What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5387521 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 5387521?

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 5387521?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5387521?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13253344-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5387521 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 5387521?

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 5387521?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5387521?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13253344-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 11A, 76-86 Manners street, Te aro, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5387521 — Healthy homes

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Ramki Raveendran must pay [The tenant/s] $2,653.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant signed a fixed term tenancy agreement for one room in a five bedroom apartment on the eleventh floor. There were some structural safety issues and he was moved to another five bedroom apartment on the same floor in October. He moved out of the second apartment in December 2025, which was before the end of the fixed term. Before he moved out the tenant applied to the Tribunal for the reduction of his fixed term tenancy. He wants his bond returned. He has also claimed compensation because of maintenance issues and exemplary damages for breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The issues I have to decide include: • Who is the landlord? • Should the landlord pay exemplary damages for not lodging the bond? • Were there maintenance issues? • Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards? • Did the landlord enter without notice or permission? • Should I reduce the fixed term tenancy?

Who is the landlord?

Mr Raveendran is the landlord named on the tenancy agreement. I find the words “as agent for the owner” when no owner has been disclosed means he is responsible for this tenancy.

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages for not lodging the bond?

The tenant paid a bond. The landlord agreed this was not lodged. Landlords are required to send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500. See section 19 and Schedule 1A RTA.
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 landlord said he was confused about the rules for boarding houses and made a mistake. However, the tenant was not living in a boarding house and the landlord was responsible for at least 10 tenancies in these two apartments alone. It seems most likely to me the landlord knew the law but decided not to lodge the bond. I find the landlord acted intentionally. The tenant said the affect for him has been a delay in getting his bond returned. It is in tenants’ interests that bonds are held by an independent third party and there is public interest in penalties when landlords breach the RTA. I allow $500 in exemplary damages. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any previous orders for similar breaches.
This tenancy has ended and the landlord has not filed an application. The landlord must return the bond to the tenant.

Were there maintenance issues?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45 RTA which requires landlords to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant said the oven in the first apartment did not work. The landlord said the oven did work. This is the tenant’s claim to prove, and the tenant has not provided me with any supporting evidence, such as texts, emails or 14 day notices to show the landlord knew about the issue. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed.
Not long after the tenant moved in the Body Corporate had to carry out significant maintenance to the lift. The tenant said from March until the middle of September he could only take the lift to the eighth floor and he then had to carry his heavy e-scooter up the stairs to the eleventh floor. The landlord agreed this happened, but said this was a Body Corporate decision and out of the landlord’s control. Regardless of fault, I find there was a loss of amenity because the tenant was paying to live in a building with a fully functioning lift. I find the tenant has the best evidence that the lift was fixed in September. I allow compensation in the amount of $10 for 25 weeks. This is less than the tenant has claimed because he still had lift access to the eighth floor.
There is no evidence the tenant let the landlord know about the mould in the second apartment or about the leak and the rotten timber in his bedroom. The tenant has not proved these claims and they are dismissed.
The tenant has not proved there was a breach of the duty to repair the lock on the main door in the second apartment, or a delay in replacing the locks on his bedroom door. The landlord said the main door locked and provided an invoice to show the bedroom lock was replaced two days after the tenant moved in. The tenant does not have any supporting evidence to show he notified the landlord about the main door or that he did not receive the keys for another three weeks. The claims relating to the locks are dismissed.

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenant claims the landlord breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 Regulations (HHS). The tenant said the landlord failed to provide heaters in the living rooms in both apartments. He said the apartments were very cold.
The compliance date for the HHS was 8 June 2025 (10 March 2025 plus 90 days). The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. Breaching this requirement is an unlawful act with a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have his verbal evidence given at the hearing, which does carry weight because he was the one living in the apartments. I note the tenant should have been provided with an HHS statement before the start of the tenancy, but the landlord is still arranging HHS certificates.
I expected the landlord to provide proof of HHS compliance at the hearing, but he did not. He did not provide copies of the entry inspections showing heaters either. The three photos of heaters emailed in during the hearing are not proof there were heaters during the tenancy. On balance, I find the tenant has proved there were no heaters in the apartments.
I find there was a loss of amenity and the landlord should pay compensation. I have calculated $25 a week to be fair compensation, from 9 June until end of November, which is 25 weeks. I have chosen the end of November because there is no loss of amenity if the heaters don’t need to be used.
The same law relating to exemplary damages applies. The landlord has committed an unlawful act. The requirement to have heating in tenancy premises is widely understood. I find the landlord acted intentionally. The tenant was very cold. It is in tenants’ interests that premises can be heated properly and there is public interest in the landlord paying a penalty to encourage compliance. I allow $1000 in exemplary damages for the lack of heating and the lack of disclosure in the tenancy agreement.

Did the landlord enter without notice or permission?

The tenant claims 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.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. As I explained at the hearing the landlord was allowed to enter the apartments with the consent of any of the tenants. The tenant has not proved the landlord, or his maintenance workers, entered unlawfully.

Should I reduce the fixed term?

The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy. When the application was filed there were still four months until the end of the fixed term. I can reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) RTA.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. The tenant said his rent was not fair for the size of his room, but he also said the room was the best deal he could get at the time. The tenant said he had many problems with the other tenants in the first apartment, the lift and the oven were not working, and he was paying more than his flatmate. However, all of these issues were resolved when he moved in October.
The tenant said the main issue in the second apartment was his safety, but he has not proved there was a problem with the locks. The tenant has not proved there was mould or a leak. He said he was unwell but I have not been provided with any supporting evidence, such as medical certificate.
The tenant said his e-scooter, which was stolen and then returned, is still missing some parts. He has also proved there was no heater in the living room. However these are not significant enough to qualify as an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances. The claim for reduction of the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.
Since the tenant filed his application the landlord has found a new tenant, so the fixed term tenancy has come to an end. Other orders
The bond money paid by the tenant must be returned immediately.
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because the tenant is the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords breach the RTA. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5387521 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 11A, 76-86 Manners street, Te aro, Wellington

Tenancy Tribunal case 5387521 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 11A, 76-86 Manners street, Te aro, Wellington

Order

Reasons

Who is the landlord?

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages for not lodging the bond?

Were there maintenance issues?

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Did the landlord enter without notice or permission?

Should I reduce the fixed term?

Order

Reasons

Who is the landlord?

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages for not lodging the bond?

Were there maintenance issues?

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Did the landlord enter without notice or permission?

Should I reduce the fixed term?