What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5352951 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5352951?

Compensation: $3,652.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $136.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5352951?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5352951?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13474333-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5352951 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5352951?

Compensation: $3,652.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $136.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5352951?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5352951?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13474333-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

94 Edmonton Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5352951 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5352951 — net $7,416.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$3,652.00	Compensation
Rubbish Removal Reimbursement	$136.00	Rubbish Removal Reimbursement
Exemplary damages	$3,600.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,416.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,416.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5352951 — net $7,416.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$3,652.00	Compensation
Rubbish Removal Reimbursement	$136.00	Rubbish Removal Reimbursement
Exemplary damages	$3,600.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,416.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,416.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.
John Matthews and Jacqui Matthews must pay [The tenant/s] $7,416.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The tenants viewed the property in late December 2024 and subsequently signed a tenancy agreement commencing on 4 January 2025. At the time of viewing, Barfoot & Thompson had recently assumed management of the property from another property management company. The property was not, at that stage, in a condition suitable for tenancy. It was neither clean nor tidy, and there was an understanding between the parties that these issues would be remedied prior to the commencement of the tenancy on 4 January 2025.
The tenants requested permission to store their vehicle and certain personal belongings in the garage from December 2024 while they were travelling, and prior to the commencement of the tenancy in January 2025. This request was granted by the landlord.
I heard the application on 24 September 2025. At that time, Barfoot & Thompson advised that it had terminated its management agreement with the owner. Both Barfoot & Thompson and the owner, John Matthews, attended the hearing and, at times, provided differing accounts of events during the tenancy.
Mr Matthews stated that he had not been properly notified of the application, or alternatively had received only limited information. He submitted that, had he been aware of the hearing at an earlier stage, he would have filed a cross- application. The tenants’ application proceeded on that date. I ordered that the bond be refunded to the tenants and adjourned the remaining issues to allow Mr Matthews the opportunity to file and pursue his application.
Barfoot & Thompson requested that it be recorded as not supporting the landlord’s application for vacated costs and sought to be removed as a party to the proceedings. I granted that request, and it was excused from attendance at the subsequent hearing of Mr Matthews’ application, which I heard on 11 March 2026.

What orders are the tenants asking me to make?

The tenants submit that the property was affected by numerous maintenance issues and was not in a compliant condition. They allege that the premises did not meet the landlord’s maintenance and cleanliness obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, as well as a failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards within 120 days of the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenants further submit that the manner in which the landlord attempted to achieve compliance over the ensuing six months, effectively spanning the duration of the tenancy, constituted an interference with their right to quiet enjoyment under section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
They seek an award of compensation and exemplary damages in respect of these alleged breaches. In addition, they seek reimbursement of $136.00, being the cost they incurred for disposing of rubbish left at the property at the commencement of the tenancy.

What orders are the landlord asking me to make?

Mr John Matthews seeks an award totalling $2,724.00. This sum comprises the following claimed amounts: a) $100.00 for rubbish removal; b) $60.00 for garden maintenance; c) $800.00 as compensation for the alleged removal of a shower block in the garage; d) $950.00 for the replacement of a pelmet box for the lounge curtains; e) $250.00 for a broken gate; f) $150.00 for damage to the fence; and g) $414.00 for cleaning.

Was the landlord in breach of section 45?

The tenants submit that the landlord was in breach of section 45(1)(a), being the obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; section 45(1)(b), being the obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises; and section 45(1)(bb), being the obligation to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards, under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Reasonable state of cleanliness (s 45(1)(a))
Section 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires the landlord to provide the premises in a reasonably state of cleanliness at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 4 January 2025. The tenants state that they moved into the property on that date and immediately identified a number of issues, which they say were communicated to the landlord.
They have produced an email dated 6 January 2025 confirming a prior telephone discussion in which the following issues were raised: several light sockets were not working; outdoor lighting was not functioning; there was no plumbing pipework connected in the kitchen, resulting in what the tenants described as flooding (I accept that the affected areas were wet due to water exiting from a disconnected pipe); the garage door and motor were inoperative; there was a request for the removal of a structure in the garage; there was a broken window; and rubbish remained around the property requiring removal.
Photographs attached to the email corroborate the issues raised, and Barfoot & Thompson acknowledged the presence of these issues.
The tenants also provided photographs taken on the first day of the tenancy showing items located in a drawer, including a mobile phone, a box of resealable plastic bags, a bag containing what appeared to be cannabis, and a rolled cigarette. The tenants state that they inferred from this that there had been drug use at the property.
At the commencement of the tenancy, the tenants have also provided photographs showing a large amount of garden waste and rubbish bags at the premises. A Barfoot & Thompson agent asked them to store this behind the garage until the landlord authorised its removal. The tenants later disposed of the material themselves by loading it onto a trailer and transporting it to the dump.
The photographic evidence provided by the tenants shows that a significant amount of rubbish was left at the property. Additional photographs of the interior, including cabinets, walls, and exterior areas, demonstrate that the property fell well below the standard of cleanliness routinely expected by the Tribunal.
I accept the tenants’ evidence. It is contemporaneous, supported by photographs, and consistent with the broader maintenance issues identified at the outset of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the commencement of the tenancy and was therefore in breach of section 45(1)(a). Failure to maintain (s 45(1)(b))
Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires the landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. This obligation is twofold: the landlord must both provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair at the outset and maintain that standard throughout the tenancy by responding to concerns of the tenants reasonably.
At the commencement of the tenancy on 4 January 2025, significant defects were immediately apparent. The tenants identified that the kitchen was flooding due to disconnected plumbing. This issue was readily discoverable upon basic inspection. A plumber attending shortly thereafter confirmed that pipework had been removed and that the hot water cylinder, being over 60 years old, was not suitable for repair.
Further issues identified at the outset included non-functioning light sockets, inoperative outdoor lighting, a broken garage door and motor, and a smashed window. These matters demonstrate that the property was not provided in a reasonable state of repair at the commencement of the tenancy. I am satisfied that the landlord breached the first limb of section 45(1)(b).
The obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is not diminished by the age or character of the property. While older properties may reasonably present more frequent maintenance issues, this does not excuse a failure to properly prepare the property for tenancy or to respond appropriately to known defects.
Barfoot & Thompson advised that, following the end of the previous management arrangement in October 2024 and its assumption of management, it experienced difficulty re-letting the property due to maintenance issues. These matters were raised with the landlord and are evidenced in contemporaneous email correspondence.
The evidence shows that a number of issues were known prior to the tenancy, including the inoperability of the garage door, issues with the fireplace, and the presence of rubbish at the property. Despite this, these matters were not remedied prior to commencement. While the landlord consented to and approved the majority of invoices, he declined to repair the garage door, and there is no clear explanation as to why the large amounts of rubbish, largely garden waste, were not removed. It was also not satisfactorily explained by Barfoot & Thompson or Mr Matthews during the hearing why obvious issues, including the rubbish, the absence of plumbing in the kitchen, and the inoperable hot water system, were not identified or rectified prior to the tenancy despite being readily apparent.
Although Barfoot & Thompson took steps to address a number of maintenance issues identified at the commencement of the tenancy, the rubbish at the property was never removed. Barfoot & Thompson initially advised the tenants to relocate the rubbish behind the garage while they sought instructions from the landlord. However, no outcome was ever communicated, and the tenants ultimately removed the rubbish themselves.
The garage door was never repaired or replaced. The landlord indicated that the cost of repair was too expensive and that he would undertake the work himself. Barfoot & Thompson attempted to obtain further quotes and explored the option of sourcing a second-hand door with the tenants. Mr Matthews indicated he would attend the property to carry out the repair himself. However, no repair was completed during the tenancy.
The property was let on the basis that the fireplace was available for use. The tenants were therefore entitled to expect access to a functioning heating source and for it to be maintained. The landlord’s position was that the fireplace was functional, and Barfoot & Thompson arranged a chimney sweep. The owners, instructed their agent to arrange an annual chimney sweep through Complete Care Chimney Services. On 27 March 2025, Complete Care declined to carry out the work due to unsafe structural damage and advised that it had provided the same advice in 2023 when approached by a previous manager, Smart Rentals.
The landlord provided an invoice for a chimney sweep undertaken by Plowrite Chimney Services in June 2024. Barfoot & Thompson subsequently contacted that company and arranged a further inspection. On 16 May 2025, Plowrite completed the sweep and reported that the fireplace was safe to use, and this advice was passed on to the tenants.
The tenants sought clarification given the conflicting professional opinions. The evidence indicates that the discrepancy arose because Complete Care’s assessment related to structural cracking in the chimney, whereas the landlord considered that a Kent-style wood burner and flue installed within the chimney remained sound.
In light of the conflicting advice, Barfoot & Thompson arranged a further assessment by Ember Fires on 8 May 2025, which was carried out on 19 May 2025. Ember Fires concluded that the fireplace was unsafe due to a crack in the Kent wood burner and recommended replacement or discontinuation of its use.
Following that assessment, the landlord accepted a quote for the installation of a heat pump. The heat pump was installed on 11 June 2025. An updated Healthy Homes assessment dated 17 June 2025 records that the property achieved compliance as at that date.
The fireplace consists of an original fireplace and chimney, which is not functional, within which a Kent-style wood burner and flue are installed. Mr Matthews stated that the home had belonged to his in-laws and that the fireplace had sentimental value, and he wished to retain it.
Although the tenancy continued until 3 July 2025, the tenants vacated the property prior to that date due to the issues they had experienced. What I deduce from the evidence regarding the fireplace, the garage door, and the other maintenance issues is that Mr Matthews’ approach to repairs was influenced by his subjective view of the property. He considered that, because the property had housed his family and in-laws for a long period without issue, it remained adequate, he justified old inoperable and dated items frequently as possessing sentimental value.
As a result, he was slow to accept professional advice or undertake necessary works. This caused repairs that should have been straightforward to become prolonged, required multiple inspections, and in some cases were not completed at all during the tenancy.
I find that the ongoing maintenance issues, the volume of repair requests, the failure to address rubbish removal, and the delays in resolving key defects were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the landlord’s failure to properly prepare and maintain the property.
I am satisfied that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair throughout the tenancy and was therefore in breach of section 45(1)(b). Healthy Homes Compliance (s 45(1)(bb))
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires the landlord to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards within 120 days of the commencement of the tenancy. In this case, compliance was required by 4 May 2025.
A Healthy Homes assessment obtained by Barfoot & Thompson on behalf of the landlord on 19 February 2025 confirmed that the property did not comply with the heating standard and the moisture ingress and drainage standard. The report identified that the fireplace could not be verified as an adequate heating source due to its unknown heating capacity, resulting in non-compliance.
The evidence establishes that the property did not meet the heating standard at that time. In the period that followed, the landlord focused on establishing that the existing fireplace was operable. However, this did not address whether it met the applicable heating requirements under the Healthy Homes Standards.
Despite efforts by Barfoot & Thompson to obtain further assessments and progress the issue, the evidence indicates that the landlord’s reluctance to incur the cost of necessary works contributed to delays in achieving compliance.
Whilst I accept the landlords evidence that the delays were contributed to by the different opinions being provided, the obligation to comply within 120 days of the tenancy commencement is a strict obligation and the delays were caused due to the landlords reluctance to engage properly with the issue and advice with appropriate urgency.
Compliance was not achieved until 17 June 2025, following the installation of a heat pump. By that time, the tenants had vacated the property, although they remained liable for rent until the end of the fixed term.
I am satisfied that the landlord failed to meet the statutory compliance deadline and was therefore in breach of section 45(1)(bb). Was there a breach of the tenants right to quiet enjoyment (s 38)
Section 38(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises. Section 38(2) further provides that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
Section 38 reflects the common law right to quiet enjoyment but qualifies that right by reference to reasonableness. Not all interference will amount to a breach. Temporary inconvenience or disruption will not, in itself, constitute a breach.
There are circumstances where a landlord’s legitimate rights, such as carrying out maintenance or inspections, may conflict with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. In such cases, the issue is whether the level of interference exceeds what a tenant can reasonably be expected to endure. This requires a balancing exercise, taking into account the nature, frequency, duration, and necessity of the interference, as well as the tenant’s prior knowledge of the work. The question of whether there has been a breach is therefore one of fact and degree.
In this case, the level of intervention required during the tenancy was directly attributable to the landlord’s failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair at the commencement of the tenancy, and the subsequent failure to maintain the premises in a timely and effective manner.
The maintenance timeline provided by Barfoot & Thompson records that a total of 16 maintenance jobs were logged during the tenancy. However, this list is not exhaustive and does not capture all issues requiring attention, including the removal of rubbish (which the tenants ultimately undertook themselves), the unresolved garage door, and the multiple attendances required to assess and clarify the status of the fireplace.
The tenancy was for a fixed term of six months. The evidence shows that there was frequent and ongoing disruption, including at least one visit per fortnight, and often more frequent engagement between the tenants and those acting on behalf of the landlord in an attempt to address the numerous maintenance issues.
While some level of disruption is to be expected where repairs are required, the extent, frequency, and duration of the interference in this case went beyond what could reasonably be expected. The ongoing need for access, repeated attendances, and unresolved issues over the course of the tenancy materially impacted the tenants’ use and enjoyment of the premises.
I am satisfied that the landlord’s conduct, when viewed cumulatively and in context, amounted to an unreasonable interference with the tenants’ peace, comfort, and privacy.
I therefore find that the landlord was in breach of section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Unlawful Acts and Exemplary Damages
Section 38(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a breach of a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment that amounts to harassment is declared to be an unlawful act.
Section 45(1A) provides that a failure by the landlord to comply with section 45(1)(a)–(ca) is also an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is 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 (section 109(3)).
In practical terms, while I have found a breach of quiet enjoyment, exemplary damages for that breach are only available if the conduct amounts to harassment. I accept that the landlord’s actions were, to an extent, deliberate, in that decisions were made to avoid or delay expenditure on necessary maintenance. However, I do not consider that the landlord’s conduct reaches the threshold of harassment.
Accordingly, exemplary damages are not available for the breach of section 38.
I have found multiple breaches of section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. These breaches constitute unlawful acts.
The purpose of exemplary damages is both punitive and deterrent. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] 1 NZLR 732, Cooke P described such damages as “exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others” and “punitive because they are meant to punish,” likening them to a fine, albeit one paid to the affected party.
The Act designates certain breaches as unlawful acts for which exemplary damages may be awarded. This reflects a deliberate policy choice to uphold and enforce minimum standards within the residential tenancy market. Where an intentional breach is established, an award of exemplary damages is appropriate to give effect to that policy objective.
In assessing whether exemplary damages are appropriate, I must consider the landlord’s intent.
The evidence shows a pattern of reluctance by the landlord, John Matthews, to undertake necessary repairs and to comply with statutory obligations, particularly where this involved financial cost. While some repairs were completed in the early stages of the tenancy, significant issues remained unresolved. The garage door, which was an important feature for the tenants, was not repaired due to cost concerns. Mr Matthews indicated that he would repair it himself or replace it with a second-hand door, but neither course was followed. Requests to remove rubbish at the commencement of the tenancy were also not acted upon.
In relation to Healthy Homes compliance, the statutory timeframe required compliance by 4 May 2025. The landlord had the benefit of professional advice from Barfoot & Thompson regarding both the compliance requirements and the appropriate remedial steps. Despite this, he focused on establishing that the existing fireplace was operable, rather than addressing whether it met the required heating standard. The evidence shows that the landlord was reluctant to approve recommended works, including the installation of a heat pump. It was only after multiple assessments, including a third report obtained at the initiative of Barfoot & Thompson, that it was confirmed the fireplace was unsafe due to a defect in the Kent wood burner.
I did not find John Matthews to be a reliable witness. His evidence was inconsistent in several respects. His explanations were self-serving and not supported by the contemporaneous evidence. This is reflected in an email from Jacqui Matthews dated 29 May 2025 to Barfoot & Thompson, which characterises allowing the tenants to park a car in the garage one month prior to the commencement of the tenancy as goodwill, that she indicated should be considered compensation equivalent to one month’s free rent. This is inconsistent with other evidence indicating that the property was difficult to let due to its condition, and that the concessions were in goodwill but in the context of the difficulty they were having tenanting the property.
The evidence also shows that the landlord’s decision-making was driven, in significant part, by a desire to minimise expenditure rather than to meet legal obligations.
I accept the tenants’ evidence that the cumulative effect of these breaches caused significant inconvenience, disruption, and expense. The tenants were required to reassess their living arrangements and vacated the property within six months, at personal and financial cost, including impacts on their family.
There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords comply with their obligations under the Act.
Having regard to all relevant factors, I am satisfied that the landlord’s breaches of section 45 were intentional and that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate. I award 50% of the statutory maximum, being $3,600.00. General Damages (Loss of Amenity)
Although exemplary damages are not available for breach of section 38, compensation may be awarded for loss of amenity.
In Jarvis v Swan Tours Ltd [1973] QB 233, the Court of Appeal held that damages for disappointment, distress, upset, and loss of enjoyment are recoverable in contract where the very purpose of the contract is to provide pleasure, relaxation, or peace of mind. While a residential tenancy agreement is not directly analogous to a holiday contract, its purpose includes the provision of a safe, secure, and peaceful home environment. I am satisfied that a tenancy agreement imports an expectation of peace of mind and security for the tenant.
Such damages are non-pecuniary in nature and compensate for loss of enjoyment, comfort, and amenity. Although more commonly awarded in tort, they may also be available in contractual contexts where the purpose of the contract includes the provision of enjoyment or peace of mind.
I am satisfied that, as a result of the landlord’s breaches of sections 38 and 45, the tenants experienced a significant reduction in the enjoyment and amenity of the premises throughout the tenancy.
In those circumstances, I consider it appropriate to award compensation calculated at 20% of the weekly rent, being $137.00 per week, over a period of 26 weeks. This results in an award of $3,562.00. Reimbursement – Rubbish Removal
The tenants seek reimbursement of $136.00 for the cost of disposing of rubbish left at the property at the commencement of the tenancy.
Given my finding that the landlord breached section 45(1)(a) by failing to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition, I am satisfied that this cost was reasonably incurred.
I therefore award reimbursement in the sum of $136.00. The Landlord claims:
The landlord has advanced a number of claims in relation to the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. These claims are supported, in part, by an email from his son, who states that he carried out work at the property.
The landlord claims $800.00 for the removal of timber and bathroom sheeting in the garage, described as a shower structure of personal significance. The evidence establishes that this was a sectioned-off area of the garage constructed from framing and plyboard. The tenants referred to this as a “grow room” and produced photographs showing the structure, along with items such as hydroponic liquid in the garage and, inside the house, a joint, snap lock bags, and a phone. From these items, the tenants inferred that the structure had been used for that purpose. Mr Matthews, however, stated that it was a shower block of sentimental value, being the last item constructed by his late father-in-law. For the purposes of this decision, I accept that it was a sectioned-off structure within the garage. The property manager’s notes confirm that the landlord consented to its removal.
The landlord also claims $950.00 for the replacement of a pelmet box for the lounge curtains, alleging that it was removed and left outside. The tenants have provided photographic evidence showing that the pelmet boxes remained in the property at the end of the tenancy in substantially the same condition as at the commencement.
A claim is made for $250.00 in relation to a broken gate. The exit inspection records and photographic evidence show that the gate was already rusted, damaged, and in a state of disrepair during the tenancy. There is no persuasive evidence that the tenants caused damage beyond fair wear and tear.
The landlord further claims $150.00 for damage to the fence. The evidence indicates that the fence was in a state of disrepair and that damage occurred during a storm. The tenants raised this issue during the tenancy and requested that it be remedied, including by way of a notice issued under section 56 of the Act on 6 May 2025. The issue was not addressed.
The landlord claims $414.00 for cleaning, supported by an invoice dated 19 September 2025, more than three months after the tenancy ended. As noted, Barfoot & Thompson advised that the property was returned in a comparable, if not better, condition than at the commencement of the tenancy. Given the delay in obtaining the invoice and the absence of evidence linking the claimed work to the tenants’ occupation.
To the extent that claims are pursued for rubbish removal of $100.00 and garden maintenance of $60.00, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the tenants left the property in a worse condition than at the commencement of the tenancy. The evidence instead indicates that rubbish was present at the outset and that maintenance issues persisted throughout the tenancy.
For these

Reasons

, I am not satisfied that any of the landlord’s claims have been established. The landlord’s application is dismissed in full. Suppression and the filing fee:

As the tenants have been entirely successful in their application I have awarded the filing fee and granted their application for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5352951 — Exemplary damages at 94 Edmonton Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5352951 — Exemplary damages at 94 Edmonton Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

What orders are the tenants asking me to make?

What orders are the landlord asking me to make?

Was the landlord in breach of section 45?

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

What orders are the tenants asking me to make?

What orders are the landlord asking me to make?

Was the landlord in breach of section 45?

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions