What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5369841 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 5369841?

Compensation: Failure to comply with…: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent In Advance Refund: $1,040.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5369841?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5369841?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13223229-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5369841 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 5369841?

Compensation: Failure to comply with…: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent In Advance Refund: $1,040.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5369841?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5369841?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13223229-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

38 Bracken Road, Paparangi, Wellington 6037 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5369841 — Leaks

Tenantcheck Insights

38 Bracken Road, Paparangi, Wellington 6037 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5369841 — Leaks | 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 5369841 — net $3,908.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund	$1,040.00	Bond refund
Rent in advance refund	$1,040.00	Rent in advance refund
Compensation: Failure to repair kitchen roof leak	$1,200.00	Failure to repair kitchen roof leak
Compensation: Failure to comply with Healthy Homes ventilation standard	$600.00	Failure to comply with Healthy Homes ventilation standard
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$3,908.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,908.00

Claims and awards for application 5369841 — net $3,908.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Bond refund

Amount: $1,040.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Bond refund

Rent in advance refund

Amount: $1,040.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Rent in advance refund

Compensation: Failure to repair kitchen roof leak

Amount: $1,200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to repair kitchen roof leak

Compensation: Failure to comply with Healthy Homes ventilation standard

Amount: $600.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to comply with Healthy Homes ventilation standard

Filing fee

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee

Dismissed claims

Healthy Homes Standards — Has the landlord breached healthy homes obligations?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Property damage Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Sarita Singh and Pawan Singh must pay [The tenant/s] $3,908.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants seek the following: a. refund of the bond and rent paid in advance; b. compensation for failing to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre; c. compensation for failing to maintain the premises with respect to water leaks and eradicating rats and mice; d. compensation for failing to comply with Healthy Homes ventilation standards; e. compensation for unlawful entry and breach of privacy.
Any party bringing a claim to the Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim. The Tenancy Tribunal applies a civil standard of proof, determining matters on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each applicant must prove that it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be supported by other acceptable evidence. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents such as emails, texts, and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden.
This was a fixed term which tenancy began on 27 February 2025 and was to end on 27 October 2025. However, by mutual agreement the tenancy ended on 27 September 2025.
The landlord prepared a tenancy agreement which was emailed to the tenants. The tenants say that they signed the tenancy agreement at the landlord’s home but never received a signed copy. The landlords dispute that the tenants signed the agreement. However, both parties agreed that the unsigned copy of the tenancy agreement represented the terms agreed. Therefore the terms of the agreement are enforceable. See section 13C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). No tenancy agreement shall be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing or not signed by the parties.
There was some initial confusion as to the amount paid for bond and rent in advance. However, it was accepted at the hearing that the tenancy agreement stipulated that two weeks’ rent was payable as a bond and 2 weeks rent was payable in advance.

Are the tenants entitled to refund of bond and rent in advance?

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. 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 the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
The tenants also established at the hearing that the two weeks rent in advance they paid before the tenancy began was not applied to rent during the term of the tenancy. This amount is also to be refunded to the tenants. Failure to lodge bond at the Bond Centre
It is not disputed that the landlords did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA. Section 109(1) RTA requires a party to specifically apply for exemplary damages before the Tribunal can consider such an award.
The landlords said that the tenants agreed to them retaining the bond until the end of the tenancy. However, as I explained at the hearing, while landlords may voluntarily agree to more extensive obligations than those imposed by the RTA, they may not contract out of the standard obligations under the RTA, even if the tenants agree. Tenants may not voluntarily waive their rights under the RTA at all. See section 11 RTA.
A landlord’s obligation regarding lodgement of bonds is of the upmost importance because bond money belongs to tenants and must be held securely until the tenancy ends. Bond money must be returned to the tenant at the end of the tenancy unless the landlord proves that they have a valid claim against the bond. If landlords were able to evade this obligation, bond money would be unsecured and at risk.
The tenants seek compensation for the landlord’s breach. They did not specifically apply for exemplary damages. Therefore I cannot consider exemplary damages.
Compensation is designed to compensate a party for loss. It is a well-accepted principle when awarding compensation that, so far as money can do it, the injured party shall be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement.
In this case, the tenants have not suffered any direct financial loss as a result of the failure to lodge the bond. Therefore, I consider that compensation is not appropriate. Had the tenants sought exemplary damages, I would have considered them and there is a strong likelihood that I would have made an award. Exemplary damages are designed to be a fine or penalty imposed to punish, deter and to mark disapproval of the conduct. They are not designed to compensate a party for loss suffered.

Has the landlord breached their maintenance obligations?

Under section 45(1)(b), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligations to maintain under section 45 is to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to fix problems at the premises. I address each claim in turn.
Water leak on the bedroom floor adjacent to the ensuite bathroom: The tenants produced photos showing water had seeped into the carpet of the bedroom adjacent to the ensuite. They had noticed a damp smell and then discovered the patch of water underneath a portable cupboard they had placed in the area. They reported the matter to the landlords on or about 10 June 2025. The landlord gave them a dehumidifier to dry out the area. The landlord says that they tried several times to have their plumber attend to investigate but each time someone was sleeping in the bedroom and they could not gain access. The tenants say that the landlord failed to give them advance notice of the visits. While the dehumidifier dried out the area, the tenants claim water continued to seep into the floor.
After the tenancy ended, the landlord says their plumber opened up the wall and did not find any leak. They believe that the tenants caused the problem when using the bathroom by water overflowing from the shower or basin onto the floor. They say that the area has remained dry since the tenancy ended.
After careful consideration, I am not satisfied that the tenants have proved there was a defect with the premises causing a leak for which the landlord was responsible. Therefore the claim is dismissed.
Roof leak in the kitchen: The tenants reported water dripping through the kitchen ceiling when it rained. They produced a video of the leak taken on 4 April 2025. They say this was never fixed and it continued to drip whenever it rained during the tenancy. They placed a bucket underneath to catch the water which was inconvenient and created a damp smelling environment.
The landlords say that the location of the premises is in a high wind area and when it rains, leaks happen. They also confirmed that the roof pitch is defective causing drainage problems and they have received advice from a builder and their insurer that the roof requires replacement. The landlord says the roof only leaked in heavy rain. The landlord did provide an adequate explanation as to why they have not fixed the roof or at least carried out some temporary fix to prevent the leak into the kitchen.
The tenants claim that the kitchen roof leaked and was never fixed by the landlord during the tenancy is proved. This is a breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations and the tenants are entitled to compensation for the breach.
This Tribunal has ruled in previous cases that as a general proposition a leak is a serious matter and must be repaired promptly. Leaks go to the very essence of a tenant’s right to the use and enjoyment of the premises in consideration of the rent that the tenant pays. A leak is not a mere inconvenience; it creates an undesirable and unhealthy living environment.
Having regard to all relevant factors, I assess that an award of $1,200 is justified. To give some guidance as to how I have reached this figure, it equates to a rent reduction of approximately $200 per month during the approximate 6 month period during which the leaks into the kitchen occurred. However, I have made this a global award to compensate the tenant overall for the inconvenience and impact of the leaks noting that there would be times when it rained more or less each month.
Mice at the premises: The tenants complain that they had a problem with mice at the premises on 2 occasions which they reported to the landlord and they do not believe was addressed. They say that the landlord was using a room located near their premises for food preparation which they believe may have caused the mice problem.
The landlord says that she had the premises sprayed inside and out and was not notified of any continuing problem by the tenants.
I am not satisfied on the evidence that the tenants have proved that there was a persistent problem, which was not addressed by the landlord, and the claim is dismissed.

Has the landlord breached healthy homes obligations?

Under section 45(1)(bb) RTA, a landlord must comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The compliance date for this tenancy was 27 June 2025 (within 120 days of the tenancy start date).
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard. The ventilation standard requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity and be vented to the exterior.
I accept on the evidence presented at the hearing that the fan provided in the kitchen is portable and does not vent to the outside and there is no extractor fan in the bathroom. These are both breaches of the HHS.
The landlord suggests that there would have been little impact on the tenant because the kitchen and bathroom both have opening windows to ventilate the areas. However the fact that there are opening windows in the areas is irrelevant. Strict compliance is required.
I consider the landlord cannot plead confusion, lack of knowledge, or ignorance of the law. In TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl 1 , where the landlord claimed not to be fully aware of his obligations, the District Court held: “Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.”
Where a party fails to carry out a legal requirement because they are unaware of the particular obligation they have failed to perform, ignorance of the law is no defence. They are deemed to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional.
The tenants were paying for a home that was required to meet the HHS by 27 June 2025 but it did not. That is a loss of amenity which entitles them to compensation. For the 3-month period of the tenancy without a compliant kitchen and bathroom extractor fan, I award $600 which I consider justified.

Has the landlord entered the premises unlawfully?

A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
The tenants say they came home to find the landlord’s builder installing a cabinet in the kitchen without their knowledge. The landlord says one of the tenants was there when the cabinet was installed. The tenant said he came home to find the builder there and then helped with the installation.
While the landlord should make sure prior notice is given in accordance with s48 and may not have done so on this occasion, it appears to be a one-off incident. Given that the tenant helped with the installation and did not raise the issue until now, I do not think the breach justifies an award of compensation. 1 TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 Has the landlord breached the tenants’ privacy and quiet enjoyment?
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
The landlord installed a security camera on the carport roof directly outside the entrance to the premises without the tenants’ knowledge or consent. They believe this is a violation of their privacy. However, they never raised this issue with the landlords during the tenancy.
The landlords live next door to the premises and share the use of the driveway to the premises. They park their food truck in the driveway and installed the security camera so that it was pointed towards the truck as a security measure. They say the camera was not pointed at the premises and the tenants never raised any issue about the security camera with them.
I am not satisfied that a breach of privacy or quiet enjoyment in the use of the premises has been proved. However, I caution the landlord that they should notify a tenant if they want to erect a security camera near the premises so that there is transparency about the purpose of it.
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims, they are entitled to suppression of their names and identifying details as requested, and to reimbursement of the filing fee.

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 5369841 — net $3,908.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund	$1,040.00	Bond refund
Rent in advance refund	$1,040.00	Rent in advance refund
Compensation: Failure to repair kitchen roof leak	$1,200.00	Failure to repair kitchen roof leak
Compensation: Failure to comply with Healthy Homes ventilation standard	$600.00	Failure to comply with Healthy Homes ventilation standard
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$3,908.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,908.00

Claims and awards for application 5369841 — net $3,908.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Bond refund

Amount: $1,040.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Bond refund

Rent in advance refund

Amount: $1,040.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Rent in advance refund

Compensation: Failure to repair kitchen roof leak

Amount: $1,200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to repair kitchen roof leak

Compensation: Failure to comply with Healthy Homes ventilation standard

Amount: $600.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to comply with Healthy Homes ventilation standard

Filing fee

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee

Dismissed claims

Healthy Homes Standards — Has the landlord breached healthy homes obligations?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Property damage Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Sarita Singh and Pawan Singh must pay [The tenant/s] $3,908.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants seek the following: a. refund of the bond and rent paid in advance; b. compensation for failing to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre; c. compensation for failing to maintain the premises with respect to water leaks and eradicating rats and mice; d. compensation for failing to comply with Healthy Homes ventilation standards; e. compensation for unlawful entry and breach of privacy.
Any party bringing a claim to the Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim. The Tenancy Tribunal applies a civil standard of proof, determining matters on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each applicant must prove that it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be supported by other acceptable evidence. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents such as emails, texts, and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden.
This was a fixed term which tenancy began on 27 February 2025 and was to end on 27 October 2025. However, by mutual agreement the tenancy ended on 27 September 2025.
The landlord prepared a tenancy agreement which was emailed to the tenants. The tenants say that they signed the tenancy agreement at the landlord’s home but never received a signed copy. The landlords dispute that the tenants signed the agreement. However, both parties agreed that the unsigned copy of the tenancy agreement represented the terms agreed. Therefore the terms of the agreement are enforceable. See section 13C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). No tenancy agreement shall be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing or not signed by the parties.
There was some initial confusion as to the amount paid for bond and rent in advance. However, it was accepted at the hearing that the tenancy agreement stipulated that two weeks’ rent was payable as a bond and 2 weeks rent was payable in advance.

Are the tenants entitled to refund of bond and rent in advance?

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. 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 the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
The tenants also established at the hearing that the two weeks rent in advance they paid before the tenancy began was not applied to rent during the term of the tenancy. This amount is also to be refunded to the tenants. Failure to lodge bond at the Bond Centre
It is not disputed that the landlords did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA. Section 109(1) RTA requires a party to specifically apply for exemplary damages before the Tribunal can consider such an award.
The landlords said that the tenants agreed to them retaining the bond until the end of the tenancy. However, as I explained at the hearing, while landlords may voluntarily agree to more extensive obligations than those imposed by the RTA, they may not contract out of the standard obligations under the RTA, even if the tenants agree. Tenants may not voluntarily waive their rights under the RTA at all. See section 11 RTA.
A landlord’s obligation regarding lodgement of bonds is of the upmost importance because bond money belongs to tenants and must be held securely until the tenancy ends. Bond money must be returned to the tenant at the end of the tenancy unless the landlord proves that they have a valid claim against the bond. If landlords were able to evade this obligation, bond money would be unsecured and at risk.
The tenants seek compensation for the landlord’s breach. They did not specifically apply for exemplary damages. Therefore I cannot consider exemplary damages.
Compensation is designed to compensate a party for loss. It is a well-accepted principle when awarding compensation that, so far as money can do it, the injured party shall be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement.
In this case, the tenants have not suffered any direct financial loss as a result of the failure to lodge the bond. Therefore, I consider that compensation is not appropriate. Had the tenants sought exemplary damages, I would have considered them and there is a strong likelihood that I would have made an award. Exemplary damages are designed to be a fine or penalty imposed to punish, deter and to mark disapproval of the conduct. They are not designed to compensate a party for loss suffered.

Has the landlord breached their maintenance obligations?

Under section 45(1)(b), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligations to maintain under section 45 is to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to fix problems at the premises. I address each claim in turn.
Water leak on the bedroom floor adjacent to the ensuite bathroom: The tenants produced photos showing water had seeped into the carpet of the bedroom adjacent to the ensuite. They had noticed a damp smell and then discovered the patch of water underneath a portable cupboard they had placed in the area. They reported the matter to the landlords on or about 10 June 2025. The landlord gave them a dehumidifier to dry out the area. The landlord says that they tried several times to have their plumber attend to investigate but each time someone was sleeping in the bedroom and they could not gain access. The tenants say that the landlord failed to give them advance notice of the visits. While the dehumidifier dried out the area, the tenants claim water continued to seep into the floor.
After the tenancy ended, the landlord says their plumber opened up the wall and did not find any leak. They believe that the tenants caused the problem when using the bathroom by water overflowing from the shower or basin onto the floor. They say that the area has remained dry since the tenancy ended.
After careful consideration, I am not satisfied that the tenants have proved there was a defect with the premises causing a leak for which the landlord was responsible. Therefore the claim is dismissed.
Roof leak in the kitchen: The tenants reported water dripping through the kitchen ceiling when it rained. They produced a video of the leak taken on 4 April 2025. They say this was never fixed and it continued to drip whenever it rained during the tenancy. They placed a bucket underneath to catch the water which was inconvenient and created a damp smelling environment.
The landlords say that the location of the premises is in a high wind area and when it rains, leaks happen. They also confirmed that the roof pitch is defective causing drainage problems and they have received advice from a builder and their insurer that the roof requires replacement. The landlord says the roof only leaked in heavy rain. The landlord did provide an adequate explanation as to why they have not fixed the roof or at least carried out some temporary fix to prevent the leak into the kitchen.
The tenants claim that the kitchen roof leaked and was never fixed by the landlord during the tenancy is proved. This is a breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations and the tenants are entitled to compensation for the breach.
This Tribunal has ruled in previous cases that as a general proposition a leak is a serious matter and must be repaired promptly. Leaks go to the very essence of a tenant’s right to the use and enjoyment of the premises in consideration of the rent that the tenant pays. A leak is not a mere inconvenience; it creates an undesirable and unhealthy living environment.
Having regard to all relevant factors, I assess that an award of $1,200 is justified. To give some guidance as to how I have reached this figure, it equates to a rent reduction of approximately $200 per month during the approximate 6 month period during which the leaks into the kitchen occurred. However, I have made this a global award to compensate the tenant overall for the inconvenience and impact of the leaks noting that there would be times when it rained more or less each month.
Mice at the premises: The tenants complain that they had a problem with mice at the premises on 2 occasions which they reported to the landlord and they do not believe was addressed. They say that the landlord was using a room located near their premises for food preparation which they believe may have caused the mice problem.
The landlord says that she had the premises sprayed inside and out and was not notified of any continuing problem by the tenants.
I am not satisfied on the evidence that the tenants have proved that there was a persistent problem, which was not addressed by the landlord, and the claim is dismissed.

Has the landlord breached healthy homes obligations?

Under section 45(1)(bb) RTA, a landlord must comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The compliance date for this tenancy was 27 June 2025 (within 120 days of the tenancy start date).
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard. The ventilation standard requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity and be vented to the exterior.
I accept on the evidence presented at the hearing that the fan provided in the kitchen is portable and does not vent to the outside and there is no extractor fan in the bathroom. These are both breaches of the HHS.
The landlord suggests that there would have been little impact on the tenant because the kitchen and bathroom both have opening windows to ventilate the areas. However the fact that there are opening windows in the areas is irrelevant. Strict compliance is required.
I consider the landlord cannot plead confusion, lack of knowledge, or ignorance of the law. In TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl 1 , where the landlord claimed not to be fully aware of his obligations, the District Court held: “Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.”
Where a party fails to carry out a legal requirement because they are unaware of the particular obligation they have failed to perform, ignorance of the law is no defence. They are deemed to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional.
The tenants were paying for a home that was required to meet the HHS by 27 June 2025 but it did not. That is a loss of amenity which entitles them to compensation. For the 3-month period of the tenancy without a compliant kitchen and bathroom extractor fan, I award $600 which I consider justified.

Has the landlord entered the premises unlawfully?

A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
The tenants say they came home to find the landlord’s builder installing a cabinet in the kitchen without their knowledge. The landlord says one of the tenants was there when the cabinet was installed. The tenant said he came home to find the builder there and then helped with the installation.
While the landlord should make sure prior notice is given in accordance with s48 and may not have done so on this occasion, it appears to be a one-off incident. Given that the tenant helped with the installation and did not raise the issue until now, I do not think the breach justifies an award of compensation. 1 TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 Has the landlord breached the tenants’ privacy and quiet enjoyment?
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
The landlord installed a security camera on the carport roof directly outside the entrance to the premises without the tenants’ knowledge or consent. They believe this is a violation of their privacy. However, they never raised this issue with the landlords during the tenancy.
The landlords live next door to the premises and share the use of the driveway to the premises. They park their food truck in the driveway and installed the security camera so that it was pointed towards the truck as a security measure. They say the camera was not pointed at the premises and the tenants never raised any issue about the security camera with them.
I am not satisfied that a breach of privacy or quiet enjoyment in the use of the premises has been proved. However, I caution the landlord that they should notify a tenant if they want to erect a security camera near the premises so that there is transparency about the purpose of it.
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims, they are entitled to suppression of their names and identifying details as requested, and to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5369841 — Leaks at 38 Bracken Road, Paparangi, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5369841 — Leaks at 38 Bracken Road, Paparangi, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants entitled to refund of bond and rent in advance?

Has the landlord breached their maintenance obligations?

Has the landlord breached healthy homes obligations?

Has the landlord entered the premises unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants entitled to refund of bond and rent in advance?

Has the landlord breached their maintenance obligations?

Has the landlord breached healthy homes obligations?

Has the landlord entered the premises unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions