What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5370542 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 5370542?

Property Damage: $2,880.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5370542?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5370542?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13355046-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5370542 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 5370542?

Property Damage: $2,880.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5370542?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5370542?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13355046-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

11 Woodlands Road, Parkside, Timaru 7910 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5370542 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

11 Woodlands Road, Parkside, Timaru 7910 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5370542 — 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 5370542 — net $3,408.00 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: Locks	$500.00	Locks
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,408.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,408.00

Claims and awards for application 5370542 — net $3,408.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS

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

Exemplary damages: Locks

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Locks

Filing fee reimbursement

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

Net award

Tenant $3,408.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $3,408.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages 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.
Blackham & Co Real Estate Limited T/As Harcourts Timaru must pay [The tenant/s] $3,408.00 immediately, :
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlord.
This matter returns to the Tribunal by way of a rehearing granted. The hearing has been directed to be considered on the papers.

BACKGROUND

DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS$2,880.00 Exemplary damages: Locks$500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$3,408.00

This tenancy commenced on 17 April 2014.
The original property manager was ‘[Original property manager]’, however, the tenant states there was a change of property manager around 2016 to Harcourts Blackham and Co.
A Healthy Homes Standards inspection was undertaken on 11 August 2022 by ‘[House inspectors]’. I will discuss this further below.
The tenant states that the relationship with Harcourts deteriorated from September 2023, when the tenant wanted reasons for a rent increase but none were forthcoming from the property manager.
In August 2025, the tenant sent a list of repairs to the property manager, with a later 14 day notice on 8 September 2025.
On 18 September 2025, the landlord issued the tenant a 90-day termination notice.
On 21 October 2025, the tenant filed this application with the Tribunal.
On 5 December 2025, the Tribunal convened a case conference. The Tribunal recorded that the following claims were to be considered, the Adjudicator records:
The matters to be determined at the next hearing are as follows: a. Was the notice terminating the tenancy retaliatory in that it was motivated wholly or in part by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy under section 54(2)(A) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The Act). b. Did the landlord fail to maintain the property under section 45(1)(b) particularly in relation to the following matters: i. Gaps under doors and around windows ii. An uninsulated manhole cover in the hallway iii. A toilet seat in the main bathroom iv. A unfitted toilet off the laundry v. A stony area of ground which was to have been resurfaced vi. A drain at the front of the property which had failed or collapsed vii. A missing downpipe viii. A noisy bathroom extractor fan ix. Multiple broken window latches c. Did the landlord fail in its obligations regarding smoke alarms under section 45(1)(ba) of the Act. d. Did the landlord breach its obligations in relation to Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) under section 45(1)(bb) of the Act particularly as regards draughts, drainage, ventilation and insulation of the manhole cover. e. Did the landlord breach its obligation to comply with requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment applicable to the premises under section 45(1)(c) of the Act.
If the above breaches are proven by the tenant on the balance of probabilities, they amount to unlawful acts and the tenant claims exemplary damages under section 109 and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The tenant’s claims for work orders were withdrawn given that the tenancy will have ended prior to the next hearing date.
A ‘hearing’ was then scheduled for 12 January 2026, however the hearing notice wrongly recorded that it was for a case conference and “It is not the final hearing”.
The adjudicator convened the hearing on 12 January 2026, it is apparent that she had not noticed the case conference information on the hearing notice. The property manager attended, but not the tenant. I accept that the tenant was trying to join the hearing, but was not able to because of problems with Teams (a now recognised fault).
The adjudicator issued a decision dismissing the tenant’s claims because of non-prosecution of the application at the hearing.
The tenant applied for a rehearing. The matter was allocated to myself. The rehearing was granted, because I accepted that there were problems with the hearing notice at least. In the unique circumstances of this case, I directed that the hearing proceed to be considered on the papers, timetabling for filing submissions was issued.
The tenant provided written submissions on 11 February 2026. I note that [The tenant/s] has a heading above four issues saying “List of complaints requiring tenancy Tribunal intervention and ruling”, Accordingly, those are the only matters I will consider. Those four issues were: a. Draughts b. Broken window latches c. Open sewer in laundry room d. Missing downpipe
The landlord provided response submissions, but those were beyond what was raised in the tenants written submission, the landlord addressed the matters in the case conference minute also.
The tenant provided concluding submissions dated 6 March 2026, again on the basis of the matters raised in the landlord’s submissions, in addition to the four matters advanced in his original submissions.

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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. 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, which for a breach of the HHS obligations under section 45, is $7,200.00.

ANALYSIS

I will proceed to consider the four matters raised by the tenant in his 11 February 2026 submission. Claim 1 – HHS breach due to draughts
The tenant submits that there were unreasonable gaps in the premises resulting in a draught, with reference to the photographs filed with the application, that being a breach of the landlord’s Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) obligations. The tenant states that while work was undertaken by the landlord, it was not adequate.
The landlord submitted that any draughts may have arisen from fair wear and tear, but in any event, they have been remedied. Analysis
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their 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.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy, but all private rentals needed to comply by 1 July 2025.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The 2022 HHS assessment report, recorded that the premises failed the assessment for draughts, noting that some of the windows had been taped up and that “when the tape is removed additional draught stopping may need to be done as the tape is likely installed to prevent draughts/gaps larger than 3mm”. The assessor also recorded that there were draughts under the back door larger than 3mm with a broken draught stop.
An invoice has been provided from [Maintenance company] dated 5 May 2024, recording an attendance for draughts to both the front and back doors, and to “attach extra batons to doors as they are twisted”.
There is a second invoice from [Maintenance company] dated 20 September 2025, recording that timber batons were installed on windows and around the entrance doors, and edging was installed to the ceiling manhole.
Again the premises needed to comply with the HHS by 1 July 2025, I find that the premises have not met that requirement. I am not persuaded that there is evidence to show that the landlord addressed draughts around the windows or with doors which were identified in the assessment in 2022. While the landlord undertook further work in September 2025, that of course is following the date the work needed to have been completed.
It is not a defence to say that the draughts arose from fair wear and tear, the obligation is on the landlord to ensure the premises comply with the HHS.
I find that the landlord has breached the obligations for draught stopping in the HHS, which is an unlawful act.
I will discuss exemplary damages further below under the second claim, which relates to draught stopping. Claim 2 – Broken window latches
The tenant says there were broken window latches on two of the windows, which had been present since the start of the tenancy, and recorded in photographs over time. This resulted in the premises being insecure. Again reference was made to the photographs provided.
The landlord states that the window latches were identified in the HHS report, and fixed on 11 November 2024. Analysis
I accept that there were broken window latches, that is supported in photographs provided by the tenant. I also accept that the landlord has had these repaired.
However, the evidence from the tenant, which I accept, is that this has been a problem over the duration of the tenancy. The landlord is required to ensure that the premises are kept secure, that is required in section 46 of the RTA which holds: 46 Locks (1) The landlord shall provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. (2) Neither the landlord nor the tenant shall alter any existing lock or similar device, or add to or remove from the premises any lock or similar device, without the consent of the other given at the time that, or a reasonable time before, the alteration, removal, or addition is carried out. (3) Failure to comply with subsection (1), and contravention of subsection (2), without reasonable excuse, is each hereby declared to be an unlawful act.
In my view, these should have been addressed by the landlord early in the tenancy. The photographs show what appears to be a wooden block affixed to the window to stop it from opening. This should have been obvious during inspections.
I find the landlord has not complied with section 46, as the premises were not kept reasonably secure, which is an unlawful act.
The effect for the tenant is that his premises have not been secure as they should have been. There are strong interests for tenants and the public, that tenancies be secure. I consider it would be just to make an order of exemplary damages.
The maximum level of exemplary damages for a breach of section 46 is $1,500.00. I have ordered the payment of $500, one-third of the maximum. There is no evidence before me that supports a higher order, such as evidence of a history of similar breaches by this landlord. Claim 3 – Open sewer line
The tenant says that there was a room off the laundry that had a boxed toilet on the floor. At the end of the tenancy the tenants found that under that box was an open pipe into a sewer line. The tenant says that there was a regular sewer smell in the kitchen. The tenant considers that the landlord should have done more to inspect and ensure the sewer line was capped. The tenant states in the concluding submission that “The hole was covered with a board which was cut to size to fit neatly into the space between the walls surrounding the hole in the floor.”
The landlord submitted that it was not known that the sewer pipe was open during the tenancy, submitting that: It was evident during the initial hearing that neither party was aware of the open waste in the toilet of the laundry area and was only identified by the tenant during the vacating process. It appears a new boxed toilet that was never installed was placed over this area preventing anyone from identifying the issue. Once the issue was raised a plumber attended on the 17/12/25 to cap the toilet waste. Both parties had no way of knowing that this was not capped during the tenancy. Analysis
There is no dispute over the fact of the open sewer line in the laundry. It is apparent that this has been missed, because a box was placed over the area, and I accept that from then on, it was missed for some years.
While this would fall into the category of being a failure to maintain, I find that exemplary damages cannot be ordered because I must conclude the breach was not likely intentional. In order that exemplary damages can be ordered, the breach must be intentional.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first being served on the tenant.
Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal 1 that: 1 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis there was no intention established, therefore there was no basis to order exemplary damages.
A second District Court decision of relevance is Peter Stoekeken v Nykala Toheriri and Vince Aso [2022] NZDC 9698, a decision from Judge Tuohy. The dispute in that case was included a claim for exemplary damages because the landlord had rented the premises with an exposed electrical wire, which is a similar issue to this exposed sewer pipe. Judge Tuohy accepted that the landlord did not know the wire was exposed, but importantly confirmed that: ...S 109(3) of the Act requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the unlawful act was committed intentionally by the person who committed it before exemplary damages can be awarded.... ...assuming that the landlord is liable for the omissions of his agents as well as his own, I am not satisfied that he or his agents intentionally decided not to carry out an inspection which was sufficiently through to reveal the wire. Even if they ought to have noticed it, that is not equivalent to an intentional act. As the Adjudicator in the second decision stated when declining to award exemplary damages to the landlord, the unlawful act must have been committed intentionally in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge that they were not meeting their obligations. The evidence does not establish that. In summary, I consider that there are insufficient grounds to award exemplary damages against the landlord in relation to the exposed wire.
While certainly the open pipe should not have been present, finding as I do that the breach was not intentional, exemplary damages cannot be ordered.
I have considered whether compensation should be ordered. Compensation is an amount of money that needs to be paid, to make good a loss of some sort. In this case I have been unable to identify a compensable loss for the tenant, and therefore, compensation is not available. Claim 4 – Missing downpipe
The tenant says that there was a missing down pipe which had been missing since the tenant moved in, but it was only remedied after the tenant issued a 14 day notice. The tenant advised that this has been raised with the landlord a number of times over the years.
In response, the landlord states that this issue was not raised in the healthy homes assessment, but when raised by the tenant it was resolved on 30 September 2025. Analysis
I have set out the general obligations with the HHS above.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The 2022 HHS inspection report records that there were no issues as far as drainage is concerned, and that spouting and downpipes were fit for purpose.
The landlord has provided an unsigned and undated “Healthy Homes Standards – Current Level of Compliance” document. That records that the premises did not have gutters and downpipes that effectively drained stormwater, noting that “the drainage does not comply as the guttering is damaged and requires repair”.
The tenant has claimed exemplary damages.
I accept the downpipe was missing.
Taking into consideration the claim for exemplary damages, there are two HHS breaches here, that is the downpipe and the draughts. I consider that the breach was intentional on the part of the landlord. Even the landlords’ own reports identified problems with draughts, and I accept that the tenant was also raising concerns with the landlord. The landlord must have known about the issue with the gutters and downpipes, it was mentioned in the HHS report and would have been obvious on inspections. The effect for the tenant is that he has been living in premises that would be draughtier and colder than they should have been, and damper given there was ineffective rain removal. There are strong interests for tenant and the public generally that premises be warm, dry and healthy, and I find they have not in this case. An order of exemplary damages would be just.
Taking into consideration that there are two breaches (draught stopping and drainage), I have determined that an order of 40% of the maximum would be reasonable, and I therefore order exemplary damages of $2,880 for the HHS breaches.

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 and he seeks name suppression, 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 5370542 — net $3,408.00 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: Locks	$500.00	Locks
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,408.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,408.00

Claims and awards for application 5370542 — net $3,408.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS

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

Exemplary damages: Locks

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Locks

Filing fee reimbursement

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

Net award

Tenant $3,408.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $3,408.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages 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.
Blackham & Co Real Estate Limited T/As Harcourts Timaru must pay [The tenant/s] $3,408.00 immediately, :
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlord.
This matter returns to the Tribunal by way of a rehearing granted. The hearing has been directed to be considered on the papers.

BACKGROUND

DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS$2,880.00 Exemplary damages: Locks$500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$3,408.00

This tenancy commenced on 17 April 2014.
The original property manager was ‘[Original property manager]’, however, the tenant states there was a change of property manager around 2016 to Harcourts Blackham and Co.
A Healthy Homes Standards inspection was undertaken on 11 August 2022 by ‘[House inspectors]’. I will discuss this further below.
The tenant states that the relationship with Harcourts deteriorated from September 2023, when the tenant wanted reasons for a rent increase but none were forthcoming from the property manager.
In August 2025, the tenant sent a list of repairs to the property manager, with a later 14 day notice on 8 September 2025.
On 18 September 2025, the landlord issued the tenant a 90-day termination notice.
On 21 October 2025, the tenant filed this application with the Tribunal.
On 5 December 2025, the Tribunal convened a case conference. The Tribunal recorded that the following claims were to be considered, the Adjudicator records:
The matters to be determined at the next hearing are as follows: a. Was the notice terminating the tenancy retaliatory in that it was motivated wholly or in part by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy under section 54(2)(A) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The Act). b. Did the landlord fail to maintain the property under section 45(1)(b) particularly in relation to the following matters: i. Gaps under doors and around windows ii. An uninsulated manhole cover in the hallway iii. A toilet seat in the main bathroom iv. A unfitted toilet off the laundry v. A stony area of ground which was to have been resurfaced vi. A drain at the front of the property which had failed or collapsed vii. A missing downpipe viii. A noisy bathroom extractor fan ix. Multiple broken window latches c. Did the landlord fail in its obligations regarding smoke alarms under section 45(1)(ba) of the Act. d. Did the landlord breach its obligations in relation to Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) under section 45(1)(bb) of the Act particularly as regards draughts, drainage, ventilation and insulation of the manhole cover. e. Did the landlord breach its obligation to comply with requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment applicable to the premises under section 45(1)(c) of the Act.
If the above breaches are proven by the tenant on the balance of probabilities, they amount to unlawful acts and the tenant claims exemplary damages under section 109 and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The tenant’s claims for work orders were withdrawn given that the tenancy will have ended prior to the next hearing date.
A ‘hearing’ was then scheduled for 12 January 2026, however the hearing notice wrongly recorded that it was for a case conference and “It is not the final hearing”.
The adjudicator convened the hearing on 12 January 2026, it is apparent that she had not noticed the case conference information on the hearing notice. The property manager attended, but not the tenant. I accept that the tenant was trying to join the hearing, but was not able to because of problems with Teams (a now recognised fault).
The adjudicator issued a decision dismissing the tenant’s claims because of non-prosecution of the application at the hearing.
The tenant applied for a rehearing. The matter was allocated to myself. The rehearing was granted, because I accepted that there were problems with the hearing notice at least. In the unique circumstances of this case, I directed that the hearing proceed to be considered on the papers, timetabling for filing submissions was issued.
The tenant provided written submissions on 11 February 2026. I note that [The tenant/s] has a heading above four issues saying “List of complaints requiring tenancy Tribunal intervention and ruling”, Accordingly, those are the only matters I will consider. Those four issues were: a. Draughts b. Broken window latches c. Open sewer in laundry room d. Missing downpipe
The landlord provided response submissions, but those were beyond what was raised in the tenants written submission, the landlord addressed the matters in the case conference minute also.
The tenant provided concluding submissions dated 6 March 2026, again on the basis of the matters raised in the landlord’s submissions, in addition to the four matters advanced in his original submissions.

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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. 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, which for a breach of the HHS obligations under section 45, is $7,200.00.

ANALYSIS

I will proceed to consider the four matters raised by the tenant in his 11 February 2026 submission. Claim 1 – HHS breach due to draughts
The tenant submits that there were unreasonable gaps in the premises resulting in a draught, with reference to the photographs filed with the application, that being a breach of the landlord’s Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) obligations. The tenant states that while work was undertaken by the landlord, it was not adequate.
The landlord submitted that any draughts may have arisen from fair wear and tear, but in any event, they have been remedied. Analysis
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their 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.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy, but all private rentals needed to comply by 1 July 2025.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The 2022 HHS assessment report, recorded that the premises failed the assessment for draughts, noting that some of the windows had been taped up and that “when the tape is removed additional draught stopping may need to be done as the tape is likely installed to prevent draughts/gaps larger than 3mm”. The assessor also recorded that there were draughts under the back door larger than 3mm with a broken draught stop.
An invoice has been provided from [Maintenance company] dated 5 May 2024, recording an attendance for draughts to both the front and back doors, and to “attach extra batons to doors as they are twisted”.
There is a second invoice from [Maintenance company] dated 20 September 2025, recording that timber batons were installed on windows and around the entrance doors, and edging was installed to the ceiling manhole.
Again the premises needed to comply with the HHS by 1 July 2025, I find that the premises have not met that requirement. I am not persuaded that there is evidence to show that the landlord addressed draughts around the windows or with doors which were identified in the assessment in 2022. While the landlord undertook further work in September 2025, that of course is following the date the work needed to have been completed.
It is not a defence to say that the draughts arose from fair wear and tear, the obligation is on the landlord to ensure the premises comply with the HHS.
I find that the landlord has breached the obligations for draught stopping in the HHS, which is an unlawful act.
I will discuss exemplary damages further below under the second claim, which relates to draught stopping. Claim 2 – Broken window latches
The tenant says there were broken window latches on two of the windows, which had been present since the start of the tenancy, and recorded in photographs over time. This resulted in the premises being insecure. Again reference was made to the photographs provided.
The landlord states that the window latches were identified in the HHS report, and fixed on 11 November 2024. Analysis
I accept that there were broken window latches, that is supported in photographs provided by the tenant. I also accept that the landlord has had these repaired.
However, the evidence from the tenant, which I accept, is that this has been a problem over the duration of the tenancy. The landlord is required to ensure that the premises are kept secure, that is required in section 46 of the RTA which holds: 46 Locks (1) The landlord shall provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. (2) Neither the landlord nor the tenant shall alter any existing lock or similar device, or add to or remove from the premises any lock or similar device, without the consent of the other given at the time that, or a reasonable time before, the alteration, removal, or addition is carried out. (3) Failure to comply with subsection (1), and contravention of subsection (2), without reasonable excuse, is each hereby declared to be an unlawful act.
In my view, these should have been addressed by the landlord early in the tenancy. The photographs show what appears to be a wooden block affixed to the window to stop it from opening. This should have been obvious during inspections.
I find the landlord has not complied with section 46, as the premises were not kept reasonably secure, which is an unlawful act.
The effect for the tenant is that his premises have not been secure as they should have been. There are strong interests for tenants and the public, that tenancies be secure. I consider it would be just to make an order of exemplary damages.
The maximum level of exemplary damages for a breach of section 46 is $1,500.00. I have ordered the payment of $500, one-third of the maximum. There is no evidence before me that supports a higher order, such as evidence of a history of similar breaches by this landlord. Claim 3 – Open sewer line
The tenant says that there was a room off the laundry that had a boxed toilet on the floor. At the end of the tenancy the tenants found that under that box was an open pipe into a sewer line. The tenant says that there was a regular sewer smell in the kitchen. The tenant considers that the landlord should have done more to inspect and ensure the sewer line was capped. The tenant states in the concluding submission that “The hole was covered with a board which was cut to size to fit neatly into the space between the walls surrounding the hole in the floor.”
The landlord submitted that it was not known that the sewer pipe was open during the tenancy, submitting that: It was evident during the initial hearing that neither party was aware of the open waste in the toilet of the laundry area and was only identified by the tenant during the vacating process. It appears a new boxed toilet that was never installed was placed over this area preventing anyone from identifying the issue. Once the issue was raised a plumber attended on the 17/12/25 to cap the toilet waste. Both parties had no way of knowing that this was not capped during the tenancy. Analysis
There is no dispute over the fact of the open sewer line in the laundry. It is apparent that this has been missed, because a box was placed over the area, and I accept that from then on, it was missed for some years.
While this would fall into the category of being a failure to maintain, I find that exemplary damages cannot be ordered because I must conclude the breach was not likely intentional. In order that exemplary damages can be ordered, the breach must be intentional.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first being served on the tenant.
Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal 1 that: 1 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis there was no intention established, therefore there was no basis to order exemplary damages.
A second District Court decision of relevance is Peter Stoekeken v Nykala Toheriri and Vince Aso [2022] NZDC 9698, a decision from Judge Tuohy. The dispute in that case was included a claim for exemplary damages because the landlord had rented the premises with an exposed electrical wire, which is a similar issue to this exposed sewer pipe. Judge Tuohy accepted that the landlord did not know the wire was exposed, but importantly confirmed that: ...S 109(3) of the Act requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the unlawful act was committed intentionally by the person who committed it before exemplary damages can be awarded.... ...assuming that the landlord is liable for the omissions of his agents as well as his own, I am not satisfied that he or his agents intentionally decided not to carry out an inspection which was sufficiently through to reveal the wire. Even if they ought to have noticed it, that is not equivalent to an intentional act. As the Adjudicator in the second decision stated when declining to award exemplary damages to the landlord, the unlawful act must have been committed intentionally in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge that they were not meeting their obligations. The evidence does not establish that. In summary, I consider that there are insufficient grounds to award exemplary damages against the landlord in relation to the exposed wire.
While certainly the open pipe should not have been present, finding as I do that the breach was not intentional, exemplary damages cannot be ordered.
I have considered whether compensation should be ordered. Compensation is an amount of money that needs to be paid, to make good a loss of some sort. In this case I have been unable to identify a compensable loss for the tenant, and therefore, compensation is not available. Claim 4 – Missing downpipe
The tenant says that there was a missing down pipe which had been missing since the tenant moved in, but it was only remedied after the tenant issued a 14 day notice. The tenant advised that this has been raised with the landlord a number of times over the years.
In response, the landlord states that this issue was not raised in the healthy homes assessment, but when raised by the tenant it was resolved on 30 September 2025. Analysis
I have set out the general obligations with the HHS above.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The 2022 HHS inspection report records that there were no issues as far as drainage is concerned, and that spouting and downpipes were fit for purpose.
The landlord has provided an unsigned and undated “Healthy Homes Standards – Current Level of Compliance” document. That records that the premises did not have gutters and downpipes that effectively drained stormwater, noting that “the drainage does not comply as the guttering is damaged and requires repair”.
The tenant has claimed exemplary damages.
I accept the downpipe was missing.
Taking into consideration the claim for exemplary damages, there are two HHS breaches here, that is the downpipe and the draughts. I consider that the breach was intentional on the part of the landlord. Even the landlords’ own reports identified problems with draughts, and I accept that the tenant was also raising concerns with the landlord. The landlord must have known about the issue with the gutters and downpipes, it was mentioned in the HHS report and would have been obvious on inspections. The effect for the tenant is that he has been living in premises that would be draughtier and colder than they should have been, and damper given there was ineffective rain removal. There are strong interests for tenant and the public generally that premises be warm, dry and healthy, and I find they have not in this case. An order of exemplary damages would be just.
Taking into consideration that there are two breaches (draught stopping and drainage), I have determined that an order of 40% of the maximum would be reasonable, and I therefore order exemplary damages of $2,880 for the HHS breaches.

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 and he seeks name suppression, so tenant name suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5370542 — Healthy homes at 11 Woodlands Road, Parkside, Timaru 7910

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5370542 — Healthy homes at 11 Woodlands Road, Parkside, Timaru 7910

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

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

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions