What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5366768 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5366768?

Compensation: Fire Impact: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Flooding And Mould: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,880.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5366768?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Mould & damp, Smoke alarms, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5366768?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13349913-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5366768 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5366768?

Compensation: Fire Impact: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Flooding And Mould: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,880.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5366768?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Mould & damp, Smoke alarms, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5366768?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13349913-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

62 Kinross Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5366768 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

62 Kinross Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5366768 — Healthy homes | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5366768 — net $5,758.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS	$2,880.00	Breach of HHS
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide HHS statement	$250.00	Failure to provide HHS statement
Compensation: Flooding and mould	$1,000.00	Flooding and mould
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide smoke alarm	$750.00	Failure to provide smoke alarm
Compensation: Fire impact	$100.00	Fire impact
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$750.00	Failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,758.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,758.00

Claims and awards for application 5366768 — net $5,758.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS

Amount: $2,880.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of HHS

Exemplary damages: Failure to provide HHS statement

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to provide HHS statement

Compensation: Flooding and mould

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Flooding and mould

Exemplary damages: Failure to provide smoke alarm

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to provide smoke alarm

Compensation: Fire impact

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Fire impact

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Replace Smoke Alarms Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants name and identifying details.
Hai Ou Zhang must pay [The tenant/s] $5,758.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS$2,880.00 Exemplary damages: Failure to provide HHS statement $250.00 Compensation: Flooding and mould$1,000.00 Exemplary damages: Failure to provide smoke alarm $750.00 Compensation: Fire impact$100.00 Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond$750.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$5,758.00

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlord. The tenant seeks various orders of compensation and exemplary damages.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 27 March 2023, and was a fixed-term tenancy until 27 March 2024, after that it became a periodic tenancy.
As I will discuss further below, during the tenancy there were various problems that arose, including flooding. The tenant also raises issues regarding various obligations on the landlord around the healthy home standards and smoke alarms, again I will discuss those shortly.
The tenant gave notice in August 2025, and the tenancy ended on 8 September 2025.
A hearing was conducted in the Tribunal, sitting in the Auckland District Court on 25 March 2026. Both the tenant and landlord were in attendance, and the Tribunal also had an interpreter available for each party (two separate interpreters). The parties requested that the hearing be primarily in English, although at times, some of the hearing was interpreted when required by the parties.

TENANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the tenant confirmed his claims are as follows: a. Exemplary damages for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards b. Compensation for a leaking roof and moisture c. Exemplary damage for failure to provide a smoke alarm. d. Compensation for fire impact. e. Exemplary damages for unlawful residential premises. f. Exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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. Exemplary damages
The Tribunal must consider a number of claims for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has 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.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.

ANALYSIS

I will now proceed to consider these six claims advanced by the tenant at the hearing. Claim 1 – Breach of Healthy Homes Standards and failure to provide Healthy Homes statement
The tenant states that there was no Healthy Homes statement provided, and the premises were not compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). The tenant described a number of episodes of flooding from poor drainage which made the carpet damp and mouldy at times. The tenant says there was no fixed hearing provided, and the premises did not have any extraction fans. The tenant is concerned that there was no insulation.
In response, the landlord says that on 28 September 2025 an HHS assessment report was provided. The landlord said: Heating – there was a heater installed (but the landlord was not sure what sort), and a dehumidifier. Moisture ingress – the premises are old, and there were three emergencies due to heavy rain. Ventilation – The landlord confirmed this was installed at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord confirmed that there was no HHS statement provided at the start of the tenancy. Analysis
The tenant has claimed that the landlord has breached her obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provided for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the HHS. A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered as set out in Schedule 1A to the RTA, is $7,200.00. Heating standard:
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS. Generally a qualifying heater will be a heat pump or wood burner.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
In this case, there was no qualifying heater available in the tenancy at any time. It was only after this Tenancy ended that the landlord had an HHS assessment undertaken, from which the requirement for heating was confirmed, and the heat pump was then installed. I find, therefore, the landlord has breached the heating standard. Insulation standard
The Insulation standard requires that the premises have qualifying insulation in the ceiling cavity, and under the floor if the floor is a suspended floor. To be considered ‘qualifying insulation’ the insulation must meet a minimum R value. The insulation must also be in a reasonable condition.
The tenant has raised concerns regarding the insulation standard. I am satisfied this standard has not been breached. The floor to the premises as I understand matters is concrete, so there is no requirement for underfloor insulation. The room above the tenancy was a habitable room, and therefore the landlord did not need insulation between the tenancy ceiling, and the upstairs floor. There is no legal requirement for wall insulation. Ventilation standard:
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity. The issue in this case is the bathroom extraction fan.
In this case there was no extraction fan in the bathroom, it was only after the HHS assessment, that an extraction fan was installed. The landlord has therefore breached the ventilation standard as it relates to a bathroom extractor fan. 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
I find the landlord has breached the moisture ingress and drainage standard. The evidence is that there were a number of floods at the premises, which arose from rainwater coming inside the premises, from blocked drainage. While the Tribunal would accept one episode of blocked drains as perhaps being simple bad luck from blockages, in this case, the tenants estimate that they had around five episodes of flooding, even the landlord suggested there were three. That unquestionably is an indication that there is a fundamental problem with the drainage system. The drainage system did not drain stormwater away from the house as it should have done, which I find is a breach of the standard.
In this case I find there is a breach of three HHS standards, that is, heating, ventilation, and moisture ingress/drainage.
Taking into consideration the section 109 factors, I find that exemplary damages should be ordered. I am not persuaded that the landlord’s decisions were not intentionally made. It is not a defence to say that you did not intend to rent the property, and only did so for financial reasons. Ultimately, the dwelling was rented to the tenant for a one-year period, and once the landlord made the decision to rent the premises, the landlord necessarily takes on the obligations that landlords hold and must comply with the law. There is a wealth of information available to landlords at no charge, confirming their obligations, including around the HHS.
In this case there has been a real impact for the tenants, they have lived in premises that have not had adequate heating, the issues they have faced from the flooding are significant, and because there was no bathroom extractor fan, the premises would be much damper than they should have.
There are strong interests for tenants, and the public generally, that houses are warm, dry and healthy, and compliance with the HHS is an important way in which those interests can be reached.
This is a case where I consider that exemplary damages should be ordered. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered for a breach of the HHS is $7,200.00. In this case I consider an order at 40% of the maximum would be reasonable. I have taken into consideration that the rental for the premises is on the lower end of the scale, and I have also taken into account that there is no evidence before me that this landlord has a history of HHS breaches. But there are three areas of breach. I therefore order exemplary damages of $2,880.00. Failure to provide an HHS statement
There is no dispute that the landlord has not provided an HHS Statement at the start of the tenancy.
Section 13A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 sets out the requirements for tenancy agreements. Subsection (1CA) holds that: The landlord must also include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord,— (a) 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 (b) including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5).
Section 13A(1F) confirms that an unlawful act arises if a landlord fails to comply with section 13A(1CA).
The relevant regulations are the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. Regulation 33 sets out the information that must be provided in a tenancy agreement as being the information set out between regulations 34 to 39. I will not detail that here, but it requires very specific information about heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage. Again this was not provided to the tenants.
Again, I consider that the requirement for an HHS statement is a fundamental obligation on landlords, and I accept that the landlords’ decisions around what information was provided were intentional. I note here that the tenancy agreement is the standard form tenancy agreement from Tenancy Services (MBIE), and if the landlord had completed the entire agreement, then that would have included the insulation statement.
There is a demonstrable effect for the tenants, because it appears that they were not aware of the HHS obligations that the landlord had toward them; indeed, if the landlord had completed the HHS statement, then it may well be that the premises were provided in a way that complied with the HHS.
There are very strong interests for tenants and the public generally that houses be warm dry and healthy, and again the HHS statement is a part of the scheme to achieve that.
It would be just to make an order in this case.
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered for failure to provide an HHS statement is $750.00, in this case an order at 1/3 of that maximum would be reasonable. I therefore order $250.00 to be paid by the landlord. Claim 2 – Compensation for leaking and mould
The tenant reports that during the tenancy there was flooding which particularly impacted the children’s bedroom. The carpet was very wet and mushrooms grew. The tenants said there were around five water leaks inside from rainwater, due to a blocked drain, and the water would come in from the kitchen. The tenants said that the landlord provided sandbags to address the issue. With one leak the landlord did provide some rent compensation for one week. But the tenants needed to live in one bedroom for a few weeks.
In response, the landlord states that her husband cleaned the carpet at the time in 2023 otherwise the external water ingress occurred when a drain blocked. In 2025 there was a rupture to a pipe in the kitchen, it was being caught in a bowl, but that bowl overflowed. There was a rent reduction, and the carpet was changed. Analysis
Having heard from the tenant, and considering the information available on the file, I accept that the premises were damp, that would be plain from the extent of flooding that has occurred. I also accept that the premises were mouldy, which is a natural consequence of the dampness.
The landlord has provided some level of rent compensation, but taking into consideration the impact for the tenants, I consider that to be too low. It is difficult to quantify what the precise loss for the tenants would have been; the best I can do is step back and reach a figure that I consider would be fair in the circumstances. I have determined that compensation at $1,000.00 would be reasonable, and that is ordered. I note the weekly rental is $500.00, so in effect, the tenants are compensated for an additional two weeks of their rental. Claim 3 – Failure to provide smoke alarms
The tenants say there were no smoke alarms in the premises at any time.
The landlord accepts that there were no smoke alarms in the premises, because they were not intending to rent the property, they only did so for financial reasons. The landlord says further that she is not a professional for renting purposes. The landlord says that the tenants did not ask for smoke alarms. Analysis
Section 45(1)(ba) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that landlords comply with all requirements in relation to smoke alarms made under section 138A.
The relevant regulations are the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. Those regulations require landlords to have qualifying smoke alarms installed and operational.
Regulation 5 requires that there be at least 1 qualifying smoke alarm installed: a. Within a sleeping space (bedroom); or b. Within 3 metres of the entrance to a sleeping space; AND c. On each story or level of the premises.
The evidence is that there was no smoke alarm in the tenancy, but when the tenancy ended, and the landlord had the HHS assessment completed, a smoke alarm was installed. The risk that presented for the tenants was obvious; in this case, there was a fire in the upper level, it is very fortunate that the fire was not more extensive than it was. However, the landlord has breached her obligation in relation to smoke alarms.
The landlord has made intentional decisions as far as the Tenancy is concerned, she has not provided any compelling explanation why she has not complied with her smoke alarm obligations.
The effect for the tenants is a significant one, because they were at risk of significant harm or death, in the event of a fire. Smoke alarms save lives.
There are very strong interests for tenants, landlords, and the public generally that residential dwellings have smoke alarms, so is to reduce the risk of fire-related harm.
It would be just to make an order.
The provision under which the exemplary damages is ordered is section 45. As seen above, I have already made an order of 40% of the maximum for the HHS breachers. I must take that into consideration, and have determined that exemplary damages of 10% of the maximum should be ordered, being $750.00. 1 1 See Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583 Claim 4 – Compensation for fire
The tenants say that on 4 May 2025 there was a fire upstairs, which the tenants believe was from cooking from the upstairs tenant. Because of the fire, there was no power for a night, and neither was there any internet connection. The tenants became concerned because of the ageing wires. However, the tenants confirmed they did not have any of their belongings damaged.
The landlord did not dispute there was a fire, but confirmed that she contacted the power company. An electrician attended, and the necessary remediation works were undertaken. Analysis
Compensation is ordered, to make right a loss sustained by the person. In this case, the loss for the tenant is reasonably modest, and probably extends only to the loss of electricity for a day, and then the inconvenience that arose with that. I consider that compensation at $100 would be reasonable. Claim 5 – Unlawful residential premises
The tenant said that they are not sure that the premises are unlawful residential premises, but they did ask the landlord to provide the Code of Compliance Certificate, but that was not provided. The document was only received the night prior to the hearing. The certificate did not say the premises could be used as a residential tenancy.
The landlord’s position is that the premises have obtained a Code of Compliance certificate. Analysis
The Tribunal can make orders if the premises are unlawful residential premises, meaning that they cannot be used for residential use.
In this case the landlord has provided the building consent information, which confirms that while it was originally a garage, it was properly converted into residential rooms, from which a council Code of Compliance certificate was issued. To that extent, the evidence points to the premises being lawful, and therefore, this application is dismissed. Claim 6 – Failure to lodge bond
The tenants say they paid $2,000.00 at the start of the tenancy for the bond. The tenants confirm that the bond was ultimately repaid, but that was only after a process where the landlord required that they undertake a range of work to the premises first, including extensive cleaning.
The landlord confirmed that the bond was not lodged in the Bond Centre, saying that she did not know it needed to be lodged. The landlord says the full bond was returned at the end of the tenancy. The landlord agrees that cleaning was needed at the tenancy. Analysis
The tenant claims exemplary damages on the basis that the landlord has breached section 19 of the RTA, for failing to lodge the bond with the Chief Executive.
Section 19 of the RTA sets out the “Duties of landlord on receipt of bond”, and confirms that the landlord: shall, within 23 working days after the payment is made, forward the amount received to the chief executive, together with a statement of particulars in the approved form signed by the landlord and the tenant.
For the purposes of this provision, the bond is considered to be lodged with the Chief Executive, by lodging the bond with the Bond Centre.
Section 19(2) of the RTA confirms that failure to lodge the bond following the section 19 requirements is declared to be an unlawful Act, and therefore could be the subject of an order of exemplary damages.
There is no dispute that the bond was not lodged in this case.
I do not accept that the landlord would have been unaware of obligations around the bond, noting again that the standard form tenancy agreement was used, which confirms that bonds must be lodged. For example, the current version of the standard form agreement says “ If a bond is paid, it must be lodged with Tenancy Services within 23 working days of being paid.”
The impact for the tenant was that the bond was not kept in trust, and at the end of the tenancy they needed to undertake various actions demanded by the landlord, in order to get the bond back. That should not have occurred, if there was a dispute, the matter should’ve come to the Tenancy Tribunal, the tenant should not need to comply with the wishes of the landlord simply to get the bond, which is their money, returned.
There are strong interests for tenants, landlords, and the public generally that the bond system be robust, which requires that bonds be lodged. It would be just to make an order.
The maximum level of century damages that can be ordered for failing to lodge the bond is $1,500.00. In this case, I conclude that in order at 50% of the maximum would be reasonable, taking him to consideration the difficulty the tenant had in getting the bond paid at the end of the tenancy.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been partly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable, therefore, to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the tenant has been substantially successful in the application, so tenant name suppression is ordered.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5366768 — net $5,758.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS	$2,880.00	Breach of HHS
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide HHS statement	$250.00	Failure to provide HHS statement
Compensation: Flooding and mould	$1,000.00	Flooding and mould
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide smoke alarm	$750.00	Failure to provide smoke alarm
Compensation: Fire impact	$100.00	Fire impact
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$750.00	Failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,758.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,758.00

Claims and awards for application 5366768 — net $5,758.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS

Amount: $2,880.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of HHS

Exemplary damages: Failure to provide HHS statement

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to provide HHS statement

Compensation: Flooding and mould

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Flooding and mould

Exemplary damages: Failure to provide smoke alarm

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to provide smoke alarm

Compensation: Fire impact

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Fire impact

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Replace Smoke Alarms Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants name and identifying details.
Hai Ou Zhang must pay [The tenant/s] $5,758.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS$2,880.00 Exemplary damages: Failure to provide HHS statement $250.00 Compensation: Flooding and mould$1,000.00 Exemplary damages: Failure to provide smoke alarm $750.00 Compensation: Fire impact$100.00 Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond$750.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$5,758.00

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlord. The tenant seeks various orders of compensation and exemplary damages.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 27 March 2023, and was a fixed-term tenancy until 27 March 2024, after that it became a periodic tenancy.
As I will discuss further below, during the tenancy there were various problems that arose, including flooding. The tenant also raises issues regarding various obligations on the landlord around the healthy home standards and smoke alarms, again I will discuss those shortly.
The tenant gave notice in August 2025, and the tenancy ended on 8 September 2025.
A hearing was conducted in the Tribunal, sitting in the Auckland District Court on 25 March 2026. Both the tenant and landlord were in attendance, and the Tribunal also had an interpreter available for each party (two separate interpreters). The parties requested that the hearing be primarily in English, although at times, some of the hearing was interpreted when required by the parties.

TENANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the tenant confirmed his claims are as follows: a. Exemplary damages for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards b. Compensation for a leaking roof and moisture c. Exemplary damage for failure to provide a smoke alarm. d. Compensation for fire impact. e. Exemplary damages for unlawful residential premises. f. Exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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. Exemplary damages
The Tribunal must consider a number of claims for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has 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.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.

ANALYSIS

I will now proceed to consider these six claims advanced by the tenant at the hearing. Claim 1 – Breach of Healthy Homes Standards and failure to provide Healthy Homes statement
The tenant states that there was no Healthy Homes statement provided, and the premises were not compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). The tenant described a number of episodes of flooding from poor drainage which made the carpet damp and mouldy at times. The tenant says there was no fixed hearing provided, and the premises did not have any extraction fans. The tenant is concerned that there was no insulation.
In response, the landlord says that on 28 September 2025 an HHS assessment report was provided. The landlord said: Heating – there was a heater installed (but the landlord was not sure what sort), and a dehumidifier. Moisture ingress – the premises are old, and there were three emergencies due to heavy rain. Ventilation – The landlord confirmed this was installed at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord confirmed that there was no HHS statement provided at the start of the tenancy. Analysis
The tenant has claimed that the landlord has breached her obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provided for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the HHS. A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered as set out in Schedule 1A to the RTA, is $7,200.00. Heating standard:
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS. Generally a qualifying heater will be a heat pump or wood burner.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
In this case, there was no qualifying heater available in the tenancy at any time. It was only after this Tenancy ended that the landlord had an HHS assessment undertaken, from which the requirement for heating was confirmed, and the heat pump was then installed. I find, therefore, the landlord has breached the heating standard. Insulation standard
The Insulation standard requires that the premises have qualifying insulation in the ceiling cavity, and under the floor if the floor is a suspended floor. To be considered ‘qualifying insulation’ the insulation must meet a minimum R value. The insulation must also be in a reasonable condition.
The tenant has raised concerns regarding the insulation standard. I am satisfied this standard has not been breached. The floor to the premises as I understand matters is concrete, so there is no requirement for underfloor insulation. The room above the tenancy was a habitable room, and therefore the landlord did not need insulation between the tenancy ceiling, and the upstairs floor. There is no legal requirement for wall insulation. Ventilation standard:
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity. The issue in this case is the bathroom extraction fan.
In this case there was no extraction fan in the bathroom, it was only after the HHS assessment, that an extraction fan was installed. The landlord has therefore breached the ventilation standard as it relates to a bathroom extractor fan. 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
I find the landlord has breached the moisture ingress and drainage standard. The evidence is that there were a number of floods at the premises, which arose from rainwater coming inside the premises, from blocked drainage. While the Tribunal would accept one episode of blocked drains as perhaps being simple bad luck from blockages, in this case, the tenants estimate that they had around five episodes of flooding, even the landlord suggested there were three. That unquestionably is an indication that there is a fundamental problem with the drainage system. The drainage system did not drain stormwater away from the house as it should have done, which I find is a breach of the standard.
In this case I find there is a breach of three HHS standards, that is, heating, ventilation, and moisture ingress/drainage.
Taking into consideration the section 109 factors, I find that exemplary damages should be ordered. I am not persuaded that the landlord’s decisions were not intentionally made. It is not a defence to say that you did not intend to rent the property, and only did so for financial reasons. Ultimately, the dwelling was rented to the tenant for a one-year period, and once the landlord made the decision to rent the premises, the landlord necessarily takes on the obligations that landlords hold and must comply with the law. There is a wealth of information available to landlords at no charge, confirming their obligations, including around the HHS.
In this case there has been a real impact for the tenants, they have lived in premises that have not had adequate heating, the issues they have faced from the flooding are significant, and because there was no bathroom extractor fan, the premises would be much damper than they should have.
There are strong interests for tenants, and the public generally, that houses are warm, dry and healthy, and compliance with the HHS is an important way in which those interests can be reached.
This is a case where I consider that exemplary damages should be ordered. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered for a breach of the HHS is $7,200.00. In this case I consider an order at 40% of the maximum would be reasonable. I have taken into consideration that the rental for the premises is on the lower end of the scale, and I have also taken into account that there is no evidence before me that this landlord has a history of HHS breaches. But there are three areas of breach. I therefore order exemplary damages of $2,880.00. Failure to provide an HHS statement
There is no dispute that the landlord has not provided an HHS Statement at the start of the tenancy.
Section 13A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 sets out the requirements for tenancy agreements. Subsection (1CA) holds that: The landlord must also include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord,— (a) 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 (b) including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5).
Section 13A(1F) confirms that an unlawful act arises if a landlord fails to comply with section 13A(1CA).
The relevant regulations are the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. Regulation 33 sets out the information that must be provided in a tenancy agreement as being the information set out between regulations 34 to 39. I will not detail that here, but it requires very specific information about heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage. Again this was not provided to the tenants.
Again, I consider that the requirement for an HHS statement is a fundamental obligation on landlords, and I accept that the landlords’ decisions around what information was provided were intentional. I note here that the tenancy agreement is the standard form tenancy agreement from Tenancy Services (MBIE), and if the landlord had completed the entire agreement, then that would have included the insulation statement.
There is a demonstrable effect for the tenants, because it appears that they were not aware of the HHS obligations that the landlord had toward them; indeed, if the landlord had completed the HHS statement, then it may well be that the premises were provided in a way that complied with the HHS.
There are very strong interests for tenants and the public generally that houses be warm dry and healthy, and again the HHS statement is a part of the scheme to achieve that.
It would be just to make an order in this case.
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered for failure to provide an HHS statement is $750.00, in this case an order at 1/3 of that maximum would be reasonable. I therefore order $250.00 to be paid by the landlord. Claim 2 – Compensation for leaking and mould
The tenant reports that during the tenancy there was flooding which particularly impacted the children’s bedroom. The carpet was very wet and mushrooms grew. The tenants said there were around five water leaks inside from rainwater, due to a blocked drain, and the water would come in from the kitchen. The tenants said that the landlord provided sandbags to address the issue. With one leak the landlord did provide some rent compensation for one week. But the tenants needed to live in one bedroom for a few weeks.
In response, the landlord states that her husband cleaned the carpet at the time in 2023 otherwise the external water ingress occurred when a drain blocked. In 2025 there was a rupture to a pipe in the kitchen, it was being caught in a bowl, but that bowl overflowed. There was a rent reduction, and the carpet was changed. Analysis
Having heard from the tenant, and considering the information available on the file, I accept that the premises were damp, that would be plain from the extent of flooding that has occurred. I also accept that the premises were mouldy, which is a natural consequence of the dampness.
The landlord has provided some level of rent compensation, but taking into consideration the impact for the tenants, I consider that to be too low. It is difficult to quantify what the precise loss for the tenants would have been; the best I can do is step back and reach a figure that I consider would be fair in the circumstances. I have determined that compensation at $1,000.00 would be reasonable, and that is ordered. I note the weekly rental is $500.00, so in effect, the tenants are compensated for an additional two weeks of their rental. Claim 3 – Failure to provide smoke alarms
The tenants say there were no smoke alarms in the premises at any time.
The landlord accepts that there were no smoke alarms in the premises, because they were not intending to rent the property, they only did so for financial reasons. The landlord says further that she is not a professional for renting purposes. The landlord says that the tenants did not ask for smoke alarms. Analysis
Section 45(1)(ba) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that landlords comply with all requirements in relation to smoke alarms made under section 138A.
The relevant regulations are the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. Those regulations require landlords to have qualifying smoke alarms installed and operational.
Regulation 5 requires that there be at least 1 qualifying smoke alarm installed: a. Within a sleeping space (bedroom); or b. Within 3 metres of the entrance to a sleeping space; AND c. On each story or level of the premises.
The evidence is that there was no smoke alarm in the tenancy, but when the tenancy ended, and the landlord had the HHS assessment completed, a smoke alarm was installed. The risk that presented for the tenants was obvious; in this case, there was a fire in the upper level, it is very fortunate that the fire was not more extensive than it was. However, the landlord has breached her obligation in relation to smoke alarms.
The landlord has made intentional decisions as far as the Tenancy is concerned, she has not provided any compelling explanation why she has not complied with her smoke alarm obligations.
The effect for the tenants is a significant one, because they were at risk of significant harm or death, in the event of a fire. Smoke alarms save lives.
There are very strong interests for tenants, landlords, and the public generally that residential dwellings have smoke alarms, so is to reduce the risk of fire-related harm.
It would be just to make an order.
The provision under which the exemplary damages is ordered is section 45. As seen above, I have already made an order of 40% of the maximum for the HHS breachers. I must take that into consideration, and have determined that exemplary damages of 10% of the maximum should be ordered, being $750.00. 1 1 See Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583 Claim 4 – Compensation for fire
The tenants say that on 4 May 2025 there was a fire upstairs, which the tenants believe was from cooking from the upstairs tenant. Because of the fire, there was no power for a night, and neither was there any internet connection. The tenants became concerned because of the ageing wires. However, the tenants confirmed they did not have any of their belongings damaged.
The landlord did not dispute there was a fire, but confirmed that she contacted the power company. An electrician attended, and the necessary remediation works were undertaken. Analysis
Compensation is ordered, to make right a loss sustained by the person. In this case, the loss for the tenant is reasonably modest, and probably extends only to the loss of electricity for a day, and then the inconvenience that arose with that. I consider that compensation at $100 would be reasonable. Claim 5 – Unlawful residential premises
The tenant said that they are not sure that the premises are unlawful residential premises, but they did ask the landlord to provide the Code of Compliance Certificate, but that was not provided. The document was only received the night prior to the hearing. The certificate did not say the premises could be used as a residential tenancy.
The landlord’s position is that the premises have obtained a Code of Compliance certificate. Analysis
The Tribunal can make orders if the premises are unlawful residential premises, meaning that they cannot be used for residential use.
In this case the landlord has provided the building consent information, which confirms that while it was originally a garage, it was properly converted into residential rooms, from which a council Code of Compliance certificate was issued. To that extent, the evidence points to the premises being lawful, and therefore, this application is dismissed. Claim 6 – Failure to lodge bond
The tenants say they paid $2,000.00 at the start of the tenancy for the bond. The tenants confirm that the bond was ultimately repaid, but that was only after a process where the landlord required that they undertake a range of work to the premises first, including extensive cleaning.
The landlord confirmed that the bond was not lodged in the Bond Centre, saying that she did not know it needed to be lodged. The landlord says the full bond was returned at the end of the tenancy. The landlord agrees that cleaning was needed at the tenancy. Analysis
The tenant claims exemplary damages on the basis that the landlord has breached section 19 of the RTA, for failing to lodge the bond with the Chief Executive.
Section 19 of the RTA sets out the “Duties of landlord on receipt of bond”, and confirms that the landlord: shall, within 23 working days after the payment is made, forward the amount received to the chief executive, together with a statement of particulars in the approved form signed by the landlord and the tenant.
For the purposes of this provision, the bond is considered to be lodged with the Chief Executive, by lodging the bond with the Bond Centre.
Section 19(2) of the RTA confirms that failure to lodge the bond following the section 19 requirements is declared to be an unlawful Act, and therefore could be the subject of an order of exemplary damages.
There is no dispute that the bond was not lodged in this case.
I do not accept that the landlord would have been unaware of obligations around the bond, noting again that the standard form tenancy agreement was used, which confirms that bonds must be lodged. For example, the current version of the standard form agreement says “ If a bond is paid, it must be lodged with Tenancy Services within 23 working days of being paid.”
The impact for the tenant was that the bond was not kept in trust, and at the end of the tenancy they needed to undertake various actions demanded by the landlord, in order to get the bond back. That should not have occurred, if there was a dispute, the matter should’ve come to the Tenancy Tribunal, the tenant should not need to comply with the wishes of the landlord simply to get the bond, which is their money, returned.
There are strong interests for tenants, landlords, and the public generally that the bond system be robust, which requires that bonds be lodged. It would be just to make an order.
The maximum level of century damages that can be ordered for failing to lodge the bond is $1,500.00. In this case, I conclude that in order at 50% of the maximum would be reasonable, taking him to consideration the difficulty the tenant had in getting the bond paid at the end of the tenancy.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been partly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable, therefore, to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the tenant has been substantially successful in the application, so tenant name suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5366768 — Healthy homes at 62 Kinross Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5366768 — Healthy homes at 62 Kinross Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions