What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5347781 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 5347781?

Compensation: Breach of HIR regulati…: $550.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Breach of s13A tenancy…: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $4,634.29 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Enjoyment/Privacy: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $540.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5347781?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5347781?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13230443-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5347781 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 5347781?

Compensation: Breach of HIR regulati…: $550.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Breach of s13A tenancy…: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $4,634.29 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Enjoyment/Privacy: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $540.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5347781?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5347781?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13230443-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5347781 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5347781 — net $9,897.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$540.00		Rent arrears
Compensation: Failure to maintain		$4,634.29	Failure to maintain
Compensation: Smoke alarm regulation breach		$200.00	Smoke alarm regulation breach
Compensation: Breach of HIR regulation 15 and		$550.00	Breach of HIR regulation 15 and
Exemplary damages: S45(1) of the RTA breaches		$2,400.00	S45(1) of the RTA breaches
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet		$1,500.00	156. I make an order for the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA.
enjoyment/privacy		$375.00	enjoyment/privacy
Compensation: Breach of s13A tenancy agreement		$750.00	Breach of s13A tenancy agreement
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$540.00	$10,437.29
Net award		$9,897.29
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$9,897.29

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5347781 — net $9,897.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$540.00		Rent arrears
Compensation: Failure to maintain		$4,634.29	Failure to maintain
Compensation: Smoke alarm regulation breach		$200.00	Smoke alarm regulation breach
Compensation: Breach of HIR regulation 15 and		$550.00	Breach of HIR regulation 15 and
Exemplary damages: S45(1) of the RTA breaches		$2,400.00	S45(1) of the RTA breaches
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet		$1,500.00	156. I make an order for the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA.
enjoyment/privacy		$375.00	enjoyment/privacy
Compensation: Breach of s13A tenancy agreement		$750.00	Breach of s13A tenancy agreement
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$540.00	$10,437.29
Net award		$9,897.29
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$9,897.29

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details 2. immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlords did not attend the hearing, but Ms Gong was represented by Mr (Jim) Yingming Zhao. Mr Zhao confirmed that he acts solely for Ms Gong and has no instructions from MGDESIGN LIMITED.
The tenant, [name suppressed] and his flatmates, [names suppressed] attended the hearing on 23 January 2026.

Who are the parties to this dispute?

There are two tenancy agreements that relate to this tenancy.
The first tenancy agreement was signed by [name suppressed] on 6 April 2024 and ended on 18 May 2024. The landlord parties recorded in this agreement are Meng Gong and MG Design Ltd. There is no such company listed on the New Zealand Companies Office Register. The New Zealand Companies Office Register shows Meng Gong is the sole director and shareholder of MGDESIGN LIMITED, company number 5294861 and NZBN: 9429041275412.
The second tenancy agreement supersedes the first. The only named tenant is [name suppressed]. This agreement took effect from 19 May 2024. This agreement is marked as “Head Tenant Replacement Agreement”. The landlord parties listed are Meng Gong and MGDESIGN LIMITED, but handwritten in the landlord section of the agreement is also [Named company]. The Companies Office Register shows Ms Gong has no legal relationship to [Named company]. According to the Companies Office Register, this company was removed from the register on 17 December 2025. Ms Gong’s lawyer confirmed that Ms Gong is not related to this company, and she does not know why this name is on the TA. The tenant confirmed that Ms Gong hand wrote this company name on the tenancy agreement, and he does not know why.
[Name suppressed] did not sign the second tenancy agreement, only the landlord did. He and [name suppressed] signed a separate piece of paper on 19 May 2024 to say that [name suppressed] was the sole tenant, and that [The tenant/s] had paid the bond, so it was to be lodged in his name only.
I am satisfied that the tenant in this dispute is [The tenant/s], and the landlords are MGDESIGN LIMITED and Meng Gong. I accept that the separate piece of paper signed by the parties proves that [name suppressed] is no longer the tenant after 18 May 2024 and the second tenancy agreement is the binding and enforceable agreement from 19 May 2024. The parties claims
The tenant has applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord had made a cross application, which at the 23 January 2026 hearing the landlord’s representative confirmed the landlord withdrew.

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.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any 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. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Have the landlords breached their section 45(1)(a), (b), (bb) and (c) obligations to the tenant?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(a),(b), (bb) and (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
Breaching either of these s45(1) obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. 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]. Did the landlord provide the premise to the tenants 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 that at the start of the first tenancy, the lawns were overgrown, the garden needed weeding, the gutters were blocked with debris, there was rubbish outside and inside as well as left over belongings in the inside of the house. Additionally, there were rat droppings in cupboards and black mould in the bathrooms.
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 to a hotel or motel standard 14 . The better the premise and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected 15 .
The photographs provided by the landlord of the state of the property at the beginning of the tenancy were not dated. The tenants confirmed these photographs were on the listings on trade me properties and other real estate sites and were not a representation of the state of the house when they moved in, nor when they viewed it. The landlord’s representative insisted these photographs were taken just immediately prior to the tenant and flatmates moving in but could not prove the date they were taken.
The tenant and his flatmates all confirmed the house was dirty, lawns unmown and the inside and outside of the house contained rubbish and personal belongings from the prior occupants. However, they were unable to produce 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]. 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]. sufficient evidence to prove their claims, as they had not taken any entry inspection photographs.
The tenant stated Ms Gong’s mother had taken a full entry inspection video, but he had never received a copy and Mg Gong’s representative did not have access to it. Therefore, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation and/or exemplary damages under this head of claim for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Failure to maintain
The tenant gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to her attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. Leaks, black mould and holes/gaps throughout the premise
The tenant confirmed the leaks in the laundry and kitchen were first reported by email to the landlord on 12 February 2025. The tenant sent the landlord photographs informing her/it of theses leaks. The tenant’s email/text/video/photographic evidence proves these leaks were not fixed properly. The tenant’s evidence shows some handymen came and took off water damaged wood and put new wood up and did not locate or fix the leaks.
The tenant is unsure where all the leaks originated from, but the evidence shows that the hot water cylinder is the likely first leak. After the first hot water cylinder leak was fixed in February 2025, it continued to leak. The text message chain provided by the tenant shows he raised this issue again on 2 March 2025, and the landlord asks if the leak is coming from the hot water cylinder, under the kitchen sink or from the water tank. The tenant confirms the water tank probably has a leak because he had to buy a tank of water at a time of the year when water consumption should not have drained the water tank. He also confirms the hot water cylinder is making hissing noises, there is no water pressure and he and his flatmates have not been able to shower for over 4 days.
A handyman came to investigate the kitchen leak on 3 March 2025. The invoice says that the source of the leak was dislodged pipe, and that the handyman had rejoined and sealed pipe. The photographs provided by the tenant show the floors and walls were sagging from water damage and the kitchen cabinetry also showed signs of water damage. In the landlord’s communications with the tenant she suggests the premise might not be fit to live in while the cost and scope of the necessary repairs are undertaken and that the work may take considerable time to arrange and complete.
A few months later, the tenant reported a leak in his bedroom ceiling and window. A 14-day notice to remedy was issued by the tenant on 31 July 2025. The bedroom leaks were first raised on 30 July 2025. On 6 August 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord to confirm that when it rains, the windows leak onto the floor when windowsills overflow from the collection of excessive water due to substandard installation of windows. He also notes that he has stopped using the ceiling light in his room, as instructed by the landlord, and has moved the bed due to the leaks causing water to pour on to his bed during the night when he is tying to sleep. Additionally, he confirms he has been using buckets and is mopping up the water from the leaks as best he can, but remediation of the issue is urgent. The evidence proves this room was uninhabitable at that time.
The landlord indicates she is going to make an insurance claim and is looking for roofing and building contractors to undertake the remediation work. The landlord expresses a view that the bedroom leak is probably coming from the roof and confirms the builders will look at the holes and gaps, the mould issues, the blocked guttering, the structural integrity of the premise concerns and the windowsills that allow moisture ingress on top of the leaky roof.
Contractors assessed the scope of work around 14 August 2025 and started working on replacing the kitchen and laundry flooring on 18 August 2025 and to undertake remediation work in the bathroom, around the front door and in relation to the numerous holes and gaps throughout the house. The videos the tenant provided is evidence of substandard work being carried out by a young Asian man wearing crocks and no safety attire. Additionally, he appears to be engaging in conduct that breaches the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, making the premise unsafe for the tenant and his flatmates and the contractors working on the site.
The email trail suggests the shower issues are fixed on 27 August 2025 but the other leaks, gaps/holes, mould are still to be addressed. In the tenant’s email of 31 August 2025, he states: The so-called repairs carried out by the deadline not only failed to resolve the existing issues, they actively created new ones, and in doing so, also revealed additional existing issues. The result has been an escalation of health and safety risks, rendering the home virtually uninhabitable. We got told by WorkSafe directly we should have been out of here much sooner and that no one else should be able to rent it again due to its current conditions. Over the past few weeks, we have had to deal with: •Days without running water (without notice). Including an unusable shower due to low water pressure and an old outdated leaking unmaintained hot water cylinder; •Unsafe and unsanitary conditions; •A complete lack if privacy; •Damage to our personal belongings; •An inability to cook, clean, eat and access the house freely due to the pantry and everything in the kitchen being stripped and removed; •Unannounced visits; •Tools and materials left throughout the shared living spaces; •Excess saw dust and mess from indoor cutting, noise and general disruption; •Individuals using our personal belongings and equipment without permission or even consideration to at least ask during their so called clean up; •Builders and even your family members, entering the property without consent on multiple occasions”.... “...In fact, much of the work has made the property less habitable instead of more”. ... “As the days progressed, the situation deteriorated to such an extent that WorkSafe were forced to intervene, contacting you directly to stop the unsafe work being carried out. At the time your worker was wobbling on a ladder, which he had placed on top of a two-story mobile scaffold which he had hastily and carelessly set up in the middle of the living room”.
The tenant stated that the ceiling above the fireplace was leaking badly as well, but he never raised that with the landlords as he had given up hope by then that anything would be done if he had raised it.
Additionally, the tenant repeatedly raised issues with black mould in the bathroom, on the sealant around the bath, on the bathroom walls, in the laundry behind the hot water cylinder (that was leaking), in the kitchen on the ceiling and in the grout and in the insulation in the leaky areas of the house.
The first time this was raised was in the 14-day notice to remedy given to the landlord on 31 July 2025. The tenant’s video and photographic evidence proves this issue was not remediated fully. The videos show the contractor cutting out the mouldy areas without having removed or treated the mould and the mould growing back again. The videos and photographs also show the black mould being obvious well after the hot water cylinder repairs because the water damaged wood was never dried out, repaired or replaced.
There were also videos and photographs produced in evidence that show mould on the pink batts in the kitchen during the repairs and the contractors putting the mouldy batts back into the wall/ceiling cavity.
These videos and photographs produced by the tenant also prove that there were numerous holes and gaps in walls, windows, doors and in kitchen behind the cabinetry, many of which went to outside the premise and let in cool damp air and draughts. These holes and gaps were either left unaddressed or the hole or gap on the inside wall would be patched but the hole form outside to the inside cavity was left unaddressed.
It was because of these failures to maintain the premise and ongoing unresolved repair and maintenance issues that led the tenant and his flatmates to start looking for a new place to rent and to ending the tenancy on 31 August 2025.
The landlords claim they were not aware of the mould on the bathroom walls , the laundry area behind the hot water cylinder or the kitchen ceiling. It also states that these issues were not in the tenant’s 31 July 14-day notice to remedy list.
The tenant’s 31 July 2025 email to Ms Gong specifically mentions the presence and spread of mould throughout the premise and the tenant gave Ms Gong access to his google drive that contained photographs and videos of the mould and dampness issues. I do not accept the landlords claim it knew nothing about these issues.
The landlord says the sealant around the wash basin was replaced but accepts this was not completed in a reasonable timeframe and that the timeframe was not communicated to the tenant.
The landlord also claims that the issues about the leaks, dampness and mould were raised in July and that this is in the middle of the winter months where mould can grow if the house is not ventilated properly. It also stated the tenant, and his flatmates never opened any windows and that this contributed to the dampness and mould. The number of leaks, holes in walls and gaps around windows and doors that the tenant has proven with video and photographic evidence and oral testimony proves the mould issue was far more than a ventilation problem. I do not accept this as a justifiable defence to the tenant’s claims nor do I accept that the mould and dampness was an occupancy issue.
The landlord also states that the holes and gaps were not as extensive as the tenant claims and that this is supported by the real estate marketing photographs produced by the landlord’s representative. It also claims that the tenant did not bring many of these holes and gaps to its attention and that had it been notified earlier it would have had the holes and gaps addressed promptly. I do not accept this evidence because the tenant has produced videos, emails, text messages and photographs that prove these issues were brought to its attention and that when these issues were addressed, they were assessed and remediated by contractors that delivered sub-standard workmanship often making the issues worse, causing other issues and/or not fully remediating the issue they were asked to fix. Further, the landlord could not tell me when the marketing photographs had been taken, but the tenant’s evidence proves that on entry the house looked nothing like the marketing photographs.
The landlord claims the hole and the gaps at the bottom of the kitchen cabinetry were closed. The tenant’s video and photographic evidence disproves this assertion.
I find the landlords have failed to investigate and remediate the multiple the repair and maintenance issues in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances, and that the tenant should receive a rent rebate of $200.00 per week for the period of 28 weeks 4 days (12 February 2025 to 31 August 2025) he has suffered the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience of not having access to hot water, showers, the kitchen, his bedroom, living with what appears to be toxic black mould, draughts, leaks and dealing with the unprofessional contractors the landlord engaged that created health and safety hazards and undertook inadequate repairs that sometimes made things worse and not better, being a rent rebate of $5,714.29. The parties confirmed that the tenant was given 2 weeks rent rebate, being $1,080.00, during the August repairs for the period 18 to 31 August 2025. This amount needs to be deducted from the $5,714.29, resulting in a rent rebate of $4,634.29.
I do not find that this breach was an intentional unlawful act for which exemplary damages should be awarded. Some of the delays were due to insurance claims and some of the breaches were because of the landlords’ engaging contractors that, from the video evidence, did not appear to be qualified for the work they had been asked to undertake and therefore made things worse, created new issues while remediating a different issue or not fully addressing the issue due to taking shortcuts.
The tenant has made a claim for the cost of damaged clothing and other belongings to be replaced. The tenant has not provided receipts for replacement of these items and the Tribunal cannot award compensation for a cost that has not yet been incurred. Therefore, this claim must fail and is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach the smoke alarms regulations?

Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA states the landlord “shall comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A”.
The tenant claims the rental premise had no working smoke alarms when he and his flatmates moved in and that the landlords knew about this breach and paid one of the flatmates $150.00 to install two smoke alarms a week into the first tenancy.
The landlords acknowledged that the smoke alarm were not installed at the very start of the tenancy. They say this was because the tenants moved in quickly and had early occupancy. They also stated the tenant, and his flatmates were informed of this situation prior to moving in, and that two smoke alarms were obtained and installed within a reasonable period after the tenancy commenced.
Photographs of the installed smoke alarm were provided as evidence. Accordingly, the landlords submitted that there was no breach of the relevant provisions of the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016.
Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) website, www.fire.org, confirms both landlords and tenants take some responsible for smoke alarms as follows: a. Landlords must ensure smoke alarms: i. are working at the start of each new tenancy; ii. remain in working order during the tenancy; and iii. That are not working are replaced with photoelectric smoke alarms. b. Tenants must: i. not damage, remove, or disconnect a smoke alarm; ii. replace dead batteries during the tenancy if there are older-style smoke alarms with replaceable batteries; and iii. let the landlord know if there are any problems with the smoke alarms as soon as possible.
I am satisfied that the tenant has proven that the landlords failed to ensure the rental premise was fitted with working smoke alarms that meet the regulatory requirements referred to in the RTA until one of the tenant’s flatmates was paid to fit two new alarms on an undefined date after the tenancy commenced. He evidence is conclusive that at the start of the tenancy there were no smoke alarms inside the premise.
I find that the tenant should be awarded compensation for the breach of the landlord’s obligations to provide smoking smoke alarms and award compensation of $200.00 for the breach.
Section 109(2)(b) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage in that this provision states that the tenant cannot apply for exemplary damages for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. This breach occurred from 18 May 2024 and therefore the tenant is statutorily barred from applying for exemplary damages because the tenant made this application on 22 August 2025. Failure to meet buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premise
The tenant says the landlords failed to meet their obligations under s45(1)(c) of the RTA as the premise did not meet the relevant building and health and safety laws.
The tenants called WorkSafe and it came 26 August 2025 as the landlords handymen were not complying with health and safety standards and were causing risks in the home as a workplace. WorkSafe used a moisture meter through the house where repairs had been done and the readings were extremely high. WorkSafe said it would take a lot to fix the premise as it was in a really bad state. WorkSafe also stated the contractors needed to undertake asbestos testing and had the contractors confirm to it that no asbestos testing done prior to the work commencing. The contractors were told by WorkSafe to stop work until they could do the work safely and properly.
I note that the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 only applies to the contractors that are working on the premise in unsafe conditions, and not to person living in a premise.
The landlord strongly refutes any such breach. However, the tenant has produced sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities by proving the landlords failed to ensure the house was free from dampness, as addressed in the failure to maintain section of this Order above. Regulation 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 confirms that “every house shall be free from dampness”. I have already found that this house was full of gaps, holes, leaks and draughts that made the house so damp that black mould grew in the bathroom and hot water cupboard and some rooms were so damp they could not be used, such as the tenant’s bedroom.
The tenant has proven the premise did not meet the requirements set out in regulation 15 of the HIR. Therefore, I am satisfied that the landlord was in breach of this obligation and that the tenant should receive compensation of $550.00 for this breach.
I do not find that this breach was an intentional unlawful act for which exemplary damages should be awarded. The landlords engage contractors that they thought could undertake the work required and the work was carried out with the tenant and his flatmates still living in the premise when the landlords knew that they would not have access to basic facilities like water and the kitchen for longer periods than is reasonable. Did the landlords fail to meet the healthy homes standards
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
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 first tenancy commenced on 21 April 2024. Therefore, the landlord had 120 days from the commencement date to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards, being Monday,19 August 2024.
When the landlords entered into a second tenancy agreement with a different tenant on 19 May 2024, this triggered a new compliance date, being Monday, 16 September 2024 (120 days from 19 May 2024).
There was no third-party healthy homes assessment report provided to the tenant or the Tribunal. The only healthy homes information available is the handwritten information given to the first tenant on a Tenancy Services template available online. A. Insulation
The tenant claims the landlords have failed to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
The tenant says that when he and his flatmates were shown the place, they were told it was insulated and would be warm in the winter. They quicky found that this was not the case.
The healthy homes information attached to the first tenancy agreement states the landlord does not know the R rating of the ceiling insulation, that it is insulated with pink batts that are 150mm thick , that the landlord has no idea when the batts were installed and that the batts were last inspected on 28 May 2014.
The tenant and his flatmates provided photographic evidence that proves the pink batts in the ceiling had gaps and did not cover the entire ceiling and some of the batts were mouldy, damaged and damp. Work was not started on these batts until July 2025, well past the 16 September 2024 compliance date.
The landlords accepted the pink batts in the ceiling were not fully compliant with the ceiling insulation standard on compliance day.
The healthy homes information attached to the first tenancy agreement states the premise is exempt from the underfloor insulation standard because “ existing slab in 1980’s house”. This does not really explain why the premise should be exempt for this standard.s109
The photographs the tenant produced shows the premise has foil underfloor insulation, that is not mentioned in the heathy homes’ information provided by tenant 1.
Houses constructed between 1978 and 2016 often had draped foil underfloor insulation, which was an acceptable solution for meeting energy efficient requirements in the Building Code. The healthy homes insulation standard permits an exemption to the current insulation standard requirements for foil underfloor insulation that remains in reasonable condition, where the landlord has compliance documents to prove the home was built to meet these requirements of the time.
If the foil underfloor insulation is not in reasonable condition (such as where it is damaged, ripped or no longer shiny) or it doesn’t meet the criteria for an R- value exemption, it needs to be replaced with new underfloor insulation that is not foil and that meets the required minimum R-value. Retrofitting or repairing foil insulation has been prohibited under the Building Act since 1 July 2016 because of the high risk of electric shock.
The landlord has proven the premise was constructed between 1978 and 2016. However, the photographs provided by the tenants of work being done after the leaks shows that the foil underfloor insulation is not in reasonable condition and the landlords did not have any compliance documents to prove the home was built to meet these requirements of the time.
The tenant’s photographs show the foil is in bad condition, ripped and wet and does not cover the floor. Further, the tenant has proven the foil was visible from outside the house on left side by the grass behind the corrugated iron.
The landlords confirmed they knew about the foil and the exemption but didn’t make it clear in the tenancy agreement.
The tenant has proven on the balance of probabilities that the premise was not compliant with the insulation standards by 16 September 2024.
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 landlords knew about the insulation breaches from the start of the tenancy and intentionally failed to check the insulation just prior to the compliance date and remediate the breaches that the tenant was able to easily identify himself. The landlords have relied on their own inaccurate healthy homes assessment that was carried out by an unknown person on 28 May 2014, over 10 years prior to the insulation standard compliance date. Therefore, I am satisfied that exemplary damages should be awarded for this breach.
I note for completeness that section 109(2)(b) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage in that this provision states that the tenant cannot apply for exemplary damages for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. This breach occurred from 16 September 2024 and therefore the tenant is not statutorily barred from applying for exemplary damages because the tenant made this application on 22 August 2025.
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. B. Ventilation
The tenant claims the landlords have failed to comply with the 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 provided evidence the proves the bathroom extractor fan was externally vented, but the kitchen range hood was vented into the ceiling/wall cavity. Consequently, there was no proper ventilation for cooking, so grime built on the rangehood, the windows and doors.
The tenant also produced photographs that proved there was no opening window in the laundry, and it was damp all the time.
The landlords have inaccurately recorded the premise compliance with the ventilation standard in the healthy homes information provided to the tenant with agreement 1, and did not provide any compelling defence to this claim.
The landlord relies on the marketing photographs and the work its building contractors undertook in August 2025. The tenant has disproved this defence by producing videos and photographs of the work completed by the contractor that was so substandard that it failed to ensure the premise met this healthy homes standard.
In this case I have determined the landlords have committed an unlawful act by failing to ensure the premise met the ventilation standard by 16 September 2024 and note that it was still not compliant at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant confirmed Ms Gong had lived in the premise with a flatmate prior to the first tenancy commencing and therefore, it is more likely than not she would have known there was no external vent for the rangehood and no openable windows in the laundry.
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 exemplary damages for this intentional breach of the ventilation standard is warranted.
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. C. Draught Stopping
The tenant claims that the landlords have failed to comply with the 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 submits there were holes throughout the property in every room but the landlords had ticked that the premise is compliant with the draught stopping standard.
The tenant produced video and photographic evidence that showed: a. There was a large hole behind the couch that had been covered with a loose board that was not secured to the wall. The tenant says the builders that were engaged to repair this hole laughed that the tenant had found holes they conveyed that the already knew were there. In one photograph the tenant had stuck a fly swat through hole behind couch to outside to show the degree to which it was letting cold damp air and draughts into the premise. The handyman covered up the hole on the inside of the premise, but the hole still exists on the outside of the premise; b. Vines growing through gaps into the house. When the tenant raised this with Ms Gong, he says she told him that the vines had done that when she lived in the premise and that she just pulled them out when the got in the way. This confirms the landlord knew about the gaps the vines and draughts were coming though into the premise and that she did nothing to remediate; c. Gaps in the ranch slider on both sides along with some larger holes from outside to inside in the corners of downstairs bedroom, where daylight can be seen in the videos. The video of kitchen hole shows the hole went under the house and to outside. Again, the landlords’ handyman covered the internal hole and left the outside hole open to the elements. The tenant’s evidence also showed a hole and mould in the hot water area of laundry and a hole to outside via the pipe. The video shows that you can see daylight through this hole from inside the laundry. The tenant also provided photographic evidence of hole in the upstairs lefthand bedroom window that let water into the room when it rained. None of these gaps and holes were remediated by the compliance date of 16 September 2024.
The landlords says it sent a handyman to fix the hole in wall near entrance and the sliding door and that the handyman had uses sealant to cover the hole and that the gap in bottom of kitchen cabinet was closed off and the handyman did not find any significant holes or gaps.
The videos the tenant took of the handyman undertaking this remedial work proved that they had done cheap quick fixes that consisted of putting boards over gaps inside the house but not addressing the other external side of the holes. One video showed the handyman nailing a piece of board over the gap inside or propped a board up and put the kitchen cabinetry back over the loose board.
In this case I have find that there is sufficient evidence to prove the landlords have intentionally committed an unlawful act by failing to ensure the premise met the draught stopping standard by 16 September 2024 and engaging shoddy contractors that did not remedy the gaps and holes fully but instead installed cheap ineffective and temporary solutions.
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 exemplary damages for this intentional breach of the draught stopping standard is warranted.
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. D. Moisture Ingress and Drainage
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the 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 if it is reasonably practical to do so.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant claims there were leaves blocking the guttering and insufficient drainage systems resulting in rainwater going on to the concrete pad flooring and causing leaks inside the premise.
The photographic and video evidence provided by the tenant shows that there is no guttering in the front or the back of the premise, only on sides. Additionally, the tenant claims there was no storm water drain outside.
The tenants says that all around the premise flooded, and the premise leaked.
The landlord stated that the premise has a Code of Compliance Certificate (CCC) so meets the building standards and must have a storm water drain. It is of note that the CCC was not provided in evidence.
A CCC means that the building work was completed in accordance with the approved building consent at the time the building was constructed, which includes meeting the performance requirements of the New Zealand Building Code (NZBC) regarding surface water. Specifically, regarding guttering and downpipes, a CCC indicates: a. Compliance with E1/AS1 (Surface Water): The gutters and downpipes were designed and installed to handle expected rainfall (10% annual probability) and drain away from the building. b. External Moisture (E2): The system is installed to prevent water from penetrating or accumulating around the building, causing dampness or structural damage. c. Minimum Standards: The system must meet minimum sizing and fall requirements (e.g., minimum fall of 1:500 for gutters).
A CCC means the premise met the code at the time of inspection. It does not guarantee that the gutters will never overflow during a severe storm or that maintenance has been kept up so that the gutters and downpipes are able to efficiently drain storm water, surface water and ground water to the appropriate outfall.
The tenant says he raised the issue of the blocked guttering and there not being sufficient guttering to handle the volume of rainfall, causing leaks in the house and flooding around the house. The evidence provided shows the landlord did nothing. The landlord told the tenant it was his responsibility, but he did not have the equipment to clean the guttering safely.
The tenant produced photographic and video evidence that proves the gutters were blocked and the house was experiencing leaks inside and flooding outside, at compliance date.
In this case I find that there is sufficient evidence to prove the landlords have committed an unlawful act by failing to ensure the premise met the moisture ingress and drainage standard by 16 September 2024.
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 exemplary damages for this intentional breach of the draught stopping standard is warranted.
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 s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed three intentional breaches of s45(1)(b) and four of s45(1)(bb) of the RTA that resulted in the tenant and his flatmates living conditions being unhealthy and that they experienced considerable periods of stress, inconvenience, and loss of the amenity the tenant and his flatmates were paying rent to enjoy. The landlords did not offer any rent relief to the tenant at these times.
I find the landlord has committed these seven unlawful acts intentionally.
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 many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $2,400.00 exemplary damages to the tenant, being one third of the maximum penalty available. Breach of privacy and quiet enjoyment and unlawful entry
The tenant claims the landlords have harassed him and his flatmates and breached their quiet enjoyment of the premise.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”
The RTA further confirms that contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenant confirmed that the basis for this claim was: a. Ms Gong’s mother would come on to the property without notice when she was visiting the neighbours. She would suddenly appear down the side of the house and be looking at the house. The tenant raised this issue with the landlord multiple times by text but the breach continued; b. Ms Gong’s mother and father would come in with the handymen unannounced and be looking through the inside of the house; c. Ms Gong’s mother made unannounced visits for rent arrears instead of sending a 14-day notice or calling the tenant. Ms Gong stated that her parents only did this after her texts and emails had been ignored; d. The contractors came very early in the morning without any notice being given that they intended to enter the house before the tenant and his flatmates were awake and proceeded to make loud noise; e. On 16 February 2025, the landlord did not give 48 hours’ notice to tenant regarding builders coming the next day. The tenant was so desperate to get the remedial work completed that he consented to the entry; f. On 26 February 2025, the landlord did not give 48 hours’ notice to tenant regarding repainting of roof. The landlords sent a text messages on 26 February 2025 that said sorry for late notice mum and roofer will come over to paint the roof tomorrow. Won’t need to come inside. Again the tenant allowed the contractor to do the work as he was so desperate to get the remedial work completed; and g. On 22 and 23 April 2025, the landlords did not give 48 hours’ notice to tenant regarding weeding/landscaping. The tenant tried to reschedule the visit but was told the insurer was already scheduled and coming and could not be rescheduled so the tenant felt he was left with no choice but to consent to the visit at a highly inconvenient time for his work.
The landlords do not accept any intentional breach of the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment or privacy. It says that some of the visits to the premises were carried out by Ms Gong’s mother while Ms Gong was not residing in [City]. Further, it says on several occasions, these visits were necessary because the tenants were late with rent payments and unresponsive to communication, requiring in-person follow-up. For example, the tenant had agreed to set up automatic weekly payments, which were not implemented, necessitating further contact. I do not accept that an in-person visit was the only option available to the landlords and no evidence was submitted that supported this claim.
The landlord accepts Ms Gong’s mother went to the premise unannounced, but without Ms Gong’s prior knowledge. Upon receiving complaints from the tenant, Ms Gong immediately instructed her mother to ensure that no further visits occurred without prior notice, and as far as she is aware, her mother has complied with this instruction.
The tenants also alleged that repair contractors and Ms Gong’s father attended the property unannounced during repair work. The landlord submitted this was not entirely accurate. The landlord says the tenant was aware that scheduled repair work was taking place, and as is standard for such work, contractors often begin early in the day. In all other instances, any visits were either for lawful purposes or occurred without landlords’ knowledge due to the tenants failing to communicate. Accordingly, the landlord submitted there has been no breach of section 38 of the RTA.
Section 48 of the RTA contains provisions in relation to the landlord’s right of entry. The tenant claims the landlords have entered the premises without consent or giving the statutorily required notice on
I note that the tenants have claimed that several of the incidents are also unlawful entry breaches because the landlords have entered the premises without consent or giving the statutorily required notice. However, the tenant and his flatmates allowed the persons to enter or stay n the premise. They were not asked to leave or told they could not be inside the house or the yard. Therefore, claims of unlawful entry cannot succeed and are dismissed.
The tenant also stated that even when a property inspection went well, the landlord would follow up with calls and text every couple of weeks bringing up the cat, the wall damage and the lawn and how they had vandalised her property. This constant harassment, the tenant says, was endless and led to her and her wife eventually having to move out.
I am satisfied that the tenant has proven a pattern of conduct that constitutes a breach of privacy and quiet enjoyment, by Ms Gong’s parents when they were acting as her representative when she could not be present, and by the landlord not giving adequate notice to the tenant and his flatmates of contractors and other persons entering the premise as contractors of the landlords
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act. Its contractors and other representatives acting on its behalf must comply with the landlords’ obligations under the RTA when doing so and they did not. The tenant proved that after Ms Gong’s parents were asked not to turn up unannounced, they continued to do so.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The landlords and /or their representatives or contractors engaged in a pattern of behaviour it knew was causing the tenant and his flatmates trouble, worry and distress and that they were becoming worn down by these breaches on top of all of the other landlord breaches they were experiencing; b. The tenant and his flatmates suffered distress, fear, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise they were paying to have as a safe haven from duress because of the landlords and or its representative’s continual harassment of them; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the distress, fear, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise he was paying to have as a haven from duress; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their quiet enjoyment obligations.
I make an order for the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA. accordingly.

Did the landlords breach their duties on receipt of the bond?

The tenant claims the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
Section 19 (1) of the RTA requires a landlord to send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received and to provide a receipt to the tenant for any bond amount paid.
Breaching one or both of this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 for one or both breaches if the breaches are proven to be intentional. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant confirmed the $1,620.00 bond was paid on 19 April 2024 and lodged with the Bond Centre on 22 May 2024. This is exactly 23 working days. The tenant’s claim is dismissed for lack of evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities.

Was any of the bond money used to cover rent arrears during the tenancy?

At some stage during the tenancy, the tenants had some financial constraints and couldn’t pay one week rent. They confirmed they asked the landlord if they could use and they some of the bond to cover that week’s rent. Ms Gong said she couldn’t do that, but they could pay the rent arrears off. This amount was never paid to Ms Gong.
The tenant confirms that he still owes the landlord rent arrears of $540.00. Did the landlords provide the statutorily required healthy homes and smoke alarm in the tenancy agreement?
The tenant claims that the landlords have breached their obligations under section 13A(1A), 13A(1CA) and 13A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1A) the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord that describes whether or not there is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, any insulation installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises and the details of the location, type, and condition of all insulation that is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises.
Under s13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, 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 including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the five healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions. These five standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping. This provision also requires the landlord to record how many smoke alarms are in the premise, when the smoke alarms were last tested and when they expire.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
If the landlord is unable to provide some or all the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 13A(2) states the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement the following information about insurance of the premises: (a)if the premises are not insured, a statement that they are not insured; and (b)if the premises are insured, a statement— (i)setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and (ii)informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request (except that the statement need not inform the tenant of this if the landlord has already provided to the tenant a copy of the policy in accordance with section 45(2B) or 66J(5)).
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) and/or 13A(2) of the RTA obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The first tenancy agreement commenced on 21 April 2024, and was legally required to contain insurance information, a signed healthy homes compliance statement, healthy homes statements with details about current level of compliance for all five of the healthy homes standards, being insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, draught stopping and heating and smoke alarm numbers, where they are located, when they were last tested and date they are due for replacement. The first tenancy agreement contained all of this information except smoke alarm numbers, where they are located, when they were last tested and dates they are due for replacement.
The second tenancy agreement commenced on 19 May 2024, and was legally required to contain healthy homes statements on all five of the healthy homes’ standards, being insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, draught stopping and heating and it also was required to provide smoke alarm numbers, where they are located, when they were last tested and date they are due for replacement and insurance information. The second tenancy agreement did not contain any of this information except insurance information.
The landlords accepted they did not provide the statutorily required information with the second tenancy agreement, and it was required by law to do so.
I find the landlords have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, pursuant to section 13A(1F)(a) of the RTA, the Tribunal may award up to a maximum of $750.00 in 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 the landlord failed to provide [The tenant/s] with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements and smoke alarm information prescribed by sections 13A(1A),13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA;
I find the landlord intentionally breached 13A(1CA) of the RTA and that, although the Tribunal is statutorily barred from ordering exemplary damages for this breach, because the claim was made more than 12 months after the breach, it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $375.00 compensation because: a. The landlords should have reasonably known that they required by law to provide the tenant with healthy homes and smoke alarm information with a written tenancy agreement; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on his statutory right to receive information about: i. whether the premise was healthy homes compliant and if it wasn’t, was it exempt from these requirements; and ii. whether the premise has compliant smoke alarms, where they are located, when they were last tested and when they expire; and c. t is in the interests of the tenant to receive compensation for the landlords’ breach.

Did the landlords fail to appoint an agent when away from New Zealand?

Section 16A(1) of the RTA requires that a landlord must have agent in New Zealand, if out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days.
Section 16A(4) confirms that a landlord who appoints an agent under this section must, immediately after appointing the agent, (a) notify the tenant of the agent’s name, contact address, and address for service; and (b) if a bond is held in respect of the tenancy, notify the chief executive in the approved form of those particulars.
Breaching s16A of the RTA is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $1,500.00. See section 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says he asked to end the tenancy and move out in June 2025. Ms Gong asked him to delay terminating the tenancy as she was not in New Zealand and was unable to undertake the bond refund process due to firewall in China.
The tenant produced a text message from Ms Gong, dated16 May 2025, that says she will be away in 2 weeks’ time (30 May) and won’t be back until early July.
The tenant produced an email dated 21 May 2025 from Ms Gong saying her father would do the exit inspection and that the tenant will have to wait until she returns from China to release the bond.
The tenants were to move out 18 June 2025 and the exit inspection was to be undertaken by MS Gong’s father on 21 June 2025.
In the end the tenant delayed his exit and did not move out until 31 August 2025.
The obligation to appoint an agent if overseas for more than 21 consecutive days, and to notify the tenant of the agents details, is expressly stated on page 3 of the second tenancy agreement.
At no time, prior to her trip to China or during her trio to China, did Ms Gong appoint an agent or provide the tenant with contact details for any such agents. Ms Gong continued to communicate with the tenant herself. No agent was appointed and no details for a New Zealand agent were provided to the tenant within the statutorily required timeframe.
The landlord submitted that the landlord is not required to engage a professional property manager when absent from New Zealand for more than 21 consecutive days and that Ms Gong appointed her father as the point of contact for the tenancy while she was overseas. This Ms Gong claims ensured the tenant had a responsible and accessible person to manage any issues or communications relating to the property. Ms Gong directed me to an email she wrote to the tenant on 21 May 2025 that discusses her father meeting the tenant and his flatmates for a final inspection while she is away in China. This email does not meet the statutory requirements set out in 16A(4) of the RTA.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $750.00 in exemplary damages ( half the maximum penalty) because: a. The landlords intentionally did not ensure a New Zealand agent was appointed when Ms Gong went on an extended trip to China, nor did Ms Gong met her and her company’s statutory obligations pursuant to s16A(4) of the RTA to provide the tenant with the agents contact details or that Ms Gong notified the Bond Centre of the appointment of an agent. Ms Gong did ask family members to assist her with tasks like entry and exit inspections; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on the landlord having a New Zealand based agent that he could communicate any issues and concerns to and have these investigated and addressed in a timely manner; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach of their obligations to appoint an agent and notify the tenant and the Bond Centre of who that agent is and their contact details; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to appoint an agent and notify the tenant and the Bond Centre of who that agent is and their contact details for the protection of both parties’ interests.

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Section 102(4) of the RTA provides for reimbursement of the filing fee to applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in their claims.
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Because the landlords have not wholly or substantially succeeded with its claims, its application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of his and his flatmates names 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.
The tenant has substantially succeeded in his proceedings. 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 is ordered.
The landlords also applied for name suppression of their names and identifying details.
The landlord has not appeared at today’s hearing and have been recidivist in breaching the landlords statutory obligations to the tenant.
I am satisfied that the public interest in this matter outweighs any duress publishing the landlords’ names could result in. I therefore decline to grant the landlords suppression of their names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5347781 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5347781 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Who are the parties to this dispute?

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord breach the smoke alarms regulations?

Did the landlords breach their duties on receipt of the bond?

Was any of the bond money used to cover rent arrears during the tenancy?

Did the landlords fail to appoint an agent when away from New Zealand?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Who are the parties to this dispute?

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord breach the smoke alarms regulations?

Did the landlords breach their duties on receipt of the bond?

Was any of the bond money used to cover rent arrears during the tenancy?

Did the landlords fail to appoint an agent when away from New Zealand?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions