What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5372564 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 5372564?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5372564?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5372564?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13393207-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5372564 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 5372564?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5372564?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5372564?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13393207-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

111B Linton Street, West End, Palmerston North 4410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5372564 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

111B Linton Street, West End, Palmerston North 4410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5372564 — 14-day notice | TenantCheck

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Haiyang Lu, Xinhao Investment Limited, Carol Jia Zhoumust pay [the tenants] the sum of $5,418.00 immediately as calculated in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, with the directors, Haiyang Lu and Carol Jia Zhou appearing for the landlord company.
The parties had a fixed-term tenancy from 21 February 2025 to 21 February 2026.
On 22 October 2025, the tenants filed an application seeking compensation and/or exemplary damages in relation to the following: a. Failure to lodge bond b. Healthy Homes statement not provided c. Healthy Homes standards. d. Failure to maintain e. Smoke alarms regulations f. Breach of quiet enjoyment.
The onus of proof rests with the tenants. They must provide sufficient evidence to prove the facts on which their claims are based. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
Where exemplary damages are ordered, the Tribunal must take into account the impact on the applicant. Therefore the amounts of exemplary damages ordered include compensation.

Did the landlords fail to lodge the bond?

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
The tenants paid the bond on 16 February 2025 and received notice on 9 September from the Bond Centre that the bond had been lodged on 4 September 2025.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. 1 Therefore the landlords should have lodged the bond no later than 19 March 2025.
The landlords acknowledge that because of an administrative oversight, they had forgotten to lodge the bond. As soon as they realised, they sent the money to the Bond Centre.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy has now ended and the bond has been refunded to the tenants, but the landlord committed an unlawful act by not lodging the bond within the period prescribed in the Act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. 2
I accept the landlord’s evidence that they simply forgot to lodge the bond. When they realised, they remedied the situation without being prompted by the tenants. It is understandable that the tenants would have felt disconcerted to discover that the landlord had not lodged the bond, but there is insufficient evidence for me to conclude that the landlord intentionally failed to lodge the 1 See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 2 See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. bond. Therefore, although they have committed an unlawful act, I have decided that they have not committed it intentionally and so I make no order for exemplary damages.
The landlord said that they are busy with their work and other properties. All of the obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 apply no matter the landlord’s circumstances. Each tenancy agreement is a commercial arrangement. If other commitments make compliance with the Act difficult, they may decide to use a property manager or not to let their properties.

Did the landlord provide Healthy Homes Compliance and insurance statements?

After the tenants received the bond lodgement notification from the Bond Centre, they started making enquiries regarding the landlord’s obligations. When the tenants saw their friend’s tenancy agreement, they realised that their own one was deficient. It was missing a statement regarding Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). 3
There are two requirements about HHS statements under section 13A. The first one concerns insulation. A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed. 4
The second requirement concerns all HHS contained in the 2019 regulations, that is: a. Heating b. Insulation (with updated 2019 R-value requirements) c. Ventilation d. Moisture ingress and drainage e. Draught stopping.
The landlord must also include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that: a. on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and b. including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5), that is, the HHS. 3 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019. 4 See section 13A(1A).
Since August 2019, landlords have also been required to include a statement advising whether the premises are insured and advising the amount of the excess under their policy. 5 The tenant may request a copy of the policy, which must be provided within a reasonable time. 6
Section 13(1D) says that the requirement that the landlord’s statement regarding HHS is signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. This tenancy began between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, and so property had to comply within 120 days of the commencement of the tenancy. The obligation under section 13A is that the landlord signs a statement that the tenancy complies or will comply within 120 days.
Breaching the requirements of information and statements within the tenancy agreement is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. 7
In this case, the tenancy agreement is 5 pages long, including a title page and a page containing three further terms. Although it is a Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) form, it appears to be an outdated template. The front page says that the tenant may be required to pay a letting fee, but since December 2018, letting fees have been prohibited.
The agreement makes no reference to any aspect of HHS and lacks other information required under section 13A.
On 30 September 2025 the tenants emailed the landlords saying that the landlords were in breach of their responsibilities by not providing the HHS compliance statement or the insurance information. They required that information within 14 days, which is 14 October.
On 14 October, the landlords provided the insurance information and a compliance checklist that they had completed. This is a Tenancy Services tool to assist landlords in working out whether their property is compliant. It contains No and Yes tick boxes headed “Room to improve” and “You’re on track” respectively. The document is not signed by the landlords. As noted above, there is an obligation on the landlord to sign a compliance statement in addition to the obligation to sign the tenancy agreement.
Under section 45(1AC), if the tenant requests the records or other documents that relate to the landlord’s compliance with the HHS, the landlord must provide 5 See section 13A(2). 6 See section 13A. 7 See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A. the information within 21 days. These are documents that the landlord is obliged to retain under section 123A of the Act.
The landlord provided the tenants with an invoice for insulation. The tenants said they did not know if it related to their property.
At the hearing, the landlord produced evidence of steps undertaken in relation to HHS in May 2022. There is: a. an email dated 9 May 2022 from EnergySmart confirming that an assessment was booked for 17 May 2022 for the tenancy address; b. an invoice dated 10 August 2022 for creating a hatch to allow access under the house to ascertain whether there was any insulation and whether it could be installed; c. an email dated 17 August 2022 from EnergySmart confirming that an assessment was booked for 24 August 2022 for the tenancy address; d. a quote dated 24 August 2022 for installation of insulation and acceptance of the quote on 1 September 2022; e. an email dated 6 October 2022 from EnergySmart confirming that insulation installation was to be installed on 7 October 2022; f. an invoice dated 12 October 2022 for the balance owing for the installation of pink batts at the tenancy address.
The last item was provided to the tenant, and I note it includes the tenancy address.
It would have been preferable to provide all of the information to the tenant, but I am satisfied that the insulation information was provided. However, no copy of the HHS assessment conducted in 2022 was provided to the tenants or to the Tribunal.
I find Haiyang Lu, Xinhao Investment Limited and Carol Jia Zhou has committed an unlawful act.
The landlords were not aware of their obligations under Section 13A. It is a well- established legal principle that ignorance of the law is no defence. This has been confirmed by the District Court in considering an appeal from this Tribunal: 8 Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, [the landlord] 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 8 TMT Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 at [37]. consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.
In this case, I find that the omission was intentional, in that the landlords knowingly omitted the information. The effect of the unlawful act is that the tenants were left wondering about the state of their premises. They had concerns about the heating, dampness, ventilation and draughts and had no reassurance that the property was compliant.
Furthermore, the landlord had an opportunity to remedy the situation by providing a compliance statement and by providing information about HHS when requested on 30 September 2025. 9 The landlord could have provided all information from 2022. Instead, they provided one invoice for insulation and a completed checklist.
Under Schedule 1A of the Act, the maximum that can be awarded for either of these failures is $750. 10 There is a public interest in sending a strong message to this landlord and others that compliance with section 13A is required. Accordingly, I consider a modest order of $250 exemplary damages is warranted.
It is recommended that the landlords consult the Tenancy Services website and use the tool that is provided for creating a tenancy agreement and familiarise themselves with all their obligations relating to HHS. 9 As noted above, the landlord was obliged to provide this within 21 days under section 45(1AC). 10 See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 Healthy Homes Standards
As noted above, there are five HHS as well as a requirement for smoke alarms.
Under section 45(1)(bb) the landlord is required to comply with all HHS. Breach of this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
Since the tenancy ended, the landlords have had an independent HHS assessment undertaken by Betta Property Compliance, as discussed below.

Did the premises comply with the insulation standard?

[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord failed to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
The tenants looked in the ceiling cavity and took photos of the insulation. One photo shows a gap between the squares of insulation.
As well as the EnergySmart information referred to above, the landlords produced a report from Betta Property Compliance recording an assessment undertaken on 10 March 2026, after the tenancy had ended. The report confirms that the ceiling insulation complies and that the subfloor spaces are too low to the ground for a professional installer to insulate safely.
The photographs of the insulation contained in that report are consistent with those taken by the tenant. Although there appears to be a gap in the insulation in one of the tenants’ photos, it looks likely that a portion of pink batt has been moved and could be moved back to cover all areas. The tenants noted that there were rodent droppings on the pink batts, but otherwise they do appear to be in reasonable condition, consistent with having been installed in 2022. The thickness recorded by Betta Property Compliance is 170mm and the photographs of the insulation appear to show the same thickness as those of the tenants.
In conclusion, there is no reason to believe that the insulation that was assessed by Betta Property Compliance differs from the insulation that was present during the tenancy. The tenants have not established that the property did not comply with the insulation standard.

Did the premises comply with the heating standard?

The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the living 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.
The heating standard requires that heaters 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, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/ .
The tenants were concerned that the heater in the lounge did not put out sufficient heat and also caused dampness because it was fuelled by gas but not flued to the outside.
The Betta Property Compliance assessment from March 2026 records that the property did not comply with the heating standard. It confirmed that the gas heater in the lounge was an unflued combustion heater and therefore is not a qualifying heater. It was recommended that the door between the hallway and lounge was removed because there is a heat pump in the hallway which is a qualifying heater, and is sufficient to heat the lounge and hallway.
The landlords have now had the door removed and the property complies with the heating standard.
The landlords said that they had been aware of this issue in 2022 and were going to remove the door, but their tenant in 2022 said not to.
The tenants said that no-one ever told them that removing the door was an option.
The landlords said that it would be a matter of common sense to keep the door open.
I disagree. The heating standard concerns the living room. The tenants were entitled to expect that they could keep the door to the living room shut to reduce draughts and keep warmth in. The heat pump in the hallway is not directed toward the lounge. It is on one side of the hallway and is directed to the wall immediately opposite. I do not consider that it would be a matter of common sense to expect that to heat the living room.
I find that during the tenancy, the property did not comply with the HHS heating standard. The landlords have committed an unlawful act. I consider it is just to award exemplary damages, taking into account the following: a. The landlords knew that unless the door was removed, the property did not comply with the heating standard; b. The tenants found the property cold and damp; c. The landlord must be reminded of their obligations under the Act; d. There is a public interest in reminding all landlords that they must take their obligations seriously.
I have also taken into account the fact that the heater in the lounge was not the only source of heating provided in the property.
Considering those factors, I have determined that the landlords should pay $1,200 exemplary damages. That is 1/6 of the maximum that can be ordered.

Did the premises comply with the draught-stopping standard?

The tenants considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants point to the following areas that allowed a draught to arise: a. a gap under the front door; b. a gap around the kitchen window; c. four circular holes of 2 to 3 cm in diameter in the kitchen; d. gaps around the lounge window.
The tenants provided photographs of the first three areas and a video of the fourth. The tenants said that the video showed the movement of the curtain because of a draught coming through.
The Betta Property Compliance report from March this year also said there were gaps under the front door and the dining/kitchen window. A gap was also found around a bedroom window. The report does not mention the lounge window or the holes in the kitchen floor.
I do not find on the balance of probabilities that there was a gap around the lounge window. The movement of curtains was difficult to discern in the video and the independent assessment has not referred to that window.
I have considered whether the holes in the kitchen floor constitute an unreasonable hole. It is unclear why the assessor did not refer to those.
The tenants said that they are in the recess where their fridge was located and so were covered by a fridge when they were in occupation.
Clause 26 of the HHS says that the premises must be free from gaps between, and holes in, building elements that— a. are not intentional parts of the construction of the premises (such as drainage and ventilation openings); and b. allow draughts into or out of the premises; and c. are unreasonable.
In determining whether a gap or hole is unreasonable, the following matters may be taken into account: 11 a. the size and location of the gap or hole: b. the extent of the draught that is allowed through the gap or hole: c. if there is more than 1 gap or hole at the premises, the extent of the total draught that is allowed through those gaps and holes: d. the likely impact that a draught through the gap or hole will have on heat loss from the premises: e. any other relevant matters.
I find that the holes are quite large, and that because there are four, there is likely to be a considerable draught through them. The fact that a fridge usually covers the holes, will reduce the likely impact on heat loss from the premises and so on that basis, they are probably not unreasonable.
I do suggest, however, that the landlord provides a mat or piece of vinyl to cover them to further reduce the impact. If a tenant does not have a fridge in that area, then the holes will be unreasonable, and the landlord will need to find a solution.
However, the fact remains that in relation to the front door and the other two windows, the property was more likely than not non-compliant with the draught- stopping standard during the tenancy.
The landlord thought that the other gaps identified in the Better Property Compliance report had come about as the result of earthquakes. I accept that sometimes draughts can develop during a tenancy because of shifting materials 11 see clause 26(2). following an earthquake or because of weather events, but the landlord was unable to point to any event that would have caused the property to develop gaps during the tenancy. Nor was there any evidence that the landlord had assessed the property at the start of the tenancy or within 120 days of the start of the tenancy to satisfy themselves that there were no draughts.
I find on the balance of probabilities that the gap under the front door and the gap around the kitchen/dining room window were present at the start of the tenancy and that the one in the bedroom was likely there as well.
I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
The unlawful act was committed intentionally. The landlords should have been aware of these at the start of the tenancy. They were aware that there had been a burglary during a previous tenancy and the door frame had been damaged. Furthermore, in September, a few days before the tenants sent the 30 September email requesting the HHS information, the landlords were at the next-door property. The tenants told them about the draughts around the windows and front door. The landlord considered the matter was not urgent because Summer was coming. Another five months remained on the tenancy.
The impact on the tenants was that they experienced draughts and heat loss.
The landlords’ obligations under the HHS apply no matter the time of year. There is a public interest in reminding this landlord and others that the requirements of the HHS are mandatory all year round and landlords must comply. Accordingly, I order payment of $1,200 exemplary damages.
The landlords have attended to the matters raised in the Betta Property Compliance report and the property now complies.

Did the premises comply with the ventilation standard?

[The tenant/s]consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS 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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants found that the bathroom extractor fan was not working. On 23 May 2025, they contacted the landlord who attended that day and agreed that it was not satisfactory. There was an old HRV system which they thought might need servicing. They then decided to replace the system with the same DVS system 12 that they have in their own home.
I find that at the start of the tenancy, the property was likely compliant with the HHS, but that when the ventilation stopped working, the landlords were faced with a maintenance issue.
I also find that on being made aware of issues with the ventilation, the landlord took steps to find an appropriate remedy for the situation. The new DVS was installed on 13 November 2025. The tenants said that it improved the issues tremendously.
I note that it could have been installed during October but for some communication issues with the contractors. Those are discussed below.
However, the fact remains that from May to October, the tenants were without adequate ventilation in the bathroom and are entitled to compensation for those five months. They produced evidence of mould forming in the premises. The unflued heater in the lounge would likely have contributed to this. I order a 10% rent rebate of $57 for 20 weeks. That comes to $1,140. Did the premises comply with the moisture ingress and drainage
[The tenant/s] consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants are concerned that there is no moisture barrier. They provided photos taken looking through the holes in the kitchen floor. They show that the earth underneath the house is damp.
The tenants also provided videos showing pooling of water on the paths outside the property in the rain.
According to the Betta Property Compliance report from 10 March 2026, there was no evidence of stormwater pooling around the site. It was noted that it was not raining on the day of the inspection and so the efficiency or operation of the guttering and drainage system could not be determined. The gutters and 12 During the hearing, I queried the difference between HRV and DVS systems. In the parties’ presence, I searched the internet and established that they are simply different trade names for home ventilation systems. downpipes catch the roof water and discharge into the stormwater reticulation system.
The dwelling is exempt from the moisture barrier requirement because the areas of subfloor spaces are too low to the ground for a professional installer to access safely.
Therefore, on the face of it, the property complies. The restriction of the report (that the drainage could not be observed given the weather on the day) and the observations of the tenant raise the question that it is possible the premises do not comply. However, the Tribunal needs to find that it is more likely than not that the premises are in breach. The evidence presented by the tenant is not sufficient to persuade me on the balance of probabilities that that water does not drain away in a reasonable time. A series of time stamped photos over a period of days may have balanced the case in the tenants’ favour. This claim is therefore dismissed.
However, the landlords are on notice that there may be an issue with drainage and they are encouraged to look into this issue more closely. Smoke alarms
The installation of smoke alarms in residential tenancies is covered by the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016 (the Smoke Alarm Regulations) and section 45(1)(ba) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). The installation of the alarms is the responsibility of the landlord, 13 and they must be installed in bedrooms or within 3 metres of the entrance to each bedroom. 14
A landlord’s failure to instal the smoke alarms in accordance with the Smoke Alarm Regulations is an “unlawful act” for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200 are payable. 15
The tenants produced photographs showing that there is a smoke alarm in the hallway. They have measured the distance from the bedrooms. It is 2.6 metres from the middle of the doorway to one bedroom, but it is 3.8 metres from another bedroom and 4.5 meters from the third bedroom. The tenants have established that the placement of smoke alarms does not comply with the Smoke Alarm Regulations.
The landlords referred to the 10 March 2026 report from Betta Property Compliance. There are two pages of fine print referring to the scope of the inspection. Schedule Nine is Smoke Alarm Compliance Check. However, page 4 of the report is called Your Report Summary. It says: 13 See Subpart 1 of the Smoke Alarms Regulations. 14 See clause 5(6) of the Smoke Alarms Regulations. 15 See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the Act. This report focuses on the following Healthy Homes compliance components. These components are:
Heating, 2. Insulation, 3. Ventilation, 4. Drainage & Guttering, 5. Draughts, 6. Moisture Barrier.
There is nothing in the report about smoke alarms.
The tenants have established that the placement of the smoke alarms does not comply with the regulations. I find that the landlords have committed an unlawful act.
When a landlord decides to provide a property for residential occupation in exchange for rent, they take on all the legal obligations under the Act and Regulations. They must satisfy themselves that they have met those obligations. As noted above, Parliament’s intention to for exemplary damages to be ordered would be subverted if landlords could simply say they did not understand the law. I find that the landlords have committed an unlawful act.
In this case, the degree of departure from the legal standard is not as great as the situation where a landlord provides no alarms or does not position them near any bedrooms. There has been minimal impact on the tenants, but nonetheless, there is a public interest in reminding this landlord and others of their obligations under these regulations which provide for the minimisation of harm to tenants in the unfortunate event of a house fire. I order a modest amount of exemplary damages of $600.00.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Again, a breach of this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
There were several issues during the tenancy. When the tenant first arrived, there was no hot water. It took four days to be remedied because of the availability of tradespeople. There was no reason the landlords would have been aware of this issue before the tenants moved in and I consider the landlords responded within a reasonable time and so no order for exemplary damages is warranted for a failure to maintain. However, I do find that the tenants should be compensated for the inconvenience of no hot water during the first four days of their tenancy. I order $100.00.
There was also an issue with the shower not working when the rod attaching the shower head broke off. This was notified on 17 September and repaired on 23 September 2025. The tenants still had the use of the bath, but [tenant A] was on crutches at the time, making use of the bath very difficult. I order $50 compensation for the inconvenience.
At the same time that the shower was fixed, the toilet was also attended to. In May the tenants had notified the landlord that the toilet kept running. This was at the same time as they told the landlord about the bathroom ventilation. The toilet It was not fixed until September 2025.
In this region, there are no separate water rates, and so the tenant does not pay for water consumption. This differs from most regions in New Zealand, where a failure of a landlord to address the issue of running water would be much more serious. The impact of a toilet cistern that keeps running is irritating but not expensive. However, the landlord’s failure to fix this for four months warrants an order of exemplary damages. Taking into account the intentional act of the landlord, the impact on the tenant and the public interest, I order $250 exemplary damages.
On 8 December 2025, the tenants notified the landlord that a power socket in the kitchen was faulty. The landlord attended the property that evening and advised they would contact an electrician to inspect the outlet. They also advised that they would be leaving the country for four weeks.
On 12 December 2025, the landlords informed the tenants that they had been unable to contact an electrician and that they would be leaving the country the following day, returning to Palmerston North in January. No alternative local contact or property management details were provided.
On 16 December the tenants gave the landlords a 14-day notice to remedy the issue and it was fixed on 18 December.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The issue with the landlord being overseas arose after the tenant had lodged their claim with the Tribunal. Exemplary damages have not been considered.
The socket was fixed 10 days after notification, but in the meantime, the kitchen effectively had only one usable electrical outlet which contained a single functioning socket. They said that significantly restricted their ability to safely and reasonably prepare meals for a family household, as there is insufficient accessible counter space or power supply to operate standard kitchen appliances such as a kettle or hand mixer.
The tenants should not have had to issue a 14-day notice to get the power socket repaired; they should have known that an electrician had been organised before the landlord went away, and they should have had the name of an agent in New Zealand who they could contact.
I have decided that the tenants should be compensated $100 for the inconvenience of not having the use of the power outlet, stress and inconvenience of being told that the landlord had not found an electrician and they were going away, and the stress and inconvenience of having to issue a 14-day notice.
The tenants’ claims had included a complaint about ants but that was withdrawn at the hearing. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
There are two complaints about breach of quiet enjoyment. The first relates to the contractor hired to instal the DVS.
The landlord had organised an electrician to instal the DVS. The electrician emailed with a date to visit on 23 October 2025. On 14 October, the landlord forwarded the email to the tenant with a “FYI”. The tenant did not notice or open the email. The electrician turned up but rescheduled because it was inconvenient for the tenants.
Then on 5 November the electrician turned up but the tenant had not been notified. Using his phone, he showed the tenant that he had notified the landlord of the appointment. A further date was scheduled for 13 November 2025 and the DVS was installed.
The landlord does not remember receiving notification from the electrician of the second appointment, but given the contractor had notified the landlord of the first appointment, and he showed the tenant that he had notified the landlord of the second one, I find it more likely than not, that the landlord was aware of the second appointment on 5 November, but forgot to notify the tenant.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
For the purpose of carrying out necessary repairs to or necessary maintenance of, the premises, the landlord may enter without the consent of the tenant at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no evidence that anyone entered the premises without the tenant’s consent.
Section 38(2) says that 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenants have not established that they were harassed or there was a breach of their quiet enjoyment in relation to the installation of the DVS.
I find that the tenants were was notified of the planned first visit.
I find that the tenants were not notified of the planned second visit, but the visit was rescheduled. They have not established a breach of their rights under the Act. Did the landlord taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the landlord’s other tenants have not breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment?
The second claim relates to the behaviour of the tenants’ neighbours, who are also tenants of the landlord.
The premises are semi-detached to another property, also owned by the landlord. There is a garage and a carport between the two properties. There is a shared driveway. The neighbouring property is behind this tenancy.
Section 45(1)(e) imposes an obligation on the landlord to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
On 20 November 2025, the tenants emailed the landlord about the neighbours. They said: We have communicated previously with you regarding the rubbish situation caused by the tenants in the back house (111A) as well as the ongoing ant infestation. The tenants at 111A have continually left rubbish, debris items (including screws) and other hazards in the shared driveway space and in front of our carport. This obstructs safe access, creates hazards, attracts pests, and interferes with our quiet enjoyment of the property.
The email goes on to talk about the issue with the ants.
The tenants said that the landlord was in breach of their obligations by failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and ensure other tenants do not interfere with their right to quiet enjoyment. They gave the landlord a 14-day notice to remedy the situation by addressing and resolving the rubbish and debris issues in the shared driveway with the tenants in 111A, and ensuring those tenants comply with their obligations so that the shared area remains consistently safe, clear, and unobstructed.
The tenants attached photographs which showed boxes, pieces of cardboard and equipment lining the driveway as well as small pieces of wire and debris on the shared driveway. There are a number of cars up the driveway outside 111A.
The tenants decided to place their outdoor furniture in their car port to stop the neighbours and their visitors using that space.
On 24 November 2025 the landlord issued the neighbours with a 14-day notice to remedy. The notice said that the neighbours were in breach of their tenancy agreement because it had come to the landlord’s attention that the tenants at 111A were using the garage for commercial storage. They were told to cease all commercial use of the garage immediately and return the garage to its agreed residential/storage use.
The notice made no mention of the objects on the shared driveway or impact on the tenants at 111B.
On 20 December 2025 the tenants emailed the landlords who were overseas. They told the landlords that overnight the neighbours at 111A had been blasting music very loudly, enough to shake the walls of 111B, wake their family up and cause other neighbours to begin yelling across the fence, until around 2am. The tenants told the landlord that they had called the noise control a couple of times and had gone over to tell them to turn it down.
The tenants made it clear in their email that the continuous disregard for their quiet enjoyment of their rental due to the neighbours’ actions was becoming increasingly frustrating. They also said that the neighbours were continuing to park 4-5 cars in the driveway area, blocking their children from being able to get their bikes safely in and out if the backyard and their safe walking around our rental.
The tenants asked if they should contact the “appointed gentleman” who was the contact while overseas or whether to contact the landlords directly.
The landlords replied, expressing sympathy for the situation. They said that they had decided that keeping the tenants long-term was not sustainable and they had some other prospective tenants. They said that they would deal with the matter on their return to Palmerston North on 12 January 2026. They said: In the meantime, for any urgent noise disturbances late at night, we recommend contacting the Palmerston North City Council (PNCC) noise control, as they are best equipped for an immediate response. For all incidents, please continue to email us directly. This documentation will be important for us to show this as the evidence to support our next action when necessary. Once again, we sincerely apologize to you and your family for the inconvenience and stress this has caused. We deeply value your patience and understanding, and we are committed to ensuring a peaceful and respectful environment for everyone moving forward.
On 23 December the tenants emailed the landlord again, advising that the previous night they had contacted noise control and at one point one of the neighbour’s vehicles drove into their front yard area and ran over their potted plants, just after midnight. The tenants attached a screenshot of a video. They said that they did not know who owned the vehicle as there were different vehicles and people in and out at all different hours of the day.
The landlords replied, asking for any costs incurred which they said they would get from the neighbours, but the tenants sought no costs.
On 13 January 2026 the landlords issued a second notice to the neighbours regarding the use of the garage and surrounding areas for unauthorised commercial storage and activities. They provided photographs taken following their inspection.
On the second page of this notice they also said that they had received complaints that have caused serious interference with their lives and damage to property. They suggested mutually agreeing to an early termination of the fixed- term tenancy.
The landlord told the Tribunal that they spoke to the neighbours at 111A about the noise but they denied it.
I find that although the landlord took some steps, they did not take all reasonable steps to have the shared driveway cleared. The notice of 23 November makes no mention of that.
When the tenants made two complaints about noise on 20 December, there were several options open to the landlord. They should have take at least one of the following actions: a. spoken with the neighbours about this the next day; b. issued a notice under section 56 advising them they were in breach of their obligation; c. issued an anti-social behaviour notice.
When there was a second complaint on 23 December, they were on notice that this was an ongoing issue. Again, as a minimum they should have spoken with the neighbours, but if they had already spoken with them on 20 December, then they really needed to take more formal action by issuing a notice under section 56 or issuing an anti-social behaviour notice under section 55A.
I find that the landlord did not take all reasonable steps. The November notice makes no mention of the impact of the neighbour’s acts on the tenants, and the landlord’s notice of 13 January was more than three weeks after the tenants’ complaints in December about the noise.
I find that the landlord should compensate the tenant for this disturbance. I order compensation of $250 for the rubbish in the driveway and $250 for the second noise disturbance on 23 December 2025. That is a total of $500.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Landlord’s issues
At the hearing the landlord raised some complaints about the tenant. The landlord made no cross-application. They said that the purpose of raising these issues was to show that difficulties at the property were not entirely one-sided.
They said that the tenant was not authorised to enter the ceiling cavity, which was not part of the normal residential living space. I do not agree with that interpretation. It is not unreasonable for a tenant to look in the attic. They may want to check insulation, ascertain if there are rodents that need extermination, see if there is a leak. This is relevant to the tenant’s obligation under section 40(1)(d) to notify the landlord of the need for any repairs.
The landlords said that the tenants were rude towards visitors. Some prospective tenants for 111A had come to the property. They say that the tenants at 111B shouted at them.
The tenants say they got a fright to see someone at their kitchen window and did shout. The tenants have not breached any obligation under the Residential Tenancies Act.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Haiyang Lu, Xinhao Investment Limited, Carol Jia Zhoumust pay [the tenants] the sum of $5,418.00 immediately as calculated in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, with the directors, Haiyang Lu and Carol Jia Zhou appearing for the landlord company.
The parties had a fixed-term tenancy from 21 February 2025 to 21 February 2026.
On 22 October 2025, the tenants filed an application seeking compensation and/or exemplary damages in relation to the following: a. Failure to lodge bond b. Healthy Homes statement not provided c. Healthy Homes standards. d. Failure to maintain e. Smoke alarms regulations f. Breach of quiet enjoyment.
The onus of proof rests with the tenants. They must provide sufficient evidence to prove the facts on which their claims are based. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
Where exemplary damages are ordered, the Tribunal must take into account the impact on the applicant. Therefore the amounts of exemplary damages ordered include compensation.

Did the landlords fail to lodge the bond?

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
The tenants paid the bond on 16 February 2025 and received notice on 9 September from the Bond Centre that the bond had been lodged on 4 September 2025.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. 1 Therefore the landlords should have lodged the bond no later than 19 March 2025.
The landlords acknowledge that because of an administrative oversight, they had forgotten to lodge the bond. As soon as they realised, they sent the money to the Bond Centre.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy has now ended and the bond has been refunded to the tenants, but the landlord committed an unlawful act by not lodging the bond within the period prescribed in the Act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. 2
I accept the landlord’s evidence that they simply forgot to lodge the bond. When they realised, they remedied the situation without being prompted by the tenants. It is understandable that the tenants would have felt disconcerted to discover that the landlord had not lodged the bond, but there is insufficient evidence for me to conclude that the landlord intentionally failed to lodge the 1 See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 2 See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. bond. Therefore, although they have committed an unlawful act, I have decided that they have not committed it intentionally and so I make no order for exemplary damages.
The landlord said that they are busy with their work and other properties. All of the obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 apply no matter the landlord’s circumstances. Each tenancy agreement is a commercial arrangement. If other commitments make compliance with the Act difficult, they may decide to use a property manager or not to let their properties.

Did the landlord provide Healthy Homes Compliance and insurance statements?

After the tenants received the bond lodgement notification from the Bond Centre, they started making enquiries regarding the landlord’s obligations. When the tenants saw their friend’s tenancy agreement, they realised that their own one was deficient. It was missing a statement regarding Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). 3
There are two requirements about HHS statements under section 13A. The first one concerns insulation. A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed. 4
The second requirement concerns all HHS contained in the 2019 regulations, that is: a. Heating b. Insulation (with updated 2019 R-value requirements) c. Ventilation d. Moisture ingress and drainage e. Draught stopping.
The landlord must also include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that: a. on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and b. including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5), that is, the HHS. 3 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019. 4 See section 13A(1A).
Since August 2019, landlords have also been required to include a statement advising whether the premises are insured and advising the amount of the excess under their policy. 5 The tenant may request a copy of the policy, which must be provided within a reasonable time. 6
Section 13(1D) says that the requirement that the landlord’s statement regarding HHS is signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. This tenancy began between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, and so property had to comply within 120 days of the commencement of the tenancy. The obligation under section 13A is that the landlord signs a statement that the tenancy complies or will comply within 120 days.
Breaching the requirements of information and statements within the tenancy agreement is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. 7
In this case, the tenancy agreement is 5 pages long, including a title page and a page containing three further terms. Although it is a Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) form, it appears to be an outdated template. The front page says that the tenant may be required to pay a letting fee, but since December 2018, letting fees have been prohibited.
The agreement makes no reference to any aspect of HHS and lacks other information required under section 13A.
On 30 September 2025 the tenants emailed the landlords saying that the landlords were in breach of their responsibilities by not providing the HHS compliance statement or the insurance information. They required that information within 14 days, which is 14 October.
On 14 October, the landlords provided the insurance information and a compliance checklist that they had completed. This is a Tenancy Services tool to assist landlords in working out whether their property is compliant. It contains No and Yes tick boxes headed “Room to improve” and “You’re on track” respectively. The document is not signed by the landlords. As noted above, there is an obligation on the landlord to sign a compliance statement in addition to the obligation to sign the tenancy agreement.
Under section 45(1AC), if the tenant requests the records or other documents that relate to the landlord’s compliance with the HHS, the landlord must provide 5 See section 13A(2). 6 See section 13A. 7 See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A. the information within 21 days. These are documents that the landlord is obliged to retain under section 123A of the Act.
The landlord provided the tenants with an invoice for insulation. The tenants said they did not know if it related to their property.
At the hearing, the landlord produced evidence of steps undertaken in relation to HHS in May 2022. There is: a. an email dated 9 May 2022 from EnergySmart confirming that an assessment was booked for 17 May 2022 for the tenancy address; b. an invoice dated 10 August 2022 for creating a hatch to allow access under the house to ascertain whether there was any insulation and whether it could be installed; c. an email dated 17 August 2022 from EnergySmart confirming that an assessment was booked for 24 August 2022 for the tenancy address; d. a quote dated 24 August 2022 for installation of insulation and acceptance of the quote on 1 September 2022; e. an email dated 6 October 2022 from EnergySmart confirming that insulation installation was to be installed on 7 October 2022; f. an invoice dated 12 October 2022 for the balance owing for the installation of pink batts at the tenancy address.
The last item was provided to the tenant, and I note it includes the tenancy address.
It would have been preferable to provide all of the information to the tenant, but I am satisfied that the insulation information was provided. However, no copy of the HHS assessment conducted in 2022 was provided to the tenants or to the Tribunal.
I find Haiyang Lu, Xinhao Investment Limited and Carol Jia Zhou has committed an unlawful act.
The landlords were not aware of their obligations under Section 13A. It is a well- established legal principle that ignorance of the law is no defence. This has been confirmed by the District Court in considering an appeal from this Tribunal: 8 Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, [the landlord] 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 8 TMT Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 at [37]. consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.
In this case, I find that the omission was intentional, in that the landlords knowingly omitted the information. The effect of the unlawful act is that the tenants were left wondering about the state of their premises. They had concerns about the heating, dampness, ventilation and draughts and had no reassurance that the property was compliant.
Furthermore, the landlord had an opportunity to remedy the situation by providing a compliance statement and by providing information about HHS when requested on 30 September 2025. 9 The landlord could have provided all information from 2022. Instead, they provided one invoice for insulation and a completed checklist.
Under Schedule 1A of the Act, the maximum that can be awarded for either of these failures is $750. 10 There is a public interest in sending a strong message to this landlord and others that compliance with section 13A is required. Accordingly, I consider a modest order of $250 exemplary damages is warranted.
It is recommended that the landlords consult the Tenancy Services website and use the tool that is provided for creating a tenancy agreement and familiarise themselves with all their obligations relating to HHS. 9 As noted above, the landlord was obliged to provide this within 21 days under section 45(1AC). 10 See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 Healthy Homes Standards
As noted above, there are five HHS as well as a requirement for smoke alarms.
Under section 45(1)(bb) the landlord is required to comply with all HHS. Breach of this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
Since the tenancy ended, the landlords have had an independent HHS assessment undertaken by Betta Property Compliance, as discussed below.

Did the premises comply with the insulation standard?

[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord failed to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
The tenants looked in the ceiling cavity and took photos of the insulation. One photo shows a gap between the squares of insulation.
As well as the EnergySmart information referred to above, the landlords produced a report from Betta Property Compliance recording an assessment undertaken on 10 March 2026, after the tenancy had ended. The report confirms that the ceiling insulation complies and that the subfloor spaces are too low to the ground for a professional installer to insulate safely.
The photographs of the insulation contained in that report are consistent with those taken by the tenant. Although there appears to be a gap in the insulation in one of the tenants’ photos, it looks likely that a portion of pink batt has been moved and could be moved back to cover all areas. The tenants noted that there were rodent droppings on the pink batts, but otherwise they do appear to be in reasonable condition, consistent with having been installed in 2022. The thickness recorded by Betta Property Compliance is 170mm and the photographs of the insulation appear to show the same thickness as those of the tenants.
In conclusion, there is no reason to believe that the insulation that was assessed by Betta Property Compliance differs from the insulation that was present during the tenancy. The tenants have not established that the property did not comply with the insulation standard.

Did the premises comply with the heating standard?

The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the living 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.
The heating standard requires that heaters 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, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/ .
The tenants were concerned that the heater in the lounge did not put out sufficient heat and also caused dampness because it was fuelled by gas but not flued to the outside.
The Betta Property Compliance assessment from March 2026 records that the property did not comply with the heating standard. It confirmed that the gas heater in the lounge was an unflued combustion heater and therefore is not a qualifying heater. It was recommended that the door between the hallway and lounge was removed because there is a heat pump in the hallway which is a qualifying heater, and is sufficient to heat the lounge and hallway.
The landlords have now had the door removed and the property complies with the heating standard.
The landlords said that they had been aware of this issue in 2022 and were going to remove the door, but their tenant in 2022 said not to.
The tenants said that no-one ever told them that removing the door was an option.
The landlords said that it would be a matter of common sense to keep the door open.
I disagree. The heating standard concerns the living room. The tenants were entitled to expect that they could keep the door to the living room shut to reduce draughts and keep warmth in. The heat pump in the hallway is not directed toward the lounge. It is on one side of the hallway and is directed to the wall immediately opposite. I do not consider that it would be a matter of common sense to expect that to heat the living room.
I find that during the tenancy, the property did not comply with the HHS heating standard. The landlords have committed an unlawful act. I consider it is just to award exemplary damages, taking into account the following: a. The landlords knew that unless the door was removed, the property did not comply with the heating standard; b. The tenants found the property cold and damp; c. The landlord must be reminded of their obligations under the Act; d. There is a public interest in reminding all landlords that they must take their obligations seriously.
I have also taken into account the fact that the heater in the lounge was not the only source of heating provided in the property.
Considering those factors, I have determined that the landlords should pay $1,200 exemplary damages. That is 1/6 of the maximum that can be ordered.

Did the premises comply with the draught-stopping standard?

The tenants considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants point to the following areas that allowed a draught to arise: a. a gap under the front door; b. a gap around the kitchen window; c. four circular holes of 2 to 3 cm in diameter in the kitchen; d. gaps around the lounge window.
The tenants provided photographs of the first three areas and a video of the fourth. The tenants said that the video showed the movement of the curtain because of a draught coming through.
The Betta Property Compliance report from March this year also said there were gaps under the front door and the dining/kitchen window. A gap was also found around a bedroom window. The report does not mention the lounge window or the holes in the kitchen floor.
I do not find on the balance of probabilities that there was a gap around the lounge window. The movement of curtains was difficult to discern in the video and the independent assessment has not referred to that window.
I have considered whether the holes in the kitchen floor constitute an unreasonable hole. It is unclear why the assessor did not refer to those.
The tenants said that they are in the recess where their fridge was located and so were covered by a fridge when they were in occupation.
Clause 26 of the HHS says that the premises must be free from gaps between, and holes in, building elements that— a. are not intentional parts of the construction of the premises (such as drainage and ventilation openings); and b. allow draughts into or out of the premises; and c. are unreasonable.
In determining whether a gap or hole is unreasonable, the following matters may be taken into account: 11 a. the size and location of the gap or hole: b. the extent of the draught that is allowed through the gap or hole: c. if there is more than 1 gap or hole at the premises, the extent of the total draught that is allowed through those gaps and holes: d. the likely impact that a draught through the gap or hole will have on heat loss from the premises: e. any other relevant matters.
I find that the holes are quite large, and that because there are four, there is likely to be a considerable draught through them. The fact that a fridge usually covers the holes, will reduce the likely impact on heat loss from the premises and so on that basis, they are probably not unreasonable.
I do suggest, however, that the landlord provides a mat or piece of vinyl to cover them to further reduce the impact. If a tenant does not have a fridge in that area, then the holes will be unreasonable, and the landlord will need to find a solution.
However, the fact remains that in relation to the front door and the other two windows, the property was more likely than not non-compliant with the draught- stopping standard during the tenancy.
The landlord thought that the other gaps identified in the Better Property Compliance report had come about as the result of earthquakes. I accept that sometimes draughts can develop during a tenancy because of shifting materials 11 see clause 26(2). following an earthquake or because of weather events, but the landlord was unable to point to any event that would have caused the property to develop gaps during the tenancy. Nor was there any evidence that the landlord had assessed the property at the start of the tenancy or within 120 days of the start of the tenancy to satisfy themselves that there were no draughts.
I find on the balance of probabilities that the gap under the front door and the gap around the kitchen/dining room window were present at the start of the tenancy and that the one in the bedroom was likely there as well.
I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
The unlawful act was committed intentionally. The landlords should have been aware of these at the start of the tenancy. They were aware that there had been a burglary during a previous tenancy and the door frame had been damaged. Furthermore, in September, a few days before the tenants sent the 30 September email requesting the HHS information, the landlords were at the next-door property. The tenants told them about the draughts around the windows and front door. The landlord considered the matter was not urgent because Summer was coming. Another five months remained on the tenancy.
The impact on the tenants was that they experienced draughts and heat loss.
The landlords’ obligations under the HHS apply no matter the time of year. There is a public interest in reminding this landlord and others that the requirements of the HHS are mandatory all year round and landlords must comply. Accordingly, I order payment of $1,200 exemplary damages.
The landlords have attended to the matters raised in the Betta Property Compliance report and the property now complies.

Did the premises comply with the ventilation standard?

[The tenant/s]consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS 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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants found that the bathroom extractor fan was not working. On 23 May 2025, they contacted the landlord who attended that day and agreed that it was not satisfactory. There was an old HRV system which they thought might need servicing. They then decided to replace the system with the same DVS system 12 that they have in their own home.
I find that at the start of the tenancy, the property was likely compliant with the HHS, but that when the ventilation stopped working, the landlords were faced with a maintenance issue.
I also find that on being made aware of issues with the ventilation, the landlord took steps to find an appropriate remedy for the situation. The new DVS was installed on 13 November 2025. The tenants said that it improved the issues tremendously.
I note that it could have been installed during October but for some communication issues with the contractors. Those are discussed below.
However, the fact remains that from May to October, the tenants were without adequate ventilation in the bathroom and are entitled to compensation for those five months. They produced evidence of mould forming in the premises. The unflued heater in the lounge would likely have contributed to this. I order a 10% rent rebate of $57 for 20 weeks. That comes to $1,140. Did the premises comply with the moisture ingress and drainage
[The tenant/s] consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants are concerned that there is no moisture barrier. They provided photos taken looking through the holes in the kitchen floor. They show that the earth underneath the house is damp.
The tenants also provided videos showing pooling of water on the paths outside the property in the rain.
According to the Betta Property Compliance report from 10 March 2026, there was no evidence of stormwater pooling around the site. It was noted that it was not raining on the day of the inspection and so the efficiency or operation of the guttering and drainage system could not be determined. The gutters and 12 During the hearing, I queried the difference between HRV and DVS systems. In the parties’ presence, I searched the internet and established that they are simply different trade names for home ventilation systems. downpipes catch the roof water and discharge into the stormwater reticulation system.
The dwelling is exempt from the moisture barrier requirement because the areas of subfloor spaces are too low to the ground for a professional installer to access safely.
Therefore, on the face of it, the property complies. The restriction of the report (that the drainage could not be observed given the weather on the day) and the observations of the tenant raise the question that it is possible the premises do not comply. However, the Tribunal needs to find that it is more likely than not that the premises are in breach. The evidence presented by the tenant is not sufficient to persuade me on the balance of probabilities that that water does not drain away in a reasonable time. A series of time stamped photos over a period of days may have balanced the case in the tenants’ favour. This claim is therefore dismissed.
However, the landlords are on notice that there may be an issue with drainage and they are encouraged to look into this issue more closely. Smoke alarms
The installation of smoke alarms in residential tenancies is covered by the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016 (the Smoke Alarm Regulations) and section 45(1)(ba) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). The installation of the alarms is the responsibility of the landlord, 13 and they must be installed in bedrooms or within 3 metres of the entrance to each bedroom. 14
A landlord’s failure to instal the smoke alarms in accordance with the Smoke Alarm Regulations is an “unlawful act” for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200 are payable. 15
The tenants produced photographs showing that there is a smoke alarm in the hallway. They have measured the distance from the bedrooms. It is 2.6 metres from the middle of the doorway to one bedroom, but it is 3.8 metres from another bedroom and 4.5 meters from the third bedroom. The tenants have established that the placement of smoke alarms does not comply with the Smoke Alarm Regulations.
The landlords referred to the 10 March 2026 report from Betta Property Compliance. There are two pages of fine print referring to the scope of the inspection. Schedule Nine is Smoke Alarm Compliance Check. However, page 4 of the report is called Your Report Summary. It says: 13 See Subpart 1 of the Smoke Alarms Regulations. 14 See clause 5(6) of the Smoke Alarms Regulations. 15 See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the Act. This report focuses on the following Healthy Homes compliance components. These components are:
Heating, 2. Insulation, 3. Ventilation, 4. Drainage & Guttering, 5. Draughts, 6. Moisture Barrier.
There is nothing in the report about smoke alarms.
The tenants have established that the placement of the smoke alarms does not comply with the regulations. I find that the landlords have committed an unlawful act.
When a landlord decides to provide a property for residential occupation in exchange for rent, they take on all the legal obligations under the Act and Regulations. They must satisfy themselves that they have met those obligations. As noted above, Parliament’s intention to for exemplary damages to be ordered would be subverted if landlords could simply say they did not understand the law. I find that the landlords have committed an unlawful act.
In this case, the degree of departure from the legal standard is not as great as the situation where a landlord provides no alarms or does not position them near any bedrooms. There has been minimal impact on the tenants, but nonetheless, there is a public interest in reminding this landlord and others of their obligations under these regulations which provide for the minimisation of harm to tenants in the unfortunate event of a house fire. I order a modest amount of exemplary damages of $600.00.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Again, a breach of this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
There were several issues during the tenancy. When the tenant first arrived, there was no hot water. It took four days to be remedied because of the availability of tradespeople. There was no reason the landlords would have been aware of this issue before the tenants moved in and I consider the landlords responded within a reasonable time and so no order for exemplary damages is warranted for a failure to maintain. However, I do find that the tenants should be compensated for the inconvenience of no hot water during the first four days of their tenancy. I order $100.00.
There was also an issue with the shower not working when the rod attaching the shower head broke off. This was notified on 17 September and repaired on 23 September 2025. The tenants still had the use of the bath, but [tenant A] was on crutches at the time, making use of the bath very difficult. I order $50 compensation for the inconvenience.
At the same time that the shower was fixed, the toilet was also attended to. In May the tenants had notified the landlord that the toilet kept running. This was at the same time as they told the landlord about the bathroom ventilation. The toilet It was not fixed until September 2025.
In this region, there are no separate water rates, and so the tenant does not pay for water consumption. This differs from most regions in New Zealand, where a failure of a landlord to address the issue of running water would be much more serious. The impact of a toilet cistern that keeps running is irritating but not expensive. However, the landlord’s failure to fix this for four months warrants an order of exemplary damages. Taking into account the intentional act of the landlord, the impact on the tenant and the public interest, I order $250 exemplary damages.
On 8 December 2025, the tenants notified the landlord that a power socket in the kitchen was faulty. The landlord attended the property that evening and advised they would contact an electrician to inspect the outlet. They also advised that they would be leaving the country for four weeks.
On 12 December 2025, the landlords informed the tenants that they had been unable to contact an electrician and that they would be leaving the country the following day, returning to Palmerston North in January. No alternative local contact or property management details were provided.
On 16 December the tenants gave the landlords a 14-day notice to remedy the issue and it was fixed on 18 December.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The issue with the landlord being overseas arose after the tenant had lodged their claim with the Tribunal. Exemplary damages have not been considered.
The socket was fixed 10 days after notification, but in the meantime, the kitchen effectively had only one usable electrical outlet which contained a single functioning socket. They said that significantly restricted their ability to safely and reasonably prepare meals for a family household, as there is insufficient accessible counter space or power supply to operate standard kitchen appliances such as a kettle or hand mixer.
The tenants should not have had to issue a 14-day notice to get the power socket repaired; they should have known that an electrician had been organised before the landlord went away, and they should have had the name of an agent in New Zealand who they could contact.
I have decided that the tenants should be compensated $100 for the inconvenience of not having the use of the power outlet, stress and inconvenience of being told that the landlord had not found an electrician and they were going away, and the stress and inconvenience of having to issue a 14-day notice.
The tenants’ claims had included a complaint about ants but that was withdrawn at the hearing. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
There are two complaints about breach of quiet enjoyment. The first relates to the contractor hired to instal the DVS.
The landlord had organised an electrician to instal the DVS. The electrician emailed with a date to visit on 23 October 2025. On 14 October, the landlord forwarded the email to the tenant with a “FYI”. The tenant did not notice or open the email. The electrician turned up but rescheduled because it was inconvenient for the tenants.
Then on 5 November the electrician turned up but the tenant had not been notified. Using his phone, he showed the tenant that he had notified the landlord of the appointment. A further date was scheduled for 13 November 2025 and the DVS was installed.
The landlord does not remember receiving notification from the electrician of the second appointment, but given the contractor had notified the landlord of the first appointment, and he showed the tenant that he had notified the landlord of the second one, I find it more likely than not, that the landlord was aware of the second appointment on 5 November, but forgot to notify the tenant.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
For the purpose of carrying out necessary repairs to or necessary maintenance of, the premises, the landlord may enter without the consent of the tenant at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no evidence that anyone entered the premises without the tenant’s consent.
Section 38(2) says that 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenants have not established that they were harassed or there was a breach of their quiet enjoyment in relation to the installation of the DVS.
I find that the tenants were was notified of the planned first visit.
I find that the tenants were not notified of the planned second visit, but the visit was rescheduled. They have not established a breach of their rights under the Act. Did the landlord taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the landlord’s other tenants have not breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment?
The second claim relates to the behaviour of the tenants’ neighbours, who are also tenants of the landlord.
The premises are semi-detached to another property, also owned by the landlord. There is a garage and a carport between the two properties. There is a shared driveway. The neighbouring property is behind this tenancy.
Section 45(1)(e) imposes an obligation on the landlord to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
On 20 November 2025, the tenants emailed the landlord about the neighbours. They said: We have communicated previously with you regarding the rubbish situation caused by the tenants in the back house (111A) as well as the ongoing ant infestation. The tenants at 111A have continually left rubbish, debris items (including screws) and other hazards in the shared driveway space and in front of our carport. This obstructs safe access, creates hazards, attracts pests, and interferes with our quiet enjoyment of the property.
The email goes on to talk about the issue with the ants.
The tenants said that the landlord was in breach of their obligations by failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and ensure other tenants do not interfere with their right to quiet enjoyment. They gave the landlord a 14-day notice to remedy the situation by addressing and resolving the rubbish and debris issues in the shared driveway with the tenants in 111A, and ensuring those tenants comply with their obligations so that the shared area remains consistently safe, clear, and unobstructed.
The tenants attached photographs which showed boxes, pieces of cardboard and equipment lining the driveway as well as small pieces of wire and debris on the shared driveway. There are a number of cars up the driveway outside 111A.
The tenants decided to place their outdoor furniture in their car port to stop the neighbours and their visitors using that space.
On 24 November 2025 the landlord issued the neighbours with a 14-day notice to remedy. The notice said that the neighbours were in breach of their tenancy agreement because it had come to the landlord’s attention that the tenants at 111A were using the garage for commercial storage. They were told to cease all commercial use of the garage immediately and return the garage to its agreed residential/storage use.
The notice made no mention of the objects on the shared driveway or impact on the tenants at 111B.
On 20 December 2025 the tenants emailed the landlords who were overseas. They told the landlords that overnight the neighbours at 111A had been blasting music very loudly, enough to shake the walls of 111B, wake their family up and cause other neighbours to begin yelling across the fence, until around 2am. The tenants told the landlord that they had called the noise control a couple of times and had gone over to tell them to turn it down.
The tenants made it clear in their email that the continuous disregard for their quiet enjoyment of their rental due to the neighbours’ actions was becoming increasingly frustrating. They also said that the neighbours were continuing to park 4-5 cars in the driveway area, blocking their children from being able to get their bikes safely in and out if the backyard and their safe walking around our rental.
The tenants asked if they should contact the “appointed gentleman” who was the contact while overseas or whether to contact the landlords directly.
The landlords replied, expressing sympathy for the situation. They said that they had decided that keeping the tenants long-term was not sustainable and they had some other prospective tenants. They said that they would deal with the matter on their return to Palmerston North on 12 January 2026. They said: In the meantime, for any urgent noise disturbances late at night, we recommend contacting the Palmerston North City Council (PNCC) noise control, as they are best equipped for an immediate response. For all incidents, please continue to email us directly. This documentation will be important for us to show this as the evidence to support our next action when necessary. Once again, we sincerely apologize to you and your family for the inconvenience and stress this has caused. We deeply value your patience and understanding, and we are committed to ensuring a peaceful and respectful environment for everyone moving forward.
On 23 December the tenants emailed the landlord again, advising that the previous night they had contacted noise control and at one point one of the neighbour’s vehicles drove into their front yard area and ran over their potted plants, just after midnight. The tenants attached a screenshot of a video. They said that they did not know who owned the vehicle as there were different vehicles and people in and out at all different hours of the day.
The landlords replied, asking for any costs incurred which they said they would get from the neighbours, but the tenants sought no costs.
On 13 January 2026 the landlords issued a second notice to the neighbours regarding the use of the garage and surrounding areas for unauthorised commercial storage and activities. They provided photographs taken following their inspection.
On the second page of this notice they also said that they had received complaints that have caused serious interference with their lives and damage to property. They suggested mutually agreeing to an early termination of the fixed- term tenancy.
The landlord told the Tribunal that they spoke to the neighbours at 111A about the noise but they denied it.
I find that although the landlord took some steps, they did not take all reasonable steps to have the shared driveway cleared. The notice of 23 November makes no mention of that.
When the tenants made two complaints about noise on 20 December, there were several options open to the landlord. They should have take at least one of the following actions: a. spoken with the neighbours about this the next day; b. issued a notice under section 56 advising them they were in breach of their obligation; c. issued an anti-social behaviour notice.
When there was a second complaint on 23 December, they were on notice that this was an ongoing issue. Again, as a minimum they should have spoken with the neighbours, but if they had already spoken with them on 20 December, then they really needed to take more formal action by issuing a notice under section 56 or issuing an anti-social behaviour notice under section 55A.
I find that the landlord did not take all reasonable steps. The November notice makes no mention of the impact of the neighbour’s acts on the tenants, and the landlord’s notice of 13 January was more than three weeks after the tenants’ complaints in December about the noise.
I find that the landlord should compensate the tenant for this disturbance. I order compensation of $250 for the rubbish in the driveway and $250 for the second noise disturbance on 23 December 2025. That is a total of $500.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Landlord’s issues
At the hearing the landlord raised some complaints about the tenant. The landlord made no cross-application. They said that the purpose of raising these issues was to show that difficulties at the property were not entirely one-sided.
They said that the tenant was not authorised to enter the ceiling cavity, which was not part of the normal residential living space. I do not agree with that interpretation. It is not unreasonable for a tenant to look in the attic. They may want to check insulation, ascertain if there are rodents that need extermination, see if there is a leak. This is relevant to the tenant’s obligation under section 40(1)(d) to notify the landlord of the need for any repairs.
The landlords said that the tenants were rude towards visitors. Some prospective tenants for 111A had come to the property. They say that the tenants at 111B shouted at them.
The tenants say they got a fright to see someone at their kitchen window and did shout. The tenants have not breached any obligation under the Residential Tenancies Act.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5372564 — 14-day notice at 111B Linton Street, West End, Palmerston North 4410

Tenancy Tribunal case 5372564 — 14-day notice at 111B Linton Street, West End, Palmerston North 4410

Order

Reasons

Did the landlords fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord provide Healthy Homes Compliance and insurance statements?

Did the premises comply with the insulation standard?

Did the premises comply with the heating standard?

Did the premises comply with the draught-stopping standard?

Did the premises comply with the ventilation standard?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Order

Reasons

Did the landlords fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord provide Healthy Homes Compliance and insurance statements?

Did the premises comply with the insulation standard?

Did the premises comply with the heating standard?

Did the premises comply with the draught-stopping standard?

Did the premises comply with the ventilation standard?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?