement. Failure to provide Healthy Homes Standards compliance records
The tenant claims that the landlord breached her obligations under s 45(1AC) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under s 45(1AC), a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, provide records or other documents relating to the landlord's compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
Breaching that obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750. See s 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The landlord's position in relation to this claim is essentially the same as her position regarding the omission of the Healthy Homes statement. She says she believed the body corporate or hotel management was responsible for Healthy Homes compliance. In my view, this explanation is not a reasonable excuse. Rather, it is ignorance of her statutory obligation.
Whether the landlord was correct about the compliance issue is not determinative. Section 45(1AC) required her to obtain the relevant information and provide it to the tenant upon request. She did not do so.
I therefore find that the landlord committed an unlawful act. Exemplary damage
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied it would be just to do so having regard to the factors set out in s 109(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have considered whether exemplary damages should be awarded in relation to the Healthy Homes issues.
I do not consider the landlord's failure to include a signed Healthy Homes statement in the tenancy agreement, as required by s 13A(1CA) of the Act, to have been intentional. It is a fact that the apartment was subject to a body corporate arrangement. If the body corporate was responsible for Healthy Homes compliance, that does not mean the landlord was not required to sign the statement. While the landlord’s failure was apparent, I am not satisfied that the omission was intentional.
The position is different in relation to the landlord's failure to provide Healthy Homes compliance records under s 45(1AC) of the Act.
Whether the body corporate, hotel operator, or another entity had responsibility for compliance is beside the point. Section 45(1AC) requires a landlord to provide Healthy Homes compliance records when requested by a tenant.
The landlord did not do so. More importantly, it did not appear from the evidence that the landlord made any inquiry at all regarding the existence of those records. Instead, the landlord appears to have assumed that because the apartment formed part of a hotel-style complex, compliance existed and no further action was required.
In my view, that assumption was insufficient to discharge her statutory obligation. The landlord remained responsible for obtaining the relevant information and providing it to the tenant within the statutory timeframe.
I accept that the landlord may have genuinely believed the apartment complied with the Healthy Homes Standards. However, the failure to make any inquiry regarding compliance records demonstrates a disregard of the obligations imposed by s 45(1AC) of the Act.
Taking into account the nature of the breach, the landlord's conduct, and the public interest in ensuring compliance with requests for Healthy Homes information, I consider an award of exemplary damages is justified.
I award exemplary damages of $150. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee

Tenancy Tribunal case 5344361 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 614, 10 Waterloo Quadrant, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5344361 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 614, 10 Waterloo Quadrant, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions