Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5384863 — Exemplary damages at 38 Antigua Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024
Decided 18 Feb 2026 · Published 18 Feb 2026 · Application 5384863
- 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.
- Najib Property Management Limited must pay [the tenants] $2,528 immediately calculated as shown in the table below.
Reasons
- Three of the four tenants attended the hearing. Representatives of Najib Property Management Limited (Najib) attended for the landlords.
- The tenants claim compensation and exemplary damages for breach of the landlords’ obligations relating to healthy homes information and the condition of the premises. Background
- This tenancy began in October 2024 and ended in November 2025.
- The landlord had recently bought the premises, and he made some improvements to them, including painting throughout, before the tenancy began.
- Najib managed the tenancy on behalf of the owner although the owner was personally involved at times.
- There were several different people from Najib who dealt with the day-to-day management of the tenancy during its term. The two representatives who attended the hearing had limited personal knowledge of the management of the tenancy.
- There were regular inspections of the premises during the tenancy. The tenants said, and I accept, that they brought maintenance issues to the property manager’s attention at these inspections. The landlords attended to some issues but not others. The tenants tended not to follow up of the outstanding issues or put complaints in writing. Relevant Law
- Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
- Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
- 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. Claims Healthy Homes Information
- I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlords provided the healthy homes information to the tenants that they were required to provide. It was based on a healthy homes report from Healthy Kiwi Solutions. The information provided was wrong in at least one respect, namely not all habitable rooms had a window that opened to the outside. The landlords accept that. Arguably, there were unreasonable gaps and draughts from windows in the premises as well, but that may not have been apparent at the time.
- I accept that the landlords relied on the report and there is no evidence that it was unreasonable for them to do so. Exemplary damages are therefore not appropriate for this breach and the tenants can be compensated for the consequences of the defective condition of the premises. I therefore make no order in relation to this claim. Front Door Crack
- There was a long crack in one of the panels in the front door. It seems that it was painted over and began to appear and enlarge over time. I accept that it caused a draught into the hallway.
- The landlords said that it was not apparent, but it is clearly shown in photographs in their inspection report from August 2025. It is likely that it existed and caused a draught during the winter months. Hole in the Floor
- I accept that there appeared to be a hole in the floor in one of the bedrooms and the tenants noticed it when they first viewed the premises. The landlords confirmed that they would fix it, but it remained until the end of the tenancy. The hole was approximately 10cm in diameter.
- The floor was covered by carpet but there was a depression where the hole was, and it would have allowed cold and damp to rise from the under the floor. Windows
- There was one window in the lounge that is noted in the August inspection report as taped shut. The latch was missing, and the tape was holding it closed. It was repaired in mid-November. Plainly that was too long. It should have been repaired within a week or two at most. The tenants do not make a claim in respect of that window.
- I accept the tenants’ evidence that many of the windows had been painted shut and they had to score around the windows to enable them to be opened.
- The kitchen window could not be latched shut and allowed a draught. Windows in the bathroom and laundry could not be fully closed and allowed draughts. The tenants provided photographs showing the windows. Bedroom 4
- Bedroom 4 is on the right-hand side looking at the premises from the road. Directly in front of it is a small sunroom. There is no door access from the bedroom to the sunroom. Access to the sunroom is from the bedroom on the left. Bedroom 4 has windows that open into the sunroom and the sunroom has windows that open to the outside.
- As one can understand from this description, bedroom 4 does not have windows that open to the outside. Moreover, the occupant of the bedroom did not have direct access to the sunroom. He said that this was not much of a problem in winter, when the windows tended to be closed, but in summer his room would become stuffy.
- Regulation 18 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 require every habitable room in a dwelling to have at least one window on an external wall to admit light and a window that can be opened for the admission of air.
- Light was not the problem here because light came through the windows into the room but there was no window that opened to the outside for the admission of air. There would be some ventilation if windows were open in the bedroom and the sunroom but that does not satisfy the requirement, and the occupier of the room did not have easy access to the sunroom windows. Other Issues
- The tenants raised other issues that are not mentioned in their application.
- There was no lock on a sleepout that one of the tenants used as his bedroom. He complained about it and the owner came and left a bolt for the tenant to install on the door. He had to provide his own padlock. Plainly that was not an adequate response to the complaint.
- There was a leak in the roof and once, during heavy rain, water came into the premises through the ceiling. The tenants complained but there was no repair. The roof continued to leak at times, but no more water entered the living areas.
- These were breaches of the landlords’ obligations, but I do not take them into consideration because the landlord was given no notice of them in the application. But they do demonstrate a pattern of behaviour by the landlords. Remedy
- I accept that these breaches in relation to windows, the front door and the bedroom floor would have made the premises colder, damper, more difficult and expensive to heat and, in the case of bedroom 4, lacking adequate ventilation. The tenants are, therefore, entitled to compensation for these breaches.
- There is no science to the quantification of compensation in these circumstances. I note that the premises had compliant insulation and a ground vapour barrier. The windows are single glazed and there will be no insulation in the walls. Like many homes in New Zealand, it would be difficult and expensive to heat in the winter in any case.
- The tenants have claimed 20% of the rent they paid plus exemplary damages. Rent is relevant, but the tenants’ calculation seems arbitrary. I must consider the effect of the breaches on the tenant’s comfort and their loss of amenity in their use of the premises. The problems were largely seasonal and, predominately, the premises were compliant. I find that compensation in the sum of $1,500 is appropriate.
- I find that an award of exemplary damages is warranted. The landlords were aware of these issues, and they chose not to rectify them. There appears to have been a somewhat nonchalant attitude to defects. It was important for the tenants’ concerns to be taken seriously and acted upon, and it is important generally that landlords comply with their maintenance obligations. The health and wellbeing of tenants depends on it. An award of $1,000 is appropriate.
- I have made the order against both the owner and the property manager. Both were directly involved with maintenance of the premises. If the owner was not responding to complaints adequately, the property manager should, ultimately, consider whether they should have continued to manage the tenancy.
- The tenants have been successful and so I have awarded them the filing fee. For the same reason I have granted them name suppression.