Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5374923 — State of repair
Decided 10 Mar 2026 · Published 10 Mar 2026 · Application 5374923
- State of repair
- Healthy homes
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
- Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $3,778.00 immediately.
- By consent of the parties, the landlord is to assess the flooding, pooling and any drainage issues at the property, come up with a plan to address any issues identified, along with time frames to repair any issues identified, and will include and consult with the tenant in this process. The landlord’s assessment is to be undertaken within a reasonable time, bearing in mind the ongoing issues in this regard.
- All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- [The tenant/s] and Ms Gray and Mr Reedy, representing the landlord, all attended the hearing in-person.
- The tenant has applied for compensation, work order, exemplary damages, failure to maintain, quiet enjoyment, breach of Healthy Homes Standards, failure to provide a Healthy Homes Standards report on request, recovery of overpaid rent and reimbursement of the filing fee.
- The tenancy is ongoing currently.
- During the hearing, the tenant withdrew her claim for recovery of overpaid rent. Burden of proof and evidence
- Any party making a claim must prove each claim on the balance of probabilities, i.e. that it is more likely than not that something occurred. This is called the burden of proof.
- The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
- Where the parties differ in their evidence about an issue, the party seeking to prove the claim must provide additional supporting evidence of their position. Failure to maintain
- [The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
- Under section 45(1)(b) RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problems might be”. 1
- There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
- A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach. 2 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 4
- There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 5
- Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards (“HHS”).
- Section 45(1)(c) RTA requires the landlord to comply with all the requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment as far as they apply to the premises.
- Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenant claimed the landlord failed to maintain the property in the following: a. Removing buried rubbish at the property before the tenancy began. b. Drainage, flooding and pooling of water at the property. c. Rat infestation and rat damage. d. Windows and doors rotting in the lounge, kitchen, laundry and 3 bedrooms. e. Sinking driveway. Buried rubbish 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15] 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as LJ Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]-[11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016], NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
- The tenant said that, a few months after she moved into the property in early 2018, she was digging in a new tree when old nappies and beer bottles came up in the soil where she was digging. She said she rang the landlord’s call centre asking them to remove the rubbish under the soil. The tenant indicated the landlord sent 2 workers who spent 4 hours and had 80 rubbish bags, that the workers then filled in the hole but she believed there was yet more rubbish left in the ground that they had not removed.
- The tenant reported she has asked the landlord numerous times since then to remove the remaining rubbish under the ground. She said that in 2024 there were 2.5 truck loads of rubbish removed, and the issue appeared to have been addressed then. The tenant believed that the rubbish left in the ground attracted rats and mice to the property, which was another issue dealt with by the tenant.
- The landlord said the tenant advised them in early April 2018 about the rubbish and the job was done the same day the tenant advised them about it, on 10 April 2018. The landlord believed all the rubbish under the ground was removed on 10 April 2018. The landlord explained that the tenant had advised them she felt there was more rubbish under the ground after this in early 2024 and on 9 October 2024, they had 6 cubic metres of topsoil removed but only found a couple of rusty cans then. This work was apparently completed in anticipation of some major works at the property to come and to grade the soil in the back yard so water would fall in the correct position, according to the landlord.
- The tenant said she took videos and photographs in 2024 when 2.5 trucks of soil was removed but she did not have any videos or photographs that she could provide for the hearing of this.
- Whilst the tenant disputes the landlord saying there was no rubbish left buried after they dug it out in early 2018, and said she saw rubbish when the topsoil was removed in 2024, the tenant did not provide any additional supporting evidence of any rubbish left that was removed in 2024, such as videos, photographs or witness statements, for example. From the evidence, the landlord responded swifty to the tenant’s first request in early 2018 to remove buried rubbish, sending out workers the same day the tenant requested this. As such, I find the tenant has provided insufficient additional supporting evidence of this claim and so dismiss this claim. Drainage, flooding and pooling
- The tenant claimed the drainage at the property did not work properly and, when it rained, the whole property was like a lake, with parts of the property and paths under water, sometimes for days on end, even after rain had stopped. She indicated she first notified the landlord of this issue around 2018 and has had many conversations with the landlord about this since. The tenant reported this has been ongoing for about 7 years of her tenancy. The tenant said nothing was done by the landlord in 2018, that she was told by the landlord after Cyclone Gabrielle in February 2023 that her flooding was not a priority and that every inspection annually, she has again pointed out the flooding issues at the property.
- The tenant provided several photographs of the pooling and flooding at the property from 2022 to 2025, along with copies of texts with her property manager about these issues.
- The tenant said the landlord installed a pump in the area outside the garage and kitchen, but she must pay for the electricity for this pump, so she turns it off when it is not raining and runs outside to turn it on again when the rain comes. The tenant reported the pump removes water from the immediate area around the kitchen and garage but does not remove water from other areas around the property.
- The landlord said the tenant did not advise them until 2022 about problems with flooding at the property, that the Cyclone in 2023 caused flooding across the region, not just at this property, and confirmed that on 6 March 2023 the tenant told them the drains were overflowing and there was rubbish in the drains. The landlord saw there was a drainage problem and said there was a report completed in July 2024 confirming there was a lot of work to be done at this property. This July 2024 report was discussed at the hearing, but the landlord did not provide a copy of this report at the hearing for the Tribunal to ascertain what issues were identified at that time.
- The landlord said there was work done at the property between January 2025 to February 2025 and an automatic pump was put in. The landlord said the pump automatically starts up when the water levels start rising above a certain level, that the pump works on demand and that the tenant should not be switching off the pump in between rainfalls.
- The tenant said nobody has ever explained to her that the pump works on demand and should remain switched on. She said the pump has at times remained on for up to 12 days straight and the property was still flooding. She was concerned that she is paying for the electricity costs for a pump she did not want, and which does not work effectively.
- The landlord said the drainage had been dealt with in the back yard but did not dispute there was flooding in the other areas at the property, indicating the drainage in the other areas had not yet been looked at. They confirmed the reduction of the pooling at the property was yet to be sorted out and said there were similar issues with other properties they owned on the same street, and this was being investigated.
- The tenant provided a number of photographs of flooding and pooling of water at the property between 2022 and 2025, along with texts and correspondence with the landlord about this issue. The tenant acknowledged that the pump installed had assisted with draining the water around the immediate area around the kitchen and garage but said the other areas at the property continued to have flooding and pooling of water, sometimes for days on end, despite subsequent good weather after rainfall. The landlord acknowledged the flooding and pooling in other areas at the property, other than around the kitchen and garage have yet to be reduced or sorted out, despite the numerous attempts by the tenant to have this issue tended to over at least a 3-year period, if not longer. As such, I find the tenant has shown that the landlord has failed to maintain the property sufficiently, especially in relation to drainage, flooding and pooling of water at the property in areas other than around the kitchen and garage.
- As such, I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
- I will deal with the issue of the exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain in the Exemplary Damages section below, together with the other claims pursuant to section 45 RTA. Rat infestation/rat damage
- The tenant claimed the rubbish left buried under the ground at the property attracted rats and mice. She said she first reported this to the landlord in June 2018. She reported there were rats gnawing at the walls and ceilings and jumping out of the food cupboards and they were so big, they scared her cat. The tenant said the rats also damaged the property and provided photographs of some areas of damage by the rats.
- The tenant acknowledged the landlord had sent in pest control contractors, around 4-6 times but the issue with the rats did not go away until the tenant said the rest of the rubbish was removed in 2024.
- The landlord confirmed the tenant reported the rats on 27 June 2018, that they had an exterminator go out to the property and also had subsequent exterminators attend the property to deal with this issue, whenever the tenant requested this. However, the landlord said the environment is also a factor in ascertaining the cause of a rat infestation and said it is an issue for the whole area. The landlord questioned whether they are responsible for dealing with pest infestations that may well be caused by environmental factors outside of their control.
- The tenant believed the landlord had an obligation to provide a clean property in the first place and said the rubbish left buried at the property was an indication the landlord had breached this obligation, and therefore had created an environment that attracted the rats. The landlord disputed this and said rats can come from anywhere in the environment.
- The tenant said the landlord has not yet fixed all the rat holes, that there was one rat hole left to be repaired in the laundry room and said she had made a verbal notification to her property manager about this. The tenant did not have a text or email or other confirmation of this, nor a photograph of the remaining rat hole she said was in the laundry.
- The landlord said they have fixed rat holes at the property, whenever notified of this by the tenant, and as far as they were aware, all the rat holes had been fixed. They were unaware of a remaining rat hole to be fixed in the laundry.
- Whilst the tenant provided some photographs of rat damage at the property, and acknowledged the landlord had fixed most of the rat damage, there was little evidence provided about the landlord not responding to the tenant’s request to address the rat issues. The tenant did not provide confirmation of her notification about the remaining rat hole damage in the laundry, nor did she provide any photographs of this. Further, I find there is insufficient additional supporting evidence provided by the tenant that any rat infestations at the property were solely caused by any rubbish left buried in the ground, given the potential environmental causes of rats at a property. As such, I find the tenant has provided insufficient additional supporting evidence to prove it likely the landlord failed to maintain the property in this regard, and so dismiss this claim. Windows and door rotting
- The tenant said the landlord failed to maintain windows and doors at the property, which have had condensation build-up, leading to rotting window and door frames in the lounge, kitchen, laundry, bedrooms 2, 3 and 4. She reported that 2 of the lounge room windows had rot chiselled out and were painted but no other area of windows or doors have been looked at by the landlord. The tenant explained she first brought this up with the landlord in February 2022 via the housing manager and was told the property was set for a retro fit, due to mould and the windows.
- The tenant provided photographs of the windows and doors, namely a photograph of the laundry window, taken on 23 September 2022 and sent to the landlord showing the bottom corner of the laundry window with a gap and rotting, along with photographs of the back door showing the bottom of the door rotting with a gap, saying a new back door was declined in 2025 and a thick piece of wood was put on the bottom of the door instead, with sinking concrete steps and pooling water outside the back door, and a photograph of the front door also showing a clear gap along with bottom of the entire front door, which the tenant said was around 7-8mm and has been like that for 7 years, and has had alloy pieces put along the bottom twice, without success. The tenant said the back door has been repaired 4 times during her tenancy and needs to be replaced.
- The tenant said the laundry window was only fixed about a month before the hearing.
- The landlord said that on 16 July 2024 there were repairs to the window frames in the kitchen and dining room, bedrooms 1 and 2, that work was done with weatherseal strips and trim put onto both the front and back doors.
- The tenant responded that, whilst that work was done, it has come off or the door has swollen up and has become hard to open. She said she told the landlord about this.
- Given the photographs provided and copies of texts from the tenant to the landlord about this issue, as early as 2022, and the ongoing nature of the problems with the front and back door and the laundry window only being repaired about one month before the hearing, I find it likely, based on the evidence, that the landlord has failed to properly maintain the windows and doors at the property in a timely manner.
- As such, the landlord has committed an unlawful act. I will deal with the issue of exemplary damages in the section for Exemplary Damages below. Driveway
- The tenant said the property has a ‘sinking driveway’ and clarified that term had been used by one of her housing managers. The tenant said there is nowhere to park her car as the driveway is going underwater, and is frequently flooded and has pooled water after rain. She said the driveway is around 3 feet away from the pump. She explained she first notified this to the landlord on 23 September 2022. The tenant provided several photographs of the driveway under water with pooling water and said she has raised this issue with the housing managers at every annual inspection, with no success. She said she was told the driveway would need a lift and fill. The landlord said if the housing manager had told the tenant this it would be the metal on the driveway. The landlord did not have much comment to make about this issue.
- Given the photographs and texts to the landlord provided by the tenant of the driveway covered on several occasions with pooling water, I find it likely, based on the evidence, that the landlord has failed to maintain the driveway at the property.
- As such, the landlord has committed an unlawful act. I will deal with the issue of exemplary damages in the section for this below.
HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS
Heating
- The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards). The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
- Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
- The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
- The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
- The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
- Breaching 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).
- The tenant said there was a wood burner fire at the property in the living area but no heaters in the bedrooms and the house is cold in winter. The landlord pointed out that the wood burner in the living room is sufficient to meet the HHS requirements in relation to heating and pointed out the wood burner had heating capacity of up to 14 kW. The tenant said she did not have information about the heating capacity of the wood burner fire.
- I find the tenant has provided insufficient evidence to prove the landlord did not meet the Healthy Homes Standards in relation to heating and so dismiss this claim. Draught stopping
- [The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
- Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
- 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.
- Breaching 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).
- The tenant said there were gaps in windows and doors throughout the house and the house was very cold in winter. The tenant provided photographs of gaps in the laundry window and in the front and back doors. The photograph of the front door in particular, taken from inside the property, shows quite an obvious, large gap through which the outside can be viewed.
- The landlord said the house met the HHS requirements in 2021 and argued things have happened at the property since then and it has now become a maintenance issue. The landlord acknowledged a large gap on the bottom of the front door in the photograph provided by the tenancy. The tenant said the landlord put on wood or beading instead of retrofitting the windows or doors, which is ineffective and will not last long.
- Compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards is an ongoing obligation of landlords.
- Whilst the landlord may have complied with the draught stopping standard in their report of April 2022 provided, it is clear from the tenant’s evidence, particularly the photographs provided, that the landlord does not currently comply with this requirement, given the clear gaps at the bottom of the front and back doors and on the laundry window, which was only recently repaired.
- As such I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act. I will deal with the issue of exemplary damages in the section on Exemplary Damages below. Moisture ingress and drainage
- [The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
- Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
- 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.
- Breaching 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).
- The tenant said the moisture builds up on the windows overnight and likely rots the windows over time. The tenant indicated that, as regards drainage, the spouting hits the ground and there is grass growing in the spouting, and that the spouting on the garage does not go anywhere. The tenant did not provide photographs of the spouting at the property but had provided numerous photographs showing flooding and pooling of water at the property.
- The landlord argued the property complied with HHS in relation to moisture ingress and drainage at the time it was required to do so and pointed to the HHS Report they provided in this regard. The landlord acknowledged, however, that this has since become a maintenance issue. The landlord confirmed there is a ground moisture barrier under the property and that there have been jobs to clean the spouting.
- Whilst the tenant provided photographs of pooling water and flooding, there was no additional supporting evidence provided that this is directly caused by the drainage system, though that may turn out to be the case once this is investigated further. The landlord had commented that there were similar issues throughout the street and neighbourhood. Thus, I find the evidence provided falls short of showing that the landlord breached the HHS in relation to moisture ingress and drainage, given the insufficient additional supporting evidence about the spouting and set up and functioning of the drainage system at the property, and so dismiss this claim. However, I have dealt with the issue of drainage, flooding and pooling in the Failure to Maintain section above, and the parties have also agreed that the landlord will assess this issue further and include the tenant in any plan to repair any issues identified in this regard. Failure to provide HHS Report on request
- [The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Under section 45, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
- Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenant said she first requested a Healthy Homes Standard Report (“HHS Report”) from the landlord in October 2023. She indicated she received a brief 2-page report from her housing manager on 15 July 2024, after her second request for this report, but the report she was provided with was not the correct HHS Report. The tenant said she continued with her request to the landlord to provide her with a full HHS Report and provided a copy of a text to her housing manager on 1 August 2024 in this regard.
- The landlord said they were aware the tenant had asked for official information in 2024 and recently and had assumed the tenant had been sent the HHS Report as part of this request. The tenant said she was told to expect a report of around 15 pages but had only received the brief 2-page summary dated 15 July 2024 provided to her by the housing manager, a copy of which she provided.
- The landlord handed up at the hearing another 2-page Healthy Homes Compliance Form, which they said was the first HHS Report for the property which was dated 20 April 2022. The tenant said the first time she had seen this Healthy Homes Compliance Form dated 20 April 2022 was at the hearing on 12 February 2026. The landlord said there was another 2024 report completed to look through the property.
- Given the landlord confirmed the first HHS Report was the 2-page report called ‘Healthy Homes Compliance Form’ dated 20 April 2022 and not the 2-page ‘Healthy Homes Statement’ dated 15 July 2024 that was provided to the tenant by the housing manager, and the tenant first saw the first HHS Report dated 20 April 2022 at the hearing on 12 February 2026, which was not disputed by the landlord, and given the tenant is entitled to the relevant HHS Reports that deal with whether the property is compliant with the HHS requirements, which includes the HHS Report dated 20 April 2022, I find it likely the landlord breached the requirement to provide the tenant with a copy of the HHS Report within the time frame required. As such, the landlord has breached section 45 of the RTA and has committed an unlawful act.
- I will deal with the issue of exemplary damages in relation to HHS requirements in the Exemplary Damages section below.
WORK ORDERS
- The tenant applied for several work orders for the landlord to maintain drainage, remedy flooding and pooling of water at the property and assess and repair the driveway. The tenant withdrew her work order claims for rubbish and rat infestations and rat damage.
- After some discussion, the parties agreed that the landlord is to assess the flooding, pooling and any drainage issues at the property, come up with a plan to address any issues identified, along with time frames to address these issues identified and is to include and consult with the tenant in this process.
- Whilst there was no specific timeline agreed upon by the parties at the hearing to begin this process, given the evidence of ongoing issues at the property and the length of time this has been an issue, I encourage the landlord to begin the assessment process on an urgent basis, if possible.
- To be clear, the parties reached this consent agreement in place of the need for any work orders. Should the landlord fail to start this assessment and undertake any repairs identified as required within a reasonable time, it is open to the tenant to file a further application about this matter.
QUIET ENJOYMENT
- [The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
- 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 tenant claims 3 different breaches of quiet enjoyment by the landlord, as follows: a. In relation to a neighbouring tenant of the landlord’s and that tenant’s anti- social behaviour towards this tenant. b. In relation to construction and other work completed at the tenancy property over a 3-6 month period. c. In relation to the landlord showing up, according to the tenant ‘whenever they want’. Anti-social behaviour of neighbouring tenant
- The tenant claims another tenant of this landlord, who lives close to her, has committed a number of anti-social behaviours towards the tenant and other neighbours, including yelling profanities at the tenant and her children, playing loud music, hosting gang members at the other tenant’s house, the other tenant painting graffiti on the road, including on the tenant’s driveway calling her abusive names and endangering her safety, the other tenant being drunk, being involved in domestic violence at and around her property, the other tenant setting her dog on this tenant’s cat and other incidents. The tenant said this has been ongoing over the whole period of her tenancy and she has rung the police, dog control, the landlord and others numerous times about the incidents by the neighbouring tenant. The tenant said the neighbouring tenant has become violent towards her and her children, and the behaviour is constant and consistent. The tenant said she has a Trespass Notice against the neighbouring tenant, but the police have still not served it. The tenant felt nobody is taking responsibility and the neighbouring tenant is disrupting the neighbourhood and interfering with her and her family’s quiet enjoyment of the property.
- The tenant provided copies of several texts to the landlord’s housing manager about the neighbouring tenant’s behaviours, and well as photographs of the neighbouring tenant’s graffiti painted on her driveway and on the road. She said she was very scared at the nature of the graffiti painted on her driveway as it compromised her safety. The tenant said this painted graffiti was finally removed by the local Council.
- The landlord confirmed the neighbouring tenant in question is another tenant of this landlord, said they had received a complaint from this tenant on 20 October 2025 about the painted graffiti in the tenant’s driveway and had put out a job to remove it and understood this was done. They said the other neighbouring tenant was issued with a section 55A RTA breach notice in October 2025. The landlord confirmed they had received a complaint from the tenant about a private owner’s dog on 3 November 2025, and on 8 September 2025 a complaint about somebody setting things on fire on the tenant’s front lawn, but said no individual culprit was named at that time. On 10 February 2025, the landlord said another section 55A letter was issued to the neighbouring tenant. In February 2024, the landlord said there were complaints from both this tenant and the neighbouring tenant about each other, with this tenant claiming the neighbouring tenant was drinking, involved in drugs, starting fights with neighbours and so on and was seeking support to help with these issues. The neighbouring tenant had apparently complained about this tenant recording her. On 13 June 2023, the landlord said the tenant contacted them about somebody damaging her property whilst she was away, but the identity of the culprit could not be substantiated apparently.
- The landlord confirmed they had issued the neighbouring tenant with 2 section 55A RTA letters but they did not have record of others mentioned by the tenant. They believed they tried to act on complaints made to the tenant, which they said were few and far between.
- The tenant then provided copies of texts sent to her housing manager on 26 September 2024, on 14 December 2024 and on 10 February 2025 complaining about the neighbouring tenant’s behaviours, including the other tenant’s dog attacking her cat and drunkenly explaining what occurred to the tenant’s children, the other tenant beating up her boyfriend, smashing up his car and throwing a bucket at his car in the street with other neighbours coming out and complaining about the ongoing incidents with the other tenant, and the other tenant and her partner threatening to bat the tenant’s son off his bike and filming it.
- The landlord said they could not comment on the texts provided by the tenant in this regard, as they did not have notes about those texts in their system.
- It is clear from the evidence, that the tenant notified the landlord on multiple occasions about the anti-social behaviour of the neighbouring tenant. At least 3 of these notifications made by the tenant to her then housing manager appear not to have been put onto the landlord’s system, unfortunately. However, from the evidence of the level of abuse and violence in the incidents involving the neighbouring tenant, towards this tenant and other neighbours, including the more recent graffiti on the tenant’s driveway which likely endangered her safety, I find the landlord could have taken more consistent and timely action against the neighbouring tenant about her anti-social behaviour yet still has not, from the evidence provided. Issuing 2 section 55A RTA notices between February 2025 and October 2025, without any further effective follow-up or action before then or since, by the landlord about the neighbouring tenant, does not adequately address the situation, in my view. Given the evidence provided, I find it likely the landlord has failed to effectively address the anti-social issues of the neighbouring tenant of theirs, who, from the evidence provided, has been consistently harassing this tenant, and in doing so has breached this tenant’s quiet enjoyment. As such, I find they have committed an unlawful act.
- I will deal with exemplary damages in the Exemplary Damages section below. Work at the property from July 2024 to February 2025
- The tenant claimed that, instead of doing regular maintenance at the property, the landlord did all work at the property in one hit, from July 2024 to February 2025. This was a period when she said workers were coming and going, there was no use of the kitchen for a few days, no use of the bathroom for a few days, different managers would show up at the property all the time and the tenant felt she had to ‘babysit’ the workers around her property, as they did not appear to have supervision. She clarified she had been given notice of the work by the landlord, and wanted to have the work done, but did not realise that all the work would be done all at once. She said the workers used her toilet, used her facilities for cups of tea and she put seats out in the garden for them also. She felt she could not rest at her own home over this period.
- The landlord acknowledged there was a lot of work completed at the property over that period from July 2024 to February 2025, including fencing and other work and said their contractors should not have used the tenant’s facilities. The landlord said there was no compensation for the tenant’s loss of amenity but agreed there should have been.
- Given the evidence, I find the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment over the period from July 2024 to February 2025 with all the work done at the property, as outlined above. As such, the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
- I will deal with exemplary damages in the Exemplary Damages section below. Landlord showing up at the property
- The tenant said she had felt harassed by the landlord in the few days preceding the hearing, as the tenancy manager had showed up twice that week, but she did not answer the door.
- The landlord said they had explored over the few days preceding the hearing whether the tenant would be willing to speak with them, by dropping off their card and asking her to call them. The landlord said they often do a door knock at their tenants’ properties at times, for various issues, but do not enter the property unless the tenant consents to this.
- I find there was insufficient evidence provided by the tenant about any behaviour by the landlord in the few days or week preceding the hearing, that would have amounted to harassment of the tenant. As such, I dismiss this claim.
COMPENSATION
- The tenant sought compensation as follows: a. Living with buried rubbish for 7 years – 364 weeks @ $40.00/week for a total of $14,560.00. b. Living with rats for 7 years – 364 weeks @ $40.00/week for a total of $14,560.00. c. Reimbursement for maintenance jobs paid for by the tenant, including $600.00 paid for an invoice dated 15 December 2023 for clearing the gutters and washing the house, and $300.00 to pay to remove and dispose of a rubbish drum, for a total of $900.00. d. Reimbursement for electricity costs for the pump installed by the landlord on 8 January 2025 – for 58 weeks $60.00/week for a total of $3,480.00.
- The tenant said she lived with buried rubbish for around 7 years and claimed $14,560.00 for this. The evidence showed the landlord removed some buried rubbish from the property in early 2018 as soon as the tenant notified them about this. However, the evidence fell short of showing that there continued to be buried rubbish at the property after 2018, due to insufficient evidence. The tenant has also not provided additional supporting evidence of any effect of this on her or her family, such as any professional reports or witness statements for example, either. As such, the tenant has not proved this claim and so I dismiss this claim.
- The tenant said there were rats at the property because of the buried rubbish. The landlord said rats could have been caused by environmental factors other than any buried rubbish. The landlord also disputed there was any buried rubbish left at the property after 2018. As the evidence did not support a finding that it was likely there continued to be buried rubbish at the property after 2018, as outlined above, similarly, the evidence does not support a finding that the rat infestation and damage was likely caused by the landlord. As such, I dismiss the claim for $14,560.00 for the tenant living with rats and rat damage due to the actions of the landlord.
- Whilst the tenant has claimed $900.00 for maintenance of the property, clearing gutters, washing the house and getting a rubbish drum removed and disposed of, as she said the landlord did not respond to her requests in this regard, the tenant did not provide any additional supporting evidence showing the requirement for her to undertake these costs, such as photographs of the condition of the gutters or house at the time, or the rubbish drum, or any witness statements about this. As such, I find the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to show the requirement for her to incur these costs and so dismiss this claim.
- The tenant claimed $3,480.00 for reimbursement for electricity costs for running the pump after it was installed in January 2025. The tenant provided a table of her electricity costs but only provided a few actual power invoices, all of which pre-dated the installation of the pump. In going through the tenant’s table of power costs with her during the hearing, it became clear that the tenant’s power usage had actually decreased in large measure, rather than increased, after the pump had been installed in January 2025, overall. The landlord also commented to this effect.
- The landlord acknowledged that the tenant should be reimbursed for some of the power costs relating to the pump. The landlord had consulted an electrician to obtain an approximate estimate of such power costs and had come to the figure of $1.00 per week for power for the pump, being $52.00 for a year. The tenant disputed this figure, saying sometimes the pump would run for days on end, but did not provide any additional supporting evidence about the specific amount of the power cost directly attributable to the pump, to the contrary. Given this, I find the tenant has not proved her power costs likely increased after the pump was installed. However, because the landlord acknowledged that the tenant should receive some compensation for the power she has paid for the pump, I award the tenant a nominal amount of $100.00 towards power used since the pump was installed in January 2025, just over one year ago.
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
- Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
- Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved has that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act.
- I have determined that the landlord has committed unlawful acts, for which exemplary damages can be ordered.
- The Tribunal must take a global approach to exemplary damages meaning one order to a single maximum irrespective of the number of breaches of a section. See MBIE v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583.
- The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA and the following apply: a. Breaching quiet enjoyment of the tenant – s.38 – maximum $3,000.00. b. Landlord failing to meet obligations in respect of cleanliness, maintenance, smoke alarms, the healthy homes standards, or buildings, health, and safety requirements - s 45 (1A) – maximum $7,500.00. c. Failing to provide HHS Report on request – s.45(1AD)(a) – maximum $750.00.
- I must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA, specifically: a. The intent of that person in committing the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
- Landlords are required to know the law and there is a public interest in ensuring landlords comply with the RTA.
- The issue of whether an act is intentional has been considered in situations of damage caused in a tenancy. There, damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Exemplary damages – Quiet Enjoyment
- In this situation, in relation to the breaches of quiet enjoyment to the tenant, as found, not effectively dealing with the anti-social behaviour of the tenant’s neighbour (another tenant of the landlord) and the ongoing work at the property over several months, the landlord allowed these situations to continue for almost the entire tenancy to date concerning the neighbouring tenant’s behaviour, and for several months with the work at the property. As such, I find that the landlord committed this unlawful act intentionally.
- I have dealt with the intent of the landlord above. As a result of the landlord’s inaction, the tenant and her family have suffered immensely, enduring high stress levels and mental health issues dealing with the behaviour of the neighbouring tenant, and threats to their safety, which has impacted the tenant and her family greatly. Further, the tenant was unable to rest and relax in her own home for several months, with workers and the landlord’s managers coming and going through her house for several months to complete works, using her toilet and other facilities. It is in the public interest that landlords deal quickly and effectively with problematic tenants they have who are greatly affecting other tenants and neighbours, so that situations do not escalate, as happened here. Further, it is also in the public interest that landlords plan any maintenance of the property with minimal impact on tenants or make alternative plans for the tenant’s accommodation for the period of any works, if this is not possible.
- The maximum level of exemplary damages is $3,000.00. In this case I consider an order of one third of the maximum would be indicated. The landlord has committed an unlawful act, and I accept that there has been an impact for the tenant. I cannot see any aggravating or mitigating factors that would argue for a higher or lesser order. I therefore order exemplary damages of $1,000.00. Exemplary damages – Failure to maintain, Healthy Homes Standards, Smoke alarm regulations
- Here, the landlord allowed the situation to continue in relation to failure to maintain the drainage, flooding and pooling, the windows and doors rotting and the driveway, as well as the Healthy Homes Standards being breached in relation to draught stopping, for a substantial period of the tenancy. Therefore, I find the landlord committed this unlawful act intentionally.
- I have dealt with the landlord’s intent above. As a result of the landlord’s inaction, the premises were draughty, and were subject to ongoing issues with drainage, flooding, pooling of water. The tenant and her family have had to live in a very cold and draughty house and have had to endure ongoing flooding and pooling of water around the property. The public interest is served by landlords being penalised for providing premises that jeopardise tenants’ health and which do not meet basic standards of living for health and welfare.
- The maximum level of exemplary damages is $7,200.00. In this case I consider an order of one third of the maximum would be indicated. The landlord has committed an unlawful act, and I accept that there has been an impact for the tenant. I cannot see any aggravating or mitigating factors that would argue for a higher or lesser order. I therefore order exemplary damages of $2,400.00. Exemplary damages – failure to provide HHS Report
- Here, the tenant requested the HHS Report in October 2023, only received the 2024 report on 15 July 2024, and was not provided with the first HHS Report from April 2022 at all, until the hearing in February 2026. Therefore, I find the landlord committed this unlawful act intentionally.
- I have dealt with the landlord’s intent above. As a result of the landlord’s inaction, the tenant was not aware of whether her property was fully compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards and, indeed questioned this, given the ongoing maintenance issues occurring at the house. The tenant said she has felt very stressed in having to constantly follow up with the landlord about providing this information. It is in the public interest that tenants are made fully aware of whether the property in which they live is compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards. If the property does not comply, there would likely be health and welfare issues for the tenant or their family.
- The maximum level of exemplary damages is $750.00. In this case I consider an order of one third of the maximum would be indicated. The landlord has committed an unlawful act, and I accept that there has been an impact for the tenant. I cannot see any aggravating or mitigating factors that would argue for a higher or lesser order. I therefore order exemplary damages of $250.00. Filing fee
- Because [The applicant/s] has been mostly successful with the claim I reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
- The tenant requested name suppression. As she has been mostly successful with the claim, the tenant is entitled to name suppression. Therefore, I order that the tenant’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.