What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356547 about?

The tribunal order states: Red Chili Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s],

How much money was awarded in case 5356547?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; LandlordTenant: $1,550.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $485.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356547?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356547?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12740143-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356547 about?

The tribunal order states: Red Chili Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s],

How much money was awarded in case 5356547?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; LandlordTenant: $1,550.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $485.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356547?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356547?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12740143-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

713 Shands Road, Prebbleton 7676 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5356547 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356547 — net $2,063.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
LandlordTenant	$1,550.00	LandlordTenant
Compensation for landlord’s failure to maintain and repair	$485.44	Compensation for landlord’s failure to maintain and repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,063.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,063.44

Order

Red Chili Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $2,063.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Callister represented the landlord. Background
The tenancy started on 28 February 2025 and was a fixed term tenancy until 28 February 2026.
The tenants raised several repair and maintenance issues with the landlord, some, but not all of which were addressed. They asked to be released from the tenancy, but then changed their minds. However, they decided that they would prefer the tenancy to end due to what they considered were on-going repair issues that were not addressed. The landlord agreed to release them from the tenancy, and it ended on 31 October 2025.
The landlord reduced the rent by 50% for the last 4 weeks of the tenancy. That amounted to a rent reduction of $2,000.00. The landlord agreed to fully refund the bond to them as well.
The tenants have applied to the Tribunal for exemplary damages for what they say was the landlord’s failure to ensure that the premises were Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) compliant and for compensation arising from that failure and from maintenance and repair issues not attended to by the landlord.
In total the tenants seek compensation and exemplary damages amounting to $31,805.44. The compensation claim comprises a 50% rent refund for the whole length of the tenancy; compensation for high power bills; reimbursement of the HHS report they obtained; reimbursement for the cost of water they had to buy when the water pump failed; and a building assessment report fee of $100.00. Issues
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Have the tenants proved a claim for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to ensure that the premises were HHS compliant? •Have the tenants established a claim for compensation? If so, what should the Tribunal award them? Relevant law
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
In Birch, the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Discussion Have the tenants proved a claim for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to ensure that the premises were HHS compliant?
The landlord had the premises assessed for HHS compliance on 24 October 2024. The report (produced in evidence) is comprehensive and states that the premises were at that time HHS compliant.
The tenancy started 4 months after that. It was reasonable for the landlord to reply on the HHS assessment since it was obtained so soon before the tenancy started.
The landlord completed the required information in the tenancy agreement addressing HHS compliance.
That the tenants obtained their own HHS report later (about 11 months after the HHS report the landlord obtained) which states that the premises are not HHS compliant does not establish an unlawful act by the landlord at the start of the tenancy.
To prove a claim for exemplary damages the tenants would need to establish that the landlord turned their mind to the unlawful act (HHS non-compliance) and deliberately set about to commit it – see Birch.
That is not what happened here. The landlord had the premises assessed for HHS compliance in reasonable proximity to the start of the tenancy.
Without intent, a claim for exemplary damages cannot succeed. Even if the landlord acted negligently, that is not sufficient.
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Have the tenants established a claim for compensation?

Compensation is not punitive; it simply recognises a loss and attempts to put the party seeking it back to a position they would have been in but for the breach by (in this case) the landlord.
The loss in this case is a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to maintenance and repair issues that impacted on the tenants’ enjoyment of the tenancy.
This loss, and the fact it occurred, must have been recognised by the landlord because they released the tenants from the fixed term tenancy and reduced the rent by 50% for the last 4 weeks of the tenancy.
The tenants gave detailed evidence about the issues they faced. Among them were draughts from the windows and the unsealed fireplace (evidenced by the videos they played which showed draughts through some window frames sufficient to move paper placed there to demonstrate the draught, and the howling of wind due to the draught from the fireplace even with a wooden insert in place to block it off but unsealed).
They experience leaking which resulted in some mould and dampness. An area of flooring was so badly affected by borer that it gave way and had to be repaired, but the flooring remained compromised in other areas.
The septic tank overflowed causing sewage to spill onto the ground. The water pump failed, and the tenants were without water for 3 days.
The HHS assessment the tenants had done on 26 September 2025 states that the premises are not HHS compliant; none of the standards is met.
It is difficult to reconcile the 2 assessments, 11 months apart, each done by a professional company. Possibly, the insulation has reduced in height during the 2 assessments. The first assessor says that the subfloor cannot be accessed. The second assessor does not specifically address that but the photos in the report seem to suggest that the sub floor is accessible.
The second assessor states that the main living room heating source does not meet the required kW output; that cannot have changed. The second assessor states that the open fireplace needs to be closed off or the chimney blocked. The first assessor considered that a blanket or similar placed inside the chimney was sufficient. The Tribunal doubts that is correct.
The Tribunal considered issuing witness summonses to both HHS assessors to attend and give evidence but decided against that.
Rather, based on the evidence the tenants produced, the Tribunal finds that as at the date of the assessment on 26 September, the premises were not HHS compliant.
While the landlord did not commit an unlawful act in this case for the reasons given earlier, the tenants are nevertheless entitled to compensation because the premises, being non-HHS compliant, were draughty, cold, and damp due to leaking. In other words, there was a breach by the landlord – a failure to maintain. The tenants’ communications with the landlord were such that the landlord was aware of the repair and maintenance issues that were causing on- going concern.
A landlord’s responsibility to maintain and repair the premises is not absolute. Section 45 RTA takes into account the age and character of the premises. These premises were large in a semi-rural location. Possibly they will be demolished at a later stage for redevelopment, although they are now apparently used by members of the landlord’s family.
Some repair issues were attended to promptly by the landlord, but the tenants still suffered a loss. When the water pump failed, they were without water for 3 days. While the landlord offered bottled water, that is not sufficient for all the uses that require water, including as the tenants noted, flushing the toilet.

What compensation should the Tribunal award the tenants?

This is not a case where the landlord failed to act on all matters drawn to their attention by the tenants. The landlord’s evidence shows that repairs were completed in most instances. Despite that, the tenants experienced a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy principally because the premises became HHS non- compliant as detailed in the HHS assessment they obtained and that constituted a failure to maintain the premises.
The tenants detailed cleaning and other issues at the start of the tenancy and their comments are contained in the initial property inspection report. But they said they largely dealt with those initial concerns themselves: their focus was mainly on the HHS non-compliance issues and the failure to maintain the premises.
The tenants sought compensation based on a 50% rent reduction (which is what the landlord agreed to for the last 4 weeks of the tenancy) but that amount of compensation is unrealistic.
Rant can only abate when premises are destroyed or so seriously damaged (in whole or in part) and as a result become uninhabitable. That was not the case here.
I find that compensation of $130.00 per week is appropriate and in line with other comparable cases decided by the Tribunal. For the 35 weeks of the tenancy that amounts to $4,550.00. From that is deducted $2,000.00, the amount the landlord has already given as compensation by way of a 50% rent reduction over 4 weeks. I deduct a further $1,000.00 to acknowledge that the landlord agreed to release the tenants from their fixed term tenancy 4 months earlier than it was due to end. The issues they raised would not have been sufficient for the Tribunal to end the tenancy earlier by way of a reduction of the fixed term had the landlord refused to release them. So, that action has been a benefit to the tenants which should be recognised. Taking those matters into account, I award the tenants compensation of $1,550.00.
I also order reimbursement of the water the tenants had to buy when the pump failed. While the landlord acted promptly to have it replaced, the tenants were without water, which is a necessity. It is appropriate that the landlord bear the cost of that - $485.44.
The Tribunal cannot award the tenants the cost of the 2 reports they obtained, the HHS assessment and the building report. Each party bears the cost of producing the evidence they present to the Tribunal. Result
The landlord will pay the tenants $2,063.44 comprising compensation of $1,550.00, $485.44 for reimbursement of the cost of water they had to buy in, and the filing fee of $28.00. Name suppression
The tenants did not seek name suppression. The landlord sought name suppression. I make no order for name suppression as the landlord’s defence to the application is not successful 2 .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356547 — net $2,063.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
LandlordTenant	$1,550.00	LandlordTenant
Compensation for landlord’s failure to maintain and repair	$485.44	Compensation for landlord’s failure to maintain and repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,063.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,063.44

Order

Red Chili Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $2,063.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Callister represented the landlord. Background
The tenancy started on 28 February 2025 and was a fixed term tenancy until 28 February 2026.
The tenants raised several repair and maintenance issues with the landlord, some, but not all of which were addressed. They asked to be released from the tenancy, but then changed their minds. However, they decided that they would prefer the tenancy to end due to what they considered were on-going repair issues that were not addressed. The landlord agreed to release them from the tenancy, and it ended on 31 October 2025.
The landlord reduced the rent by 50% for the last 4 weeks of the tenancy. That amounted to a rent reduction of $2,000.00. The landlord agreed to fully refund the bond to them as well.
The tenants have applied to the Tribunal for exemplary damages for what they say was the landlord’s failure to ensure that the premises were Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) compliant and for compensation arising from that failure and from maintenance and repair issues not attended to by the landlord.
In total the tenants seek compensation and exemplary damages amounting to $31,805.44. The compensation claim comprises a 50% rent refund for the whole length of the tenancy; compensation for high power bills; reimbursement of the HHS report they obtained; reimbursement for the cost of water they had to buy when the water pump failed; and a building assessment report fee of $100.00. Issues
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Have the tenants proved a claim for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to ensure that the premises were HHS compliant? •Have the tenants established a claim for compensation? If so, what should the Tribunal award them? Relevant law
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
In Birch, the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Discussion Have the tenants proved a claim for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to ensure that the premises were HHS compliant?
The landlord had the premises assessed for HHS compliance on 24 October 2024. The report (produced in evidence) is comprehensive and states that the premises were at that time HHS compliant.
The tenancy started 4 months after that. It was reasonable for the landlord to reply on the HHS assessment since it was obtained so soon before the tenancy started.
The landlord completed the required information in the tenancy agreement addressing HHS compliance.
That the tenants obtained their own HHS report later (about 11 months after the HHS report the landlord obtained) which states that the premises are not HHS compliant does not establish an unlawful act by the landlord at the start of the tenancy.
To prove a claim for exemplary damages the tenants would need to establish that the landlord turned their mind to the unlawful act (HHS non-compliance) and deliberately set about to commit it – see Birch.
That is not what happened here. The landlord had the premises assessed for HHS compliance in reasonable proximity to the start of the tenancy.
Without intent, a claim for exemplary damages cannot succeed. Even if the landlord acted negligently, that is not sufficient.
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Have the tenants established a claim for compensation?

Compensation is not punitive; it simply recognises a loss and attempts to put the party seeking it back to a position they would have been in but for the breach by (in this case) the landlord.
The loss in this case is a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to maintenance and repair issues that impacted on the tenants’ enjoyment of the tenancy.
This loss, and the fact it occurred, must have been recognised by the landlord because they released the tenants from the fixed term tenancy and reduced the rent by 50% for the last 4 weeks of the tenancy.
The tenants gave detailed evidence about the issues they faced. Among them were draughts from the windows and the unsealed fireplace (evidenced by the videos they played which showed draughts through some window frames sufficient to move paper placed there to demonstrate the draught, and the howling of wind due to the draught from the fireplace even with a wooden insert in place to block it off but unsealed).
They experience leaking which resulted in some mould and dampness. An area of flooring was so badly affected by borer that it gave way and had to be repaired, but the flooring remained compromised in other areas.
The septic tank overflowed causing sewage to spill onto the ground. The water pump failed, and the tenants were without water for 3 days.
The HHS assessment the tenants had done on 26 September 2025 states that the premises are not HHS compliant; none of the standards is met.
It is difficult to reconcile the 2 assessments, 11 months apart, each done by a professional company. Possibly, the insulation has reduced in height during the 2 assessments. The first assessor says that the subfloor cannot be accessed. The second assessor does not specifically address that but the photos in the report seem to suggest that the sub floor is accessible.
The second assessor states that the main living room heating source does not meet the required kW output; that cannot have changed. The second assessor states that the open fireplace needs to be closed off or the chimney blocked. The first assessor considered that a blanket or similar placed inside the chimney was sufficient. The Tribunal doubts that is correct.
The Tribunal considered issuing witness summonses to both HHS assessors to attend and give evidence but decided against that.
Rather, based on the evidence the tenants produced, the Tribunal finds that as at the date of the assessment on 26 September, the premises were not HHS compliant.
While the landlord did not commit an unlawful act in this case for the reasons given earlier, the tenants are nevertheless entitled to compensation because the premises, being non-HHS compliant, were draughty, cold, and damp due to leaking. In other words, there was a breach by the landlord – a failure to maintain. The tenants’ communications with the landlord were such that the landlord was aware of the repair and maintenance issues that were causing on- going concern.
A landlord’s responsibility to maintain and repair the premises is not absolute. Section 45 RTA takes into account the age and character of the premises. These premises were large in a semi-rural location. Possibly they will be demolished at a later stage for redevelopment, although they are now apparently used by members of the landlord’s family.
Some repair issues were attended to promptly by the landlord, but the tenants still suffered a loss. When the water pump failed, they were without water for 3 days. While the landlord offered bottled water, that is not sufficient for all the uses that require water, including as the tenants noted, flushing the toilet.

What compensation should the Tribunal award the tenants?

This is not a case where the landlord failed to act on all matters drawn to their attention by the tenants. The landlord’s evidence shows that repairs were completed in most instances. Despite that, the tenants experienced a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy principally because the premises became HHS non- compliant as detailed in the HHS assessment they obtained and that constituted a failure to maintain the premises.
The tenants detailed cleaning and other issues at the start of the tenancy and their comments are contained in the initial property inspection report. But they said they largely dealt with those initial concerns themselves: their focus was mainly on the HHS non-compliance issues and the failure to maintain the premises.
The tenants sought compensation based on a 50% rent reduction (which is what the landlord agreed to for the last 4 weeks of the tenancy) but that amount of compensation is unrealistic.
Rant can only abate when premises are destroyed or so seriously damaged (in whole or in part) and as a result become uninhabitable. That was not the case here.
I find that compensation of $130.00 per week is appropriate and in line with other comparable cases decided by the Tribunal. For the 35 weeks of the tenancy that amounts to $4,550.00. From that is deducted $2,000.00, the amount the landlord has already given as compensation by way of a 50% rent reduction over 4 weeks. I deduct a further $1,000.00 to acknowledge that the landlord agreed to release the tenants from their fixed term tenancy 4 months earlier than it was due to end. The issues they raised would not have been sufficient for the Tribunal to end the tenancy earlier by way of a reduction of the fixed term had the landlord refused to release them. So, that action has been a benefit to the tenants which should be recognised. Taking those matters into account, I award the tenants compensation of $1,550.00.
I also order reimbursement of the water the tenants had to buy when the pump failed. While the landlord acted promptly to have it replaced, the tenants were without water, which is a necessity. It is appropriate that the landlord bear the cost of that - $485.44.
The Tribunal cannot award the tenants the cost of the 2 reports they obtained, the HHS assessment and the building report. Each party bears the cost of producing the evidence they present to the Tribunal. Result
The landlord will pay the tenants $2,063.44 comprising compensation of $1,550.00, $485.44 for reimbursement of the cost of water they had to buy in, and the filing fee of $28.00. Name suppression
The tenants did not seek name suppression. The landlord sought name suppression. I make no order for name suppression as the landlord’s defence to the application is not successful 2 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356547 — State of repair at 713 Shands Road, Prebbleton 7676

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356547 — State of repair at 713 Shands Road, Prebbleton 7676

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Have the tenants established a claim for compensation?

What compensation should the Tribunal award the tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Have the tenants established a claim for compensation?

What compensation should the Tribunal award the tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.