Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5375103 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 111, 57 Mahuhu Crescent, Auckland Central,
Decided 20 Mar 2026 · Published 20 Mar 2026 · Application 5375103
- Healthy homes
- Exemplary damages
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 tenants names and identifying details. 2. 3. must pay immediately.
- The landlords’ claims for cleaning, damage and replacement of storage locker keys are dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Zhou.
- During the hearing today and after the hearing was under way, Ms Zhou expressed surprise that the hearing was scheduled beyond 11.30 am, (it had been scheduled until 4.30 pm). Ms Zhou said that she had only arranged childcare until 11.30 am and would not be able to attend past 11.00 am.
- Ms Zhou requested an adjournment.
- The tenant explained she has work commitments and had taken a day’s annual leave to attend today. She said she had prepared for today’s hearing to be heard today. She opposed an adjournment.
- Ms Zhou’s request for an adjournment is extremely late. It is for parties to organise their own affairs. I note that the Bayley’s Auckland office has a total of twelve residential property managers as well as Ms Zhou advertised on their website. Ms Zhou said it is not possible for property managers to act as agents for each other. That also is a matter for Ms Zhou and Bayley’s Real Estate.
- I determine the interests of justice lie with the hearing proceeding today.
- The request for an adjournment was declined. See Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) section 92.
- Having heard some of the tenants’ claims, the hearing turned towards the landlord’s claims in an effort to hear as much of the landlord’s claims before the morning adjournment.
- After the morning adjournment Ms Zhou did not return. The Tribunal then heard the rest of the tenants’ claims.
- The parties agree the tenancy began on 19 March 2022 and ended on 27 July 2025 after the tenants gave notice. The respective claims
- The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning, damages and lost keys. The landlord is also seeking refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant is claiming unlawful entry, breach of Healthy Homes standards, failing to maintain. The tenant also made several complaints which do not amount to claims under the Residential Tenancies Act, about the landlord. They wish to have their bond refunded and to be reimbursed their filing fee. Landlord’s claims
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The landlord claims the tenant did not return two locker keys at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is claiming $18.00 for these keys. The landlord provided a photograph from the beginning of the tenancy which shows two key fobs, one with four keys on it and one with two keys on it. The landlord also provided photographs of the returned key fobs at the end of the tenancy, both of which had two keys on them.
- The tenant denied losing the locker keys. The tenant said they used a locker, but it did not belong to the landlord.
- The tenants referred the Tribunal to the tenancy agreement which under the heading “Premises” explicitly states that lockers are not included in the tenancy.
- On the balance of probabilities the landlord has not proved that the tenant did not return two locker keys that were issued to the tenant at the start of the tenancy.
- The landlord left the hearing before making their claims for cleaning or damages. Tenant’s claims Failing to maintain
- The tenants made several complaints about the landlord that didn’t amount to breaches of the RTA. These included the landlord not providing a bond refund form at the end of the tenancy, not providing information about the insurance policy when a request had not been made, not providing a rent summary at the end of the tenancy, making errors in calculating the water rates amounts that were payable by the tenant, and not providing a second tag to access the garage from the beginning of the tenancy.
- Where there was no breach of the RTA, I put these complaints and others to one side. It is not unusual for there to be friction or disagreements in tenant/landlord relationships, but unless these involve actual breaches of the RTA, this is not a matter for the Tribunal. Unlawful entry
- The tenants claim the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice.
- A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
- 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 RTA.
- The tenants said that on 17 July 2025 they returned home to find an agent of the landlord locking up the house and a prospective tenant waiting outside the premises.
- The tenants had provided a list of agreed viewing days to the landlord and 17 July 2025 was not one of them.
- The tenants sent an email of complaint to the landlord explaining they had just met an agent of the landlord and a prospective tenant leaving the premise, and that they were very disappointed.
- The landlord responded with an email saying “I thought you are aware we are coming to the viewing.”
- Today the landlord said no one did a viewing at the premises on 17 July 2025, and that to do so “didn’t make any sense” as there were agreed days.
- I prefer the information provided by the tenant, who clearly saw an agent locking up his house and leaving. I determine the landlord did enter the premises on 17 July 2025, most likely to show a prospective tenant through. I find the landlord’s written response on the same day to the tenants’ complaint, supports this finding.
- I find the landlord committed an unlawful 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. See section 109(3) RTA.
- The tenants have the same right to a high degree of privacy in their own home as does any home-owner. A landlord who has the power to enter a premises ought to exercise every precaution so as to not breach this right. Strict rules are set out in the RTA, which landlords must adhere to. In this case I consider exemplary damages are warranted.
- The tenants raised another occasion dating from 2023 when the landlord entered the premises after first knocking, for the purpose of a routine inspection, after giving the correct notice. The tenants were in their pyjamas. They had requested the landlord attend in the afternoon, but the landlord had attended in the morning, as they are permitted to do under the RTA. Whereas a landlord might be expected to be considerate where possible, and to advise if that is not possible, I do not find this to be a breach of the RTA. I note that exemplary damages for this claim would have been barred under RTA section 109 in any case. Failure to maintain
- The tenants claim the landlord breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
- The tenants said that there were two cracks that the landlord failed to repair. The tenants provided two photographs that shows a piece of skirting board pulling away from a part of the wall. The skirting board looks dirty.
- The information before me shows the premises to be neither new or of “executive” standard. They are average premises and are well worn generally.
- I am not persuaded that having regard to the age and character of the premises this defective skirting board amounts to the landlord failing to maintain the premises. This claim is not proved.
- The tenants also claimed the curtains had dust or powder coming off and this was a breach of the landlord maintaining the premises. The tenants produced one photograph of the back of a curtain that shows a small amount of mould on it.
- The landlord said the curtains had mould on them, which the tenant was responsible for.
- It is not clear what the dust was that was coming off the curtain. On the information before me, I am not persuaded that the dust that was coming off the curtains proves the landlord was failing to maintain the premises.
- These claims are not proved. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards
- the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). They consider the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
- The ventilation standard requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
- 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 tenants claim the extractor fan in the bathroom did not work from the beginning of the tenancy until the end.
- The tenants conducted their own inspection of the premises at the start of the tenancy and sent the report noting the broken extractor fan to the landlord. The landlord never repaired the extractor fan.
- This claim is proved.
- I find committed an unlawful act.
- The tenants did not point to any particular hardship resulting from the extractor fan not working. However it is for a landlord to comply with the law in any case. The Healthy Homes report provided by the landlord taken from the beginning of the tenancy notes the extractor fan works but does not vent to outdoors. I note the duration of the tenancy was over three years.
- Considering the above factors I determine exemplary damages are warranted. I consider the breach to be minor but to be aggravated by the length of time the breach occurred.
- Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims I have reimbursed the filing fee.