What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5354741 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 5354741?

Smoke Alarms: $628.57 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- b…: $12,685.71 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- d…: $1,257.14 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- l…: $40.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- r…: $314.29 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5354741?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5354741?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13736617-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5354741 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 5354741?

Smoke Alarms: $628.57 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- b…: $12,685.71 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- d…: $1,257.14 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- l…: $40.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- r…: $314.29 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5354741?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5354741?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13736617-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5354741 — Mould & damp

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5354741 — net $17,753.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain- bathroom leak, mould and leak from ceiling light	$12,685.71	Failure to maintain- bathroom leak, mould and leak from ceiling light
Compensation: Failure to maintain- defective kitchen draw fitting	$1,257.14	Failure to maintain- defective kitchen draw fitting
Compensation: Failure to maintain- rubbish bin	$314.29	Failure to maintain- rubbish bin
Compensation: Failure to maintain- letter box	$40.00	Failure to maintain- letter box
Exemplary damages: Section 45(1) of the RTA breaches	$1,800.00	Section 45(1) of the RTA breaches
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment	$1,000.00	__________________________ 535474116 e. I make an order for the landlord to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA (being a…
Compensation: Breach of smoke alarm regulations	$628.57	Breach of smoke alarm regulations
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$17,753.71
Bond	$2,960.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$17,753.71

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5354741 — net $17,753.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain- bathroom leak, mould and leak from ceiling light	$12,685.71	Failure to maintain- bathroom leak, mould and leak from ceiling light
Compensation: Failure to maintain- defective kitchen draw fitting	$1,257.14	Failure to maintain- defective kitchen draw fitting
Compensation: Failure to maintain- rubbish bin	$314.29	Failure to maintain- rubbish bin
Compensation: Failure to maintain- letter box	$40.00	Failure to maintain- letter box
Exemplary damages: Section 45(1) of the RTA breaches	$1,800.00	Section 45(1) of the RTA breaches
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment	$1,000.00	__________________________ 535474116 e. I make an order for the landlord to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA (being a…
Compensation: Breach of smoke alarm regulations	$628.57	Breach of smoke alarm regulations
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$17,753.71
Bond	$2,960.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$17,753.71

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Auckland Rental Homes must pay [The tenant/s] $17,753.71 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
[Tenant 1] confirmed he had consent to act for his wife, [Tenant 2], in this hearing.
Mr Imraan Khaan appeared for the landlord.
The tenants applied for compensation, general damages and exemplary damages, reimbursement of the filing fee and refund of the bond. Background
The landlord confirmed that this was a new house and that the tenants were the first occupants. The owners were also the builders.
There were several issues with the property that the owners sent their own handyman to investigate. The property management company confirmed it was therefore limited in what contractors it could use to address repair and maintenance issues that arose from issues related to the building of the premise or failure of products used in the building process.
The house was three bedrooms, two bathrooms, a combined lounge/kitchen/dining area and a garage.
The tenancy was for a fixed term, commencing on 23 June 2024 and ending on 23 January 2026. However, the parties came to an agreement to end the tenancy earlier because of the issues the tenants were having with the premise. The tenancy ended on 6 September 2025.
The landlord and tenant confirmed their understanding the owners intended to sell the premise after this tenancy ended.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
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. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. However, section109(2)(b) of the RTA, bars a party from applying for exemplary damages for a breach of the RTA 12 months or more after the date of commission of the unlawful act.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Should the bond be refunded to the tenants?

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has withheld their full bond of $2,960.00, since the end of the tenancy and that the landlord has no justifiable claim over the bond.
The landlord confirmed the owners are seeking payment from the bond for: a. $1,400.00 for touch up painting of the premise; and b. $500.00 to have the fly excrement on the lounge in-ceiling light fittings, bench top, bathroom mineral deposits on shower glass, shower head fitting and handle and a mark on the wall, cleaning the carpets and mowing the front lawn.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenants are required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenants must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says the tenants did not leave the premise in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.
The exit inspection report, dated 7 September 2025, records there being no issues with the premise. There are some notes from the property manager within the report but the fact the report signs the property off as having no issues, suggest the property manager found these cleaning related issues to be greater than the reasonably clean and tidy standard required. It is of note that the landlord had no inspection photographs to show the condition of the premise after the 8 September 2025 commercial clean.
Further, the picture of the lawn suggests it did not need mowing but required more topsoil as it had sunk a bit after planting. The tenants have evidence the lawn was patchy from the beginning of the tenancy as the grass seed had not grown evenly and more topsoil was required.
Lastly, there is no comments or photographs in the exit inspection report that show any need for the carpets to be cleaned. There are no evident stains. The only room that required carpet cleaning was the master bedroom that had black mould in the underlay from the carpet being damp for all but 4 weeks of the 62 weeks and 6-day tenancy.
The tenants provided a receipt for $470.00 dated 8 September 2025, that they paid for a professional cleaning company to undertake a full clean of the house after they had moved out on 6 September 2025. The male tenant produced photographs in evidence that his cleaner had taken and sent to him that prove the house was in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy 1 : The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the start of the tenancy 2 :The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated: “‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied or constitute a health hazard (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.”
Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”.
I am satisfied the evidence proves the tenants left the premise in a reasonably clean and tidy state and that cleaning of fly excrement off some light fittings and cleaning the mineral deposit of the shower glass may have been required to bring the house up to a higher standard required to sell or relet the premise. I am also satisfied the landlord has not proven the lawns required mowing or the carpets requiring cleaning on the day the tenancy ended.
The landlord’s claim for $500.00 from the bond for house cleaning, carpet cleaning and lawn mowing is dismissed.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 1 Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd Christchurch TT 12/00532/CH, 24 August 2012. 2 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The exit inspection report, dated 7 September 2025, records there being no issues with the premise. There are some notes from the property manager within the report but the fact the report signs the property off as having no issues, suggest the property manager found these issues to be fair wear and tear rather than careless or intentional damage by the tenants for which they could not be held responsible.
It is of note that the landlord exit inspection photographs show no signs of damage to the walls or ceiling that require more than the clean the tenants’ commercial cleaner undertook. There were no scuff marks, hold or dents in the walls or ceilings. The dirty marks on bedroom two’s door, windowsill and wall were all cleaned by the tenant’s cleaner on 8 September 2025 and the landlord has no photographic evidence post that clean to show that the marks were not removed by the jiff applied by the cleaner.
I am satisfied the landlord has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the tenants were responsible for any damage to the premise and that it has not met the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities to justify me deducting $1,400.00 of repair and paint costs from the tenants’ bond. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.
I award a full refund of the tenants $2960.00 bond to them. Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b), (ba) and (bb) of the RTA obligations to the tenants?
The tenants claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under s45(1)(ba) of the RTA, the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A of the RTA.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 3
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 4 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 5 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 6 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 7 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Breaching any of these s45(1) obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00 for all proven breaches. 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. Failure to maintain
The tenants gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. A. Bathroom flooding, water leaking from bathroom through ceiling into lounge light fittings and mouldy/damp carpet 3 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 4 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]. 6 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
The tenancy commenced on 23 June 2024 and by 2 August 2024, the shower off the master bedroom was regularly flooding so badly that the water was overflowing into the light fitting in the lounge below and into the master bedroom making the carpet wet. The male tenant produced photographs, videos and text messages he sent to the property manager about this issue.
The tenants confirmed the owner sent their handyman to look at the issue about 4 to 5 times. The first few times the handyman found wood and concrete in the drain that he removed, but this did not stop the overflowing drain in the shower at all. Eventually, the handyman told the tenants the tiles in the two bathrooms needed to be redone as they did not have any angles to allow water to be channelled toward the drain, thus the showers both leaked.
The tenants say the leaking was so bad that they had to stop using the ensuite bathroom and the bedroom because the carpet was wet and became smelly from being damp over a long period and black mould growing under the carpet.
The tenants issued the landlord with a 14-day notice on 7 June 2025 and produced a photograph of the black toxic mould growing under the carpet. The landlord did nothing to remedy the issue, the bedroom carpet was not lifted or dried with commercial dehumidifiers and dryers, the damp underlay and carpet grew a thick growth of black mould and the smell became worse over the winter to the point the tenants could not keep the door to the room open.
The landlord did not disprove the tenants’ evidence. It raised that the owner/builders sent a report on 18 March 2026- that records the flooding/drainage issue state as tenant misuse of property. The owner/builder report claims the damp and mouldy carpet was caused by the tenants having bathroom door open when showering a child and that allowed water to go into the bedroom. The owner/builders also claim the tenants had a bidet installed without consent and that caused the flooding issue. The tenants confirmed they had the bidet installed by professional plumber, the toilet never leaked nor did the bidet and that the tenants have never been provided with this report. The Tribunal also did not receive a copy of this report in evidence. I find that on the balance of probabilities, this report is an attempt by the owner/builders to find ways to hold the tenant liable for the flooding damage to the lounge ceiling, and the master bedroom floor/floor covering and that it is not persuasive evidence that disproves the tenants repair and maintenance claim.
I am satisfied the evidence proves the tenants lost the use of the master bedroom and ensuite bathroom from 2 August 2024 to 6 September 2025, being 57 weeks and 1 day, due to the landlord’s breach of its obligation to investigate and remediate the leaking shower issue in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances. The parties confirmed these rooms constituted around 30% of the total premise.
I award the tenants a rent rebate of $222.00 per week (30% of the total rent payable) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants for this 57 week and 1 day period, because of the landlord’s intentional breach of its s 45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations. The total amount of general damages awarded for this breach is $12,685.71.
I am also satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages as I find the breach to be intentional.
A maximum of $7,200.00 exemplary damages, as set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA is for all s45 of the RTA breaches and as such, the quantum ordered under this section will be set out at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this order. B. Kitchen cupboard defective fitting
The tenants claim that when they moved in there was a broken fitting on the kitchen draw so it could not be opened and this rendered about 10% of kitchen cupboard space unusable.
The tenants proved they raised this with the property manager straight away, but it was never fixed during the tenancy.
The tenants provided proof the owner sent a handyman to look at it and he told the tenant they would fix it, but never got fixed, even though it should have been a quick fix.
The tenant raised this issue again in his 7 June 2025 14-day notice. The landlord still took no steps to remediate the issue.
I am satisfied the evidence proves the tenants lost the use of 10% of the total kitchen storage space for a period of 62 weeks and 6 days from 23 June 2024 to 6 September 2025.
The landlord did not disprove the tenants’ evidence.
I award the tenants a rent rebate of $20.00 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants for this 62 week and 6 days period, because of the landlord’s intentional breach of its s 45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations. The total amount of general damages awarded for this breach is $1,257.14.
I am also satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages as I find the breach to be intentional.
A maximum of $7,200.00 exemplary damages, as set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA is for all s45 of the RTA breaches and as such, the quantum ordered under this section will be set out at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this order. C. Kitchen rubbish bin
The tenants produced evidence that the owners never installed the rubbish bin from the beginning of the tenancy. There was a bin left in a cupboard that did not fit the fixture it was supposed to be attached into.
The owner’s handyman was sent to investigate this complaint early in the tenancy and told the tenant the dustbin can’t fit in this space, so it was never fixed and a bin that did fit the fixture it was supposed to attach into was never This meant the tenants lost more of the already reduced kitchen storage space.
The landlord did not disprove the tenants’ evidence.
I award the tenants a rent rebate of $5.00 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants for this 62 week and 6 days period, because of the landlord’s intentional breach of its s 45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations. The total amount of general damages awarded for this breach is $1314.29.
I am also satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages as I find the breach to be intentional.
A maximum of $7,200.00 exemplary damages, as set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA is for all s45 of the RTA breaches and as such, the quantum ordered under this section will be set out at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this order. D. Letterbox
The tenants produced photographic evidence the mailbox wasn’t sealed and was leaking from beginning of tenancy. The tenants notified the landlord of this issue on 21 July 2024 after they had to get important letters reissued by agencies due to them being so soaked they could not be dried out and read.
The parties confirmed a new letter box was installed on 8 August 2024. The tenants say they suffered loss of amenity stress and inconvenience for 4 weeks because of this breach. The letter box could have been changed in a more reasonable timeframe.
The landlord did not disprove the tenants’ evidence.
I award the tenants a rent rebate of $10.00 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants for this 62 week and 6 days period, because of the landlord’s intentional breach of its s 45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations. The total amount of general damages awarded for this breach is $40.00.
I am also satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages as I find the breach to be intentional.
A maximum of $7,200.00 exemplary damages, as set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA is for all s45 of the RTA breaches and as such, the quantum ordered under this section will be set out at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this order.

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 tenants claim the rental premise had no working smoke alarm on the ground floor of the premise from when the tenants moved in, as the smoke alarm had not been tested and the battery in it was not connected.
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 tenants have proven that the landlord failed to ensure the lower floor of the rental premise was fitted with a working smoke alarm that meet the regulatory requirements referred to in the RTA in that there was no working smoke alarm on the ground level of the premise for a period of 62 weeks and 6 days from 23 June 2024 to 6 September 2025.
The tenants produced video and photographic evidence that confirms the alarm have not been working for the 62 weeks and 6 days of the tenancy, putting the tenants and their one-year-old child’s lives at risk.
The tenancy agreement records the legal requirements for smoke alarms, but it does not record how many smoke alarms there are, where they are located, when they were last tested and when they expire. Therefore, the tenants were not aware the smoke alarms had not been tested at the start of the tenancy and were not working. This is a breach of s45(1)(c) and 13A (1CA)(b) of the RTA.
The tenants discovered this breach when they heard beeping and thought it may be the smoke alarm. They opened the smoke alarm up to find the battery was not connected. They photographed and videoed this process. It turned out there was a fault with the ventilation system (HRV), which had been beeping for 24 hours.
I find that the tenants should be awarded compensation of $10.00 per week for the breach of the landlord’s obligations to provide working smoke alarms for the period 62 weeks and 6 days from 23 June 2024 to 6 September 2025, being total compensation of $628.57 for this breach.
I am also satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages as I find the breach to be intentional as the landlord and/or his agent should have tested the smoke alarms and recorded the date of the test and all the other statutorily required information and did not. Therefore, for the duration of the tenancy the tenants were unaware the smoke alarm was not tested or working.
A maximum of $7,200.00 exemplary damages, as set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA is for all s45 of the RTA breaches and as such, the quantum ordered under this section will be set out at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this order. Failure to meet healthy homes standards
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its 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 tenancy commenced on 23 June 2024. Therefore, the landlord had 120 days from the commencement date to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards, being Monday, 21 October 2024. Moisture Ingress and Drainage
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require 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 tenants claim the premise did not have efficient drainage systems in the bathrooms and that is why the ensuite bathroom flooded the master bedroom, lounge ceiling/light fitting and bedroom from 2 August 2024.
This type of drainage is not covered by the moisture ingress and drainage standards and is a repair and maintenance issue, as outlined in that section of this Order above. Therefore, I must dismiss this claim. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed 4 intentional breaches of s45(1)(b) that resulted in the tenants living conditions that were unhealthy and that caused them considerable periods of stress, inconvenience, and loss of the amenity the tenants were paying rent to enjoy. The landlord did not offer any rent relief to the tenant at these times.
I have also found the landlord has breached its s45(1)(ba) of the RTA obligations in that it failed to meet the statutory requirements to ensure the premise has the required number of working smoke alarms that have been tested and for which all the required information, pursuant to s45(1)(c) and 13A (1CA)(b) of the RTA, is recorded in the tenancy agreement.
I find the landlord has committed these 5 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 $1,800.00 exemplary damages to the tenant, being one quarter of the maximum penalty available. Breach of privacy/quiet enjoyment
The tenant claims the landlord has harassed her and breached her quiet enjoyment.
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 tenants confirmed that for the duration of their tenancy the neighbours that occupied units 5 and 6 constantly blocked the driveway, causing the male tenant to have to take Ubers to work at night when his car was blocked in, and it was too late to wake the perpetrators to get them to move their cars.
The tenants proved they raised this issue by text and email with the property manager numerous times during the tenancy and the property manager told them he would raise this with the other tenants (whose tenancies were being managed by the same property management company) but the tenants from units 5 and 6 did not cease parking in the driveway.
The tenants say the property manager eventually placed towing signs on the driveway in March 2025, and engaged a towing company to enforce the no parking signs.
The landlord’s evidence was its property manager did talk to the tenants but that is all it knows.
The landlord had an obligation to the tenants to ensure their neighbours did not interfere with their "reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy" (Refer to section 40(2)(c)). The landlord was required to take reasonable steps to ensure tenants of units 5 and 6 did not interfere with the other tenants’ quiet enjoyment by unlawfully parking on the shared driveway and blocking access during the evenings/nights.
I find the landlord has not taken all reasonable steps available to it in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances, from 23 June 2024 to March 2025, and that the tenants suffered a breach of their quiet enjoyment of the premise because the landlord committed an unlawful act.
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 landlord allowed the tenants of units 5 and 6 to engage in a pattern of behaviour it knew was causing the tenants trouble, worry and distress and that they were becoming worn down by the constant inability to access their home due to the shared driveway being blocked all the time; b. The tenants suffered distress, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise they were paying to enjoy because the landlord failed to adequately address the nuisance being caused by its other tenants; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the distress, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise they suffered; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching a tenant’s quiet enjoyment obligations. e. I make an order for the landlord to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA (being a third of the maximum penalty available). Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims, I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their 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 tenants have substantially succeeded in these proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5354741 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5354741 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Should the bond be refunded to the tenants?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord breach the smoke alarms regulations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Should the bond be refunded to the tenants?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord breach the smoke alarms regulations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions