What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5360825 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 5360825?

Compensation: Bond not lodged with B…: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Breach of HHS- insulat…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- d…: $1,007.14 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide HHS…: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5360825?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5360825?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13668269-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5360825 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 5360825?

Compensation: Bond not lodged with B…: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Breach of HHS- insulat…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- d…: $1,007.14 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide HHS…: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5360825?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5360825?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13668269-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5360825 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5360825 — net $2,660.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Bond not lodged with Bond Centre	$750.00	Bond not lodged with Bond Centre
Compensation: Failure to maintain- dishwasher 15/4/24 to 11/12/24	$1,007.14	Failure to maintain- dishwasher 15/4/24 to 11/12/24
Compensation: Breach of HHS- insulation	$500.00	Breach of HHS- insulation
Compensation: Failure to provide HHS statement and info in tenancy agreement	$375.00	Failure to provide HHS statement and info in tenancy agreement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,660.14
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,660.14

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5360825 — net $2,660.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Bond not lodged with Bond Centre	$750.00	Bond not lodged with Bond Centre
Compensation: Failure to maintain- dishwasher 15/4/24 to 11/12/24	$1,007.14	Failure to maintain- dishwasher 15/4/24 to 11/12/24
Compensation: Breach of HHS- insulation	$500.00	Breach of HHS- insulation
Compensation: Failure to provide HHS statement and info in tenancy agreement	$375.00	Failure to provide HHS statement and info in tenancy agreement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,660.14
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,660.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
Adam grimmer and Natalie Grimmer must pay [The tenant/s] $2,660.14 immediately.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today.
The tenants applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages, refund of bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 26 September 2025.

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 Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b), and (bb) obligations to the tenants?
[The tenant/s] claim the landlords have breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“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”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 . 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Breaching either of these s45(1) obligations is an unlawful act for which a total amount of exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Exemplary damages may only be awarded by the Tribunal when a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, and the Tribunal 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.
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 claim the landlords failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to their attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. A. Dishwasher
The tenants say they were told by the landlord at the start of the tenancy, when they went to get the keys, that the dishwasher was not working and that it would be fixed. The landlords say that their recollection was that the dishwasher was working at the start of the tenancy, they cannot remember when they were told it was not working, but it was sometime near the start of the tenancy.
[The tenants] provided evidence that proves the dishwasher was not working at the start of the tenancy (15 April 2024) and the landlords did not remedy the dishwasher issue until 11 December 2024, when the repaired dishwasher was reinstalled. The tenants were without the dishwasher, for a period of 33 weeks and 4 days and suffered a loss of an amenity they were paying rent to enjoy as well as the stress and inconvenience of not having the dishwasher and having to follow the landlord up to get the dishwasher fixed.
The landlords stated the tenants had indicated the dishwasher was not of major importance as they did not expect to use it frequently. Despite this the landlord made efforts to have the issue resolved promptly. The landlords experienced delays in getting the matter resolved due to trying unsuccessfully to get the repair done under warranty and the male tenant suffering a serious health incident just prior to the planned installation of the repaired dishwasher.
The landlords confirmed the dishwasher was a reasonably new purchase and was under warranty, so the landlords thought it would be a quick issue to resolve and conveyed that to the tenants. However, the company they purchased it from denied selling it to them and would not honour the warranty. Additionally, the male landlord became unwell and was off work for 4 months at the time he was trying to resolve the warranty issue. These factors delayed the repair of the dishwasher. The landlords stated the tenants informed them that there was no rush to get the dishwasher repaired, as they did not expect to use it frequently, so the landlord did not think the extended delay would be an issue for the tenants.
The tenants say that while they understand health issues, they took the tenancy expecting the full use of the dishwasher ,and the house being up to standard, and the 33 week and 4-day delay in getting the dishwasher repaired was significantly longer than could be reasonably expected in the circumstances.
I find the landlord failed to investigate and remediate the broken dishwasher issue in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances and that the tenants should receive a rent rebate of $30.00 per week for the period of 33 weeks and 4 days (15 April 2024 to 11 December 2024) they suffered the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience of not being able to use the dishwasher and having to follow the landlord up to get it repaired/replaced, being a rent rebate of $1,007.14.
Section109(2)(b) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage, in that this provision states that the tenants cannot apply for exemplary damages for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. The tenants made their application on 27 November 2025. Therefore, any such intentional breach, if proven, would have had to occur on or after 27 November 2024. This breach occurred on 15 April 2024 and therefore the tenants are statutorily barred from applying for exemplary damages. B. Leaks in bedroom/mould and dampness
[The tenants] provided photographic evidence that the back bedroom behind the kitchen was uninhabitable from 22 April 2025 to 26 October 2025 because of a persistent roof leak that caused high levels of dampness and mould to develop in the room.
The tenants produced written communications that prove they raised the issue of the leak with the landlords around 22 April 2025, after a severe weather event had caused leaks in the ceiling on 20 April 2025.
The landlords provided evidence that the day of the first leak there was a severe weather warning for the Titirangi/Green Bay and Blockhouse Bay areas (Tropical Cyclone Tam) that caused a lot of surface flooding. There was persistent high winds that blew water under the iron roof due to the severe weather event. The landlords say this was a one-off leak event, as far as they were aware.
The male landlord confirmed he attended the house on 23 April 2025, and he cleaned the roof and gutters that were covered in leaves. The parties stated the male tenant was away at the time. The male landlord found the ceiling, wall and carpet in the bedroom was wet where water had come into the room above the window. The male landlord claimed he asked the female tenant at the time if the tenants wanted to have the room dried out and the female tenant said no that she would mop it up with towels. The landlords say they were not made aware of any further leaks in that room.
The landlords stated, post that wet weather event, they were not made aware of ongoing leak or mould concerns and had they been informed of the ongoing leak/dampness/mould issues they would have taken steps to investigate the issues and resolve them. They stated they were denied the opportunity to do so as the tenants did not meet their s40(1)(d) of the RTA obligation to “notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs”.
Additionally, the landlord stated that properties in this area can be subject to mould and dampness due to high levels of surrounding bush. The landlords provided the text discussions they had with the tenants about how to manage the mould issue in the lounge.
The tenants stated the only remediation work undertaken by the landlords was that they cleared the gutters on 23 April 2025, after the severe weather event. The tenants say these gutters blocked up frequently for the duration of the tenancy and overflowed due to the high density of bush surrounding the house and lack of regular gutter maintenance. The tenants say the 23 April 2025 gutter clearing made no impact on the bedroom leak, that continued sporadically after the gutters had been cleaned. They accepted that they had not raised with the landlords the issue on the ongoing leaks or the mould. Instead, they relocated rooms with their daughter to dryer warmer mould free bedrooms.
The tenants claim this room made up 25% of the house floor space they were renting and that that they suffered significant inconvenience from not being able to use this room and that all family members suffered respiratory related health issues that they had never experienced before living in this premise or after they moved out of it.
The landlords provided evidence they have subsequently, post the end of the tenancy, had a roofer look at the roof. They provided the Tribunal with a report, dated 18 May 2026, that records the roof is “in average unnoteworthy condition, with two areas requiring attention to prevent further leaks”. The report notes the “paint layer is degrading and approaching the end of its life and it recommends the entire roof be sealed and painted to protect the metal from future corrosion and to ensure a watertight seal around roofing nails or screws”. The report also notes that “while no specific issues were fund, in extreme weather events wind can drive water under the laps and into the home. This is a common issue with this type of low-pitched roof and the changing weather conditions”. The report recommends the landlords “install a custom profile flashing to block wind driven water from entering the internal structure in extreme weather conditions”, but notes “this would be an added precaution and not a must”. This report explains why the roof leaked sporadically and why the ceiling cavity and carpet took a long time to dry out and why mould developed on the ceiling and other surfaces in that room.
The tenants deny being asked if they wanted the room to be dried out and claim they were told to mop it up with towels. They also stated the mould started to grow despite them opening windows and heating the room to try and dry it out. The male tenant confirmed he eventually cleaned the roof and painted the roof with mould resistant paint, but did not notify the landlord of the mould issue before or after doing this. The tenants say they got used to inaction from the landlords, so did not think it worth reporting any issues and that they were better place to address the issue promptly themselves. They also stated no routine property inspections were carried out during the tenancy, so this denied them the opportunity to show the landlords issues when they should have been at the house quarterly.
The landlords say that it is hard to rectify issues they did not know about, and that because communication was good between them, they expected the tenants to report any issues that arose. They say they did two inspections during the tenancy, as there was no concerns, and they wanted to be respectful of the tenants’ privacy. Had they known the extent of the issue they would have offered dehumidifiers and heaters and opened the roof cavity to dry it out.
The tenants say they were without the use of this room and subject to the dampness and mould from that room for a period of 26 weeks and 5 days (from 24 April 2025 to 26 October 2025) and suffered the loss of an amenity they were paying rent to enjoy as well as the stress and inconvenience of not having use of the room and suffering health issues because of the dampness and mould.
I find the evidence proves, on the balance of probabilities, the landlords investigated the 20 April 2025 bedroom leak issue in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances, cleaned the gutters to try to prevent further leaks, and offered to take steps to dry out the wet room which was deemed not to be necessary by the tenants. Because the tenants did not report further sporadic leaks, the landlords acted on the reasonable belief it was a one-off leak caused by the cyclone and that there was no further investigation necessary. The lanldords were not made aware of the mould and dampness issue, so again acted on the reasonable belief the room had dried out with ventilation and towels.
Had the tenants raised the additional leaks, dampness and mould, the landlords say they would have investigated the cause of the ongoing leaks. The tenants breached their s40(1)(d)of the RTA obligations to notify the landlord of the leaks, mould and dampness issues and cannot now claim compensation for the landlords’ failure to address repair and maintenance issues they were never made aware of.
The tenants claim for compensation, general damages and/or exemplary damages for this breach are dismissed for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities. C. Leaks in lounge fireplace/mould on ceilings and dampness
[The tenants] provided photographic evidence that the fireplace in the lounge was experiencing leaks from the roof and that those leaks caused black mould to develop on the ceiling and the room/premise to become damp inside. The tenants first raised the issue of mould developing on the ceiling around 28 July 2024, when the landlords cleaned the ceiling themselves with pool grade sodium hypochlorite (being about 10 to 12% bleach, when household bleach is typically 3 to 6%). The tenants have produced photographic evidence this did not stop the mould from regrowing, as the source of the dampness had not been investigated and remediated and the black spores of the mould had not been fully removed.
The landlords state the tenants did not inform them the mould had regrown and that the tenants had continued to have dampness and mould issues, after the initial clean. Further, they stated, had they been informed, they would have investigated further as the re-emergence of the mould would have indicated more than a ventilation issue in a bush surrounded property.
The tenants confirmed they became aware of the leaks in the fireplace around 11 July 2025, but did not report this to the landlords as they had found the landlords did not respond to issues raised in a timely manner. They also confirmed the dampness and mould on the ceiling continued from 28 July 2024, when it had been last cleaned by the landlords, until the tenants cleaned the ceiling thoroughly, dried it out and painted it with mould resistant paint in August 2025, after a bad winter of heavy mould growth. The tenants confirmed they did not raise the new mould growth to the landlords.
I find the evidence proves, on the balance of probabilities, the landlords addressed the initial ceiling mould issue, in July 2024, in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances and cleaned the ceiling with a strong bleach solution of the advice of a mould cleaning professional. Because the tenants did not report further mould growth, the landlords acted on the reasonable belief the issue had resolved and no further investigation or remediation was necessary.
Had the tenants raised ongoing mould and dampness issues and the fireplace leaks, the landlords say they would have investigated the cause of the leak, dampness and mould and addressed the cause. The tenants again breached their s40(1)(d)of the RTA obligations to notify the landlord of the fireplace leak, the regrowth of mould and the dampness issues and cannot now claim compensation for the landlords’ failure to address repair and maintenance issues they were never made aware of.
The tenants claim for compensation, general damages and/or exemplary damages for this breach are dismissed for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities. D. Broken cat door
[The tenants] provided photographic evidence that the cat door was broken and was letting in draughts from 22 April 2024 to 29 September 2025.
The tenants say the week they moved in, they raised the issue of the cat door, and the landlords said they would replace the cat door. When this did not occur in the first few weeks after it was raised, the male tenant placed some wood over the door to help prevent the draught coming through this back entry door in the laundry that led to the kitchen. He says that while it helped, it did not stop all the draughts. Further, the tenants say this was not addressed throughout the duration of the tenancy.
The landlords stated that they were happy to repair the flap that had been broken by the prior tenants’ cat that had been left behind and the tenants had told them that they would put wood over the door as the male tenant had building experience. The landlords therefore thought this was a non-issue and did nothing further.
The tenants say they told the landlord this was a temporary fix, but did not recall saying it was no longer an issue they wanted resolved. The tenants never raised this again after the wood was put over the door.
I find the evidence proves, on the balance of probabilities, the landlords were led to believe the male tenant had offered to fix the cat door issue by blocking it off with wood, and that this had resolved the draught issue. Because the tenants did not report any further issues with the cat door or the draughts, the landlords acted on the reasonable belief the issue had resolved and no further action was necessary.
The tenants claim for compensation, general damages and/or exemplary damages for this breach are dismissed for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities. Failure to meet healthy homes standards
The tenants claims that the landlord has breached their 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 15 April 2024. Therefore, the landlord had 120 days from the commencement date to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards, being Tuesday, 13 August 2024. A. Insulation
[The tenants] claim that the landlords failed to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Houses constructed between 1978 and 2016 often had draped foil underfloor insulation, which was an acceptable solution for meeting energy efficient requirements in the Building Code. The healthy homes insulation standard permits an exemption to the current insulation standard requirements for foil underfloor insulation that remains in reasonable condition, where the landlord has compliance documents to prove the home was built to meet these requirements of the time.
If the foil underfloor insulation is not in reasonable condition (such as where it is damaged, ripped or no longer shiny) or it doesn’t meet the criteria for an R-value exemption, it needs to be replaced with new underfloor insulation that is not foil and that meets the required minimum R-value. Retrofitting or repairing foil insulation has been prohibited under the Building Act since 1 July 2016 because of the high risk of electric shock.
The landlords gave evidence the premise was constructed around 1920 and that the foil underfloor insulation was likely installed in the 1980’s and that while it remained in reasonable condition, the landlords did not have compliance documents to prove the home was built to meet the building regulation requirements of the time. Therefore, they decided to replace the foil with compliant underfloor insulation prior to the healthy homes compliance date.
The tenants says that they were not provided with any healthy homes’ information in the tenancy agreement or at the start of the tenancy. They acted under the reasonable belief the landlord would know their legal obligations and comply with them in all aspects of the tenancy.
When the male tenant was storing items under the house, at the beginning of the tenancy, he found the under-floor insulation was incomplete and that the bedroom that developed the 2025 ceiling leak had no underfloor insulation, and nor did part of the kitchen and part of the living room. The tenants have produced photographs that prove this claim.
The tenants also stated that when they moved in the male landlord was installing underfloor insulation and that it was not until he went to retrieve some of the stored items under the house, he became aware the underfloor insulation had not been completed.
The landlords confirmed: a. The underfloor insulation was an issue from when the landlords tried to upgrade from a from foil insulation (that was not certified) and they had issues getting providers to install insulation into areas they could safely reach with the low floor to ground height. They stated the old foil insulation did not meet the insulation standard R ratings. The male landlord decided to do install the underfloor insulation himself so as to ensure the entire house, would be insulated, including the child’s room in the lower floor cavity area of the house; b. The foil in the back rooms was still existing during the tenancy, so there was no time where there was no underfloor insulation; c. Some floor areas were missed during the upgrade and the landlords were not aware of this until the end of the tenancy. The landlords confirm this has now been completed for the new tenants and the house is fully compliant; d. At the time, the landlords had just had a new baby and the fact the insulation had not been completed by the compliance date “fell through the cracks”.
The tenants’ photographs, dated 11 May 2025 and 26 September 2025, show the bedroom with the 2025 leak and part of the kitchen, bathroom and laundry did not have foil insulation as at the compliance date, nor any new underfloor insulation.
There has been no third party independent detailed healthy homes assessment and report undertaken by either party. But based on the tenants’ evidence, the house was not compliant with the insulation standard on or by Tuesday, 13 August 2024. Section109(2)(b) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage, in that this provision states that the tenants cannot apply for exemplary damages for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. Any such breach, if proven, would have had to occur on or after 27 November 2024 and therefore the tenants would be statutorily barred from applying for exemplary damages for this breach that occurred on 13 August 2024. The tenant made his application on 27 November 2025, 2.5 months past the statutory timeframe to bring this claim.
For these reasons, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages for breach of the insulation standard.
I find the landlords failed to fully ensure that the premise was compliant with the insulation standard by the compliance date and that the tenants suffered the stress and inconvenience of not having an insulated house and that this contributed to the cold, dampness and mould issues they experienced. I award a general damage sum of $500.00 to recognise this breach. B. 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 requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space if it is reasonably practical to do so.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants have produced photographic evidence the premise has a sub floor where the floor is raised off the ground, leaving a cavity or "crawl space" underneath the house. The tenants say this space is not covered by a ground moisture barrier and that is a clear breach of the moisture ingress and drainage standard and would have contributed to the cold, damp and mouldy conditions the tenants were subject to during this tenancy.
The landlord says that most of the subfloor is not enclosed, but the tenants say that the perimeter surrounding the underfloor cavity is obstructed 50% or more from solid masonry foundation walls, solid skirting boards, adjoining structures, or piles of dirt and rock blocking natural airflow. The landlords say that there is at least 120mm gaps around the subfloor, that it has always been dry and it is therefore exempt from the requirement to have a ground moisture barrier.
Again, there has been no third party independent detailed healthy homes assessment and report undertaken by either party. However, the male tenant’s brother ( Daniel Lance Grimmer) is a registered builder. He gave evidence that he has inspected the house and found the house meets the current building code and does not require a ground moisture barrier. I find this evidence from a registered builder to be compelling.
For these reasons, I dismiss the tenant’s claims for compensation or general damages for a breach of the moisture ingress and drainage standard, and the tenants are subject to the s109(2) of the RTA statutory bar for making exemplary damages claim.

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

[The tenants] claim the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the statutorily required time.
Section 19(1) of the RTA requires a landlord to send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received and to provide a receipt to the tenant for any bond amount paid.
Breaching one or both of this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 for one or both breaches if the breaches are proven to be intentional. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants confirmed the $2,800.00 bond was paid before he moved in, on 3 April 2024, and say they never received a receipt for this bond, and it was never lodged with the Bond Centre.
When the tenants questioned the landlords about when they had lodged the Bond, they were told it had been lodged, but when they made enquiries with the Bond Centre, they were told no bond had ever been lodged in their names for that property. After confronting the landlords about this discovery, the landlords confirmed by email they would make payment of the full bond to the tenants on 8 and 10 October 2025 (weeks after the tenancy had ended).
The evidence produced by the tenants proves they have never received reimbursement of their bond, and that the landlord lodged the bond with the Bond Centre in 31 October 2025.
I am satisfied that the tenants have proven the landlords failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the statutorily required timeframe and did not disclose this breach to the tenants when the tenants’ made enquiries about this breach near the end of the tenancy. I find the landlords have committed an unlawful and intentional act.
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 find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by not lodging the bond within the required timeframe and intentionally compounding that breach by failing to lodge the bond until the tenants made them aware they intended to lodge this application with the Tribunal.
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.
Section109(2)(b) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage, in that this provision states that the tenants cannot apply for exemplary damages for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. Any such breach, if proven, would have had to occur on or after 27 November 2024 and therefore the tenants would be statutorily barred from applying for exemplary damages for this breach that occurred on 6 May 2024. The tenant made his application on 27 November 2025, 29 weeks past the statutory timeframe to bring this claim.
For these reasons, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages for breach of the insulation standard.
Landlords are required to understand their responsibilities to tenants’ and I am satisfied the landlords should have reasonably known that the bond had to be submitted to the Bond Centre within 23 days after their receipt of it. The obligations placed on a landlord to put the bond into the Bond Centre on trust for the tenant is an obligation the Tribunal takes seriously. The bond is owned by the tenant, until the parties agree that all or part of the bond can be paid to the landlord to cover proven debts.
I find it would be just to require the landlords to pay a sum of $750.00 compensation because: a. The landlords intentionally held on to the bond and did not submit it to the Bond Centre for 82 weeks 2 days, well after the tenancy ended and were not forthcoming about the breach when initially asked about it by the tenants; b. The tenants are entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting the bond money that has been placed in it on trust for the tenants’ benefit, unless it is proven the tenants owe the landlord a debt that both parties agree can be paid by the Bond Centre to the landlord or on order from the Tribunal. The tenant’s money was not protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for a total period of 82 weeks 2 days and it should have been; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive compensation for the landlord’s breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords to have to pay compensation for breaching their obligations pay the bond received into the Bond Centre promptly for the protection of both parties’ interests, when exemplary damages are not able to be awarded. Did the landlords provide the statutorily required healthy homes and smoke alarm information in the tenancy agreement?
The tenants claims that the landlords have breached their obligations under section 13A(1A), and 13A(1CA) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1A) the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord that describes whether or not there is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, any insulation installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises and the details of the location, type, and condition of all insulation that is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises.
Under s13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the five healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions. These five standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping. This provision also requires the landlord to record how many smoke alarms are in the premise, when the smoke alarms were last tested and when they expire.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
If the landlord is unable to provide some or all the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) of the RTA obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlords say they used the Tenancy Services template, but did not have a copy of the healthy homes’ standards portion of the template. The landlords produced a copy of the signed tenancy agreement that did not contain the healthy homes compliance statement nor any of the heathy homes compliance level information required by the RTA. Additionally, none of the statutory required smoke alarm information was provided. The tenants confirmed the document produced by the landlord was he one they signed and that there were no missing pages.
Landlords are required to understand their responsibilities to tenants and as seasoned landlords that had met the requirement before and after this tenancy, I am satisfied the landlords should have reasonably known that the tenancy agreement had to contain HHS, and smoke alarm information. The obligations placed on a landlord to do so is an obligation the Tribunal takes seriously. Tenants are entitled to know if a house meets the required HHS standards before signing up to a tenancy and if it doesn’t, to know why and when it will be made compliant.
I am satisfied the landlord failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements and smoke alarm information prescribed by sections 13A(1A),13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA.
I find the landlords breached 13A(1CA) of the RTA and that, although the Tribunal is statutorily barred from ordering exemplary damages for this breach, it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $500.00 compensation because: a. The landlords should have reasonably known that they are required by law to provide the tenants with healthy homes and smoke alarm information with a written tenancy agreement b. The tenants are entitled to rely on their statutory right to receive information about: i. whether the premise was healthy homes compliant and if it wasn’t, was it exempt from these requirements; ii. whether the premise has compliant smoke alarms, where they are located, when they were last tested and when they expire; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive compensation for the landlords’ failure to provide healthy homes compliance information and smoke alarm information to the tenants prior to the commencement of the tenancy so they can make an informed decision whether to rent a non-compliant premise. 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 applicants] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed 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 their 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 5360825 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5360825 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions