What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5361324?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 (BN-00005041) to Craig

How much money was awarded in case 5361324?

Compensation: 30% Rent Reduction: $11,400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement of HHS r…: $287.50 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361324?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361324?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12815949-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5361324?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 (BN-00005041) to Craig

How much money was awarded in case 5361324?

Compensation: 30% Rent Reduction: $11,400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement of HHS r…: $287.50 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361324?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361324?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12815949-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

29 Rosario Crescent, Red Beach, Red Beach 0932 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5361324 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5361324 — net $11,715.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Reimbursement of HHS report	$287.50	Reimbursement of HHS report
Compensation: 30% rent reduction	$11,400.00	30% rent reduction
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,715.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$11,715.50

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 (BN-00005041) to Craig Dyason and Natalie Randall immediately.
Baseden Property Management Limited As Agent D. Rong must pay Craig Dyason and Natalie Randall $11,715.50 immediately.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing on 20 November 2025. The landlord did not.
The landlord had sought an adjournment of the hearing as the property manager involved was unavailable. However, I declined the landlord’s application and asked that another staff appear on behalf of the landlord. However, no one appeared at the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
The tenancy was originally for a fixed term from 9 December 2024 to 23 November 2025. The tenant moved out on 2 November 2025.
On 7 October 2025, the tenant applied for the following: a. Reduction of fixed-term tenancy; b. Refund of the bond; c. Reimbursement of the Healthy Homes Statement (“HHS”) report; d. Exemplary damages for the premises failing to meet HHS; e. Rent reduction; f. Moving costs; and g. Reimbursement of the filing fee.
I deal with each claim in turn. Reduction of the fixed-term tenancy
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The tenant had moved out 21 days earlier than when the fixed term tenancy was originally due to end.
The tenant said that the maintenance issues of the house, especially the water leak in level 2 was so bad that when the property manager saw the video of the water leak in bedroom 3, the property manager said that they would not have rented the premises out to the tenant in the first place had they known. This meeting apparently took place on 25 August 2025.
The tenant said that the property manager had said that there would be no break lease fee, and that the landlord would help out with the move out cost as well.
The tenant gave their notice to not continue with the fixed-term tenancy and move out earlier on 16 September 2025.
From then until 2 November 2025 when the tenant gave the keys back to the landlord ̧ the tenant was given 50% rent reduction by the landlord.
With this background, I find that the landlord has agreed to reduce the fixed- term tenancy to 2 November 2025 due to the condition of the premises.
As such, I do not go into the reduction of the fixed-term tenancy claim as it was reduced by agreement.
If I had gone into the reduction of the fixed-term tenancy claim under section 66 RTA, the tenant would have struggled to establish there was an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances.
The lack of maintenance and the severe leak at the premises was something that had existed almost from day 1 of the tenancy. The maintenance issues are discussed more below. Refund of the bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. By the time of the hearing, the landlord has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) RTA provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim by the time of hearing of this matter, the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. Reimbursement of the HHS report costs
The tenant had suspected that the premises did not meet the HHS due to the condition of the premises. Hence, on the advice of the Tenancy Services, the tenant had commissioned an HHS report on 11 August 2025 at a cost of $287.50.
The HHS report found that the premises failed HHS in: a. heating standard in the upstairs living room; b. draught stopping at the entranceway, top living room, kitchen, bedroom 3 and the hallway; c. drainage; and d. downstairs bathroom due to not having an extractor fan or openable windows.
When a tenant commissions an HHS report and fault is found, it is standard for the Tribunal to order reimbursement of the costs of the HHS report from the landlord. If no fault is found, then the cost of the HHS report is not reimbursed by the landlord.
As the premises was found to be non-compliant with HHS, I order the landlord to reimburse the HHS report fee of $287.50 to the tenant. Exemplary damages for the premises failing to meet HHS
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with HHS.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Where the landlord 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 landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the tenant, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The premises had a raft of maintenance issues. From the beginning of the tenancy, the deck outside the lounge had been blocked off from access and was not included in the tenancy.
When the tenant moved in, the tenant sent the landlord a list of maintenance issues on 9 December 2024. The list included a hole in the roof, light fixture hanging by a cable, water pooling downstairs, mould through the basement, mould through the wardrobes, exposed wiring, chandeliers not affixed to the ceiling and gaps between window frame and window in a room.
Some of those maintenance issues were fixed by the landlord but some had not.
The downstairs bathroom fan needed to be installed and 7 contractors had been to see if it could be installed. The tenant was told that it was impossible to install a fan there.
The water cylinder had been leaking from upstairs to the downstairs bathroom area. A plumber had repaired it but the cylinder was found to have been leaking possibly for years before.
There was also another water leak in April 2025 in the small back bedroom and the stairwell.
In May 2025, a pipe under the house broke and caused the driveway to be wet.
In August 2025, the tenant sent the landlord another list of repair requests. Issues included gutters needing to be cleaned, crack in the basement to be reviewed to ensure structural integrity, front entry door not closing properly, gaps on bottom of large glass window causing water to seep through the gaps, glass cracked in the garage and frame warped on window side, cracked window behind the blind by the stairwell and cracked window in the entrance way.
Most importantly, there was a major leak onto the carpet at the top of the stairs. The kitchen window was also leaking from heavy rain and could not be opened for ventilation. Bedroom 1 also had significant mould build up due to leak from shower above. Bedroom 3 had major leak every time it rained. Water leaked through the side door of the house.
The tenant had provided screenshots and videos of the wet carpet and the leaking windows. The tenant had to use multiple large towels to stop the water due to the gap at the bottom of the side door of the house when it rained.
Having seen the videos of the leak and the effects of the dampness, I am not surprised that the property manager agreed to break the fixed-term tenancy earlier and to provide rent relief immediately.
However, I do not find that it is appropriate to order exemplary damages as I do not find that the landlord had intentionally failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard or failed to ensure that the premises was compliant with HHS.
The landlord attended to many of the maintenance issues listed by the tenant on 9 December 2024. The tenant confirmed that the property manager or contractors attended to repair tasks when they arose.
The seven contractors being called to see the feasibility of the downstairs bathroom fan speaks for itself. The water cylinder being fixed, broken pipe being fixed, the hole in the roof being fixed are some of the examples showing that the landlord had not intentionally left things in a bad state.
I find that there are no grounds to award exemplary damages in the circumstances. Rent reduction
Having said that, I find that the premises had water tightness issues from the beginning of the tenancy.
From an online search, it apparently rained 124 days out of 281 days between 9 December 2024 and 16 September 2025.
I acknowledge the inconvenience suffered by the tenant when it rained.
For the 40 weeks between 9 December 2024 and 16 September 2025, I find that the rent should be reduced by 30%. At a rate of $285.00 per week, the total amount to be compensated by the landlord is $11,400.00.
I order the landlord to pay this amount to the tenant as compensation for the loss of full enjoyment of the premises. Moving costs
The tenant also sought moving costs of $2,451.00 from the landlord.
Although I acknowledge that the tenant wished to have stayed on longer if possible, the tenancy was due to end in 3 weeks’ time in any case.
I see no basis for the landlord reimbursing the tenant’s moving costs.
This claim is dismissed. Filing fee reimbursement
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5361324 — net $11,715.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Reimbursement of HHS report	$287.50	Reimbursement of HHS report
Compensation: 30% rent reduction	$11,400.00	30% rent reduction
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,715.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$11,715.50

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 (BN-00005041) to Craig Dyason and Natalie Randall immediately.
Baseden Property Management Limited As Agent D. Rong must pay Craig Dyason and Natalie Randall $11,715.50 immediately.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing on 20 November 2025. The landlord did not.
The landlord had sought an adjournment of the hearing as the property manager involved was unavailable. However, I declined the landlord’s application and asked that another staff appear on behalf of the landlord. However, no one appeared at the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
The tenancy was originally for a fixed term from 9 December 2024 to 23 November 2025. The tenant moved out on 2 November 2025.
On 7 October 2025, the tenant applied for the following: a. Reduction of fixed-term tenancy; b. Refund of the bond; c. Reimbursement of the Healthy Homes Statement (“HHS”) report; d. Exemplary damages for the premises failing to meet HHS; e. Rent reduction; f. Moving costs; and g. Reimbursement of the filing fee.
I deal with each claim in turn. Reduction of the fixed-term tenancy
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The tenant had moved out 21 days earlier than when the fixed term tenancy was originally due to end.
The tenant said that the maintenance issues of the house, especially the water leak in level 2 was so bad that when the property manager saw the video of the water leak in bedroom 3, the property manager said that they would not have rented the premises out to the tenant in the first place had they known. This meeting apparently took place on 25 August 2025.
The tenant said that the property manager had said that there would be no break lease fee, and that the landlord would help out with the move out cost as well.
The tenant gave their notice to not continue with the fixed-term tenancy and move out earlier on 16 September 2025.
From then until 2 November 2025 when the tenant gave the keys back to the landlord ̧ the tenant was given 50% rent reduction by the landlord.
With this background, I find that the landlord has agreed to reduce the fixed- term tenancy to 2 November 2025 due to the condition of the premises.
As such, I do not go into the reduction of the fixed-term tenancy claim as it was reduced by agreement.
If I had gone into the reduction of the fixed-term tenancy claim under section 66 RTA, the tenant would have struggled to establish there was an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances.
The lack of maintenance and the severe leak at the premises was something that had existed almost from day 1 of the tenancy. The maintenance issues are discussed more below. Refund of the bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. By the time of the hearing, the landlord has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) RTA provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim by the time of hearing of this matter, the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. Reimbursement of the HHS report costs
The tenant had suspected that the premises did not meet the HHS due to the condition of the premises. Hence, on the advice of the Tenancy Services, the tenant had commissioned an HHS report on 11 August 2025 at a cost of $287.50.
The HHS report found that the premises failed HHS in: a. heating standard in the upstairs living room; b. draught stopping at the entranceway, top living room, kitchen, bedroom 3 and the hallway; c. drainage; and d. downstairs bathroom due to not having an extractor fan or openable windows.
When a tenant commissions an HHS report and fault is found, it is standard for the Tribunal to order reimbursement of the costs of the HHS report from the landlord. If no fault is found, then the cost of the HHS report is not reimbursed by the landlord.
As the premises was found to be non-compliant with HHS, I order the landlord to reimburse the HHS report fee of $287.50 to the tenant. Exemplary damages for the premises failing to meet HHS
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with HHS.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Where the landlord 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 landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the tenant, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The premises had a raft of maintenance issues. From the beginning of the tenancy, the deck outside the lounge had been blocked off from access and was not included in the tenancy.
When the tenant moved in, the tenant sent the landlord a list of maintenance issues on 9 December 2024. The list included a hole in the roof, light fixture hanging by a cable, water pooling downstairs, mould through the basement, mould through the wardrobes, exposed wiring, chandeliers not affixed to the ceiling and gaps between window frame and window in a room.
Some of those maintenance issues were fixed by the landlord but some had not.
The downstairs bathroom fan needed to be installed and 7 contractors had been to see if it could be installed. The tenant was told that it was impossible to install a fan there.
The water cylinder had been leaking from upstairs to the downstairs bathroom area. A plumber had repaired it but the cylinder was found to have been leaking possibly for years before.
There was also another water leak in April 2025 in the small back bedroom and the stairwell.
In May 2025, a pipe under the house broke and caused the driveway to be wet.
In August 2025, the tenant sent the landlord another list of repair requests. Issues included gutters needing to be cleaned, crack in the basement to be reviewed to ensure structural integrity, front entry door not closing properly, gaps on bottom of large glass window causing water to seep through the gaps, glass cracked in the garage and frame warped on window side, cracked window behind the blind by the stairwell and cracked window in the entrance way.
Most importantly, there was a major leak onto the carpet at the top of the stairs. The kitchen window was also leaking from heavy rain and could not be opened for ventilation. Bedroom 1 also had significant mould build up due to leak from shower above. Bedroom 3 had major leak every time it rained. Water leaked through the side door of the house.
The tenant had provided screenshots and videos of the wet carpet and the leaking windows. The tenant had to use multiple large towels to stop the water due to the gap at the bottom of the side door of the house when it rained.
Having seen the videos of the leak and the effects of the dampness, I am not surprised that the property manager agreed to break the fixed-term tenancy earlier and to provide rent relief immediately.
However, I do not find that it is appropriate to order exemplary damages as I do not find that the landlord had intentionally failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard or failed to ensure that the premises was compliant with HHS.
The landlord attended to many of the maintenance issues listed by the tenant on 9 December 2024. The tenant confirmed that the property manager or contractors attended to repair tasks when they arose.
The seven contractors being called to see the feasibility of the downstairs bathroom fan speaks for itself. The water cylinder being fixed, broken pipe being fixed, the hole in the roof being fixed are some of the examples showing that the landlord had not intentionally left things in a bad state.
I find that there are no grounds to award exemplary damages in the circumstances. Rent reduction
Having said that, I find that the premises had water tightness issues from the beginning of the tenancy.
From an online search, it apparently rained 124 days out of 281 days between 9 December 2024 and 16 September 2025.
I acknowledge the inconvenience suffered by the tenant when it rained.
For the 40 weeks between 9 December 2024 and 16 September 2025, I find that the rent should be reduced by 30%. At a rate of $285.00 per week, the total amount to be compensated by the landlord is $11,400.00.
I order the landlord to pay this amount to the tenant as compensation for the loss of full enjoyment of the premises. Moving costs
The tenant also sought moving costs of $2,451.00 from the landlord.
Although I acknowledge that the tenant wished to have stayed on longer if possible, the tenancy was due to end in 3 weeks’ time in any case.
I see no basis for the landlord reimbursing the tenant’s moving costs.
This claim is dismissed. Filing fee reimbursement
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5361324 — Healthy homes at 29 Rosario Crescent, Red Beach, Red Beach 0932

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5361324 — Healthy homes at 29 Rosario Crescent, Red Beach, Red Beach 0932

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions