What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5395365 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5395365?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5395365?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5395365?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13432750-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5395365 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5395365?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5395365?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5395365?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13432750-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 404B, 20 Park Avenue, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5395365 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

This is a tenant application. The tenant claims the landlord has breached the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and the tenancy agreement by failing to provide a Healthy Homes compliance statement and chattels list at the start of the tenancy, providing an incorrect tenancy agreement, failing to provide a carpark and an under bench oven despite them being listed in the tenancy agreement.

Furthermore, the tenant claims the landlord made demands for money from the bond for items not included on the chattels list in breach of s49 RTA. In addition, deliberately choosing not to process the bond refund in a reasonable time. The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages for these breaches. Background:

The tenancy commenced on 5 February 2024 after the tenant responded to an advertisement on Trade Me, on 31 January 2024, for a fully furnished studio apartment with all whiteware included and a heat pump. The advertisement clearly stated that there was no car park with this apartment.

After viewing the apartment, the tenant signed a tenancy agreement on 2 February 2024. The tenancy terminated on 6 November 2025 after the tenant gave notice. After the end of the tenancy the tenant filed an application with the Tribunal for breaches of the tenancy agreement relating to, amongst other things, no under bench oven nor carparking space.

The tenant sought to have the bond refunded after the landlord had conducted an exit inspection. The landlord initially claimed that there was a missing duvet or pillow and sought compensation for that.

The tenant was refunded the full bond in December 2025. The tenant claims the landlord actions were poor, such as multiple mistakes in the tenancy agreement, failure to provide a healthy home compliance statement and trying to claim for a duvet that was not on the chattels list and being slow in refunding the bond. The tenant in the hearing described the landlords’ actions as sloppy, bloody-mindedness and trying to claim for the duvet, was extortion. General Principles

The Tribunal’s role was well summarised in Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2022] NZTT 4207456 as follows: “The Tribunal is an adjudicative body. It is not a forum for general complaint. It is not a complaints service. It is not an investigative body. And it does not mediate disputes.

It looks to what is set out in an application by a landlord or a tenant; hears evidence and submissions from both parties; and makes a decision that is binding on the parties.”

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute between a landlord and a tenant in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). See s77 RTA. The Tribunal may make orders for compensation and for exemplary damages. See s78 RTA.

Compensation is awarded for actual losses arising from a proven breach of the other party’s obligations. Compensation may also be awarded for less tangible effects of established breaches such as loss of enjoyment or amenity of the tenancy. See Tenants v Singh [2022] NZTT 4315225 for the approach to quantifying compensation for “general damages”.

Exemplary damages may be awarded, at the Tribunal’s discretion, where a party establishes that the other has intentionally committed an “unlawful act” as defined by the RTA. See s109 and schedule 1A RTA.

Exemplary damages are intended to punish or deter.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach.

Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this 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.” S49 RTA – Duvet

The tenant claims that the landlord breached section 49 by attempting to claim for a duvet not on the chattels list.

The landlord attempted to claim for a duvet that was not listed as a chattel in the tenancy agreement that was provided to the tenant.

Section 49 RTA requires that the bond only be withheld for lawful reasons, such as damage to or loss of landlord’s property as set out in the tenancy agreement.

As no deduction was made for the duvet and the bond was returned in full, there is no breach of section 49.

Raising the issue of a missing duvet, without doing more, does not amount to a breach of the Act. I am dismissing the tenants claim for breach of s49 RTA. S13 RTA:

Steven Murray Church claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement was accurate, and he was not provided with a Healthy Homes Certificate nor a full chattels list. S13 RTA - Healthy Homes Certificate:

At the start of the tenancy, landlords must provide an insulation statement (as was provided) and a Healthy Homes compliance statement with the tenancy agreement.

The Healthy Homes compliance statement must state the extent to which the premises comply with the Healthy Homes Standards, or if they do not yet comply, what steps will be taken to ensure compliance.

There is no legal requirement for landlords to provide a full Healthy Homes certificate or full assessment report with the tenancy agreement.

The compliance statement can be based on the landlord’s own knowledge, records, or an external assessment, but the actual certificate or detailed report does not have to be attached.

This is set out in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and the requirements for tenancy agreements under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

It is accepted that the landlord did not provide a healthy homes compliance statement at the start of the tenancy, as required by section 13A(1CA) of the RTA.

The landlord stated that their previous property manager had not adequately recorded a healthy homes assessment completed on the property. The landlord obtained a new Healthy Homes Report during the tenancy.

I note that the tenant stated that he wanted to be present when the Healthy Homes Assessment was carried out. There was no requirement for him to be present. The tenant complained that this required him to take time off work and breached his quiet enjoyment. The tenant made no further statement as to breaching his quiet enjoyment and so I assume this is not a claim he was making and seeking exemplary damages for.

For completeness the criteria for breach of quiet enjoyment are unlikely to be reached with a one off intrusion by an assessor for the purposes of the landlord complying with their obligations under the RTA.

This was a brand new apartment, and the tenant acknowledged in his application that he has no issues with the property during the time of his tenancy.

The failure to provide a healthy homes compliance statement was due to an administrative oversight by the previous property manager, not a deliberate act by the landlord.

The tenant did not request the statement during the tenancy and only raised the issue after the tenancy ended.

There is no evidence that the landlord intentionally failed to provide the statement.

In the absence of intent, exemplary damages are not warranted (see section 109 RTA).

I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to provide a Healthy Homes compliance statement.

However, as there is no evidence of intentional non-compliance, the claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Section 13A(1)(o) RTA- chattels/list

This section requires that the tenancy agreement must describe the chattels provided by the landlord, including appliances such as ovens, hobs, and microwaves. Under Bench oven:

The tenant seeks compensation for loss of amenity, (no under bench oven) at $30 per week over 91 weeks.

The tenant viewed the apartment and saw that there was a convention / microwave, dishwasher and cook top in the kitchen area and no under bench oven before signing the tenancy agreement.

The tenant signed the tenancy agreement 2 February 2024, which stated that there was an under bench oven, which was clearly wrong. This was known by the tenant at the time he signed the tenancy agreement.

While I accept the tenancy agreement should be correct, the tenant was aware at this time of what was actually in the kitchen area. Similarly, the tenancy agreement says that there were blinds in the apartment and the tenant points out this is incorrect as there are drapes not blinds. Car parking

The tenant claims the tenancy agreement was full of inaccuracies and was misleading. Another issue raised by the tenant is that the tenancy agreement saying that the maximum number of vehicles parked on the property must not exceed 1.

The tenant says this shows that the tenancy included a carpark, despite the advertisement expressly excluding a carpark. There is no evidence to support the tenants claim that a car park was included in the tenancy and noted in the tenancy agreement.

The landlord points out that if a car park was included in this tenancy the agreement would expressly state the carpark number and space. The landlord said there is a separate agreement that tenants must sign if there is a car park allocated. This is an apartment complex, and all carparks are allocated to specific apartments. Chattel’s list

The tenant was given a tenancy agreement that contained a section that set out the chattels provided with the tenancy. The list stated that there were fixed floor coverings, light fittings, rangehood, blinds, dishwasher, heat pump, under bench oven, and heated towel rail. The landlord had a more extensive chattels list that was not given to the tenant. That list covers all kitchen equipment, crockery, cutlery, bedding and furnishings.

I accept that the landlord has failed to provide a tenancy agreement and a detailed chattels list.

The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages for breaches of the tenancy agreement.

The tenant lived in the property for 19 months and it would appear that he did not raise the issues or make a complaint about the tenancy agreement, chattels list, nor the healthy homes compliance statement.

The tenant says he raised the issue of the carpark and oven once with the former property manager the day or so after he moved in. However, there is no email or text communication confirming the telephone call or following up on the issues. The former property manager no longer works for this company.

At the end of the tenancy the landlord claimed that there was a missing duvet/pillow. There appears to have been two chattels’ lists, one that was provided at the start of the tenancy and the other attached to the pre let inspection report. After discussions regarding the missing item, the landlord chose to not pursue this with the tenant. Compensation and Exemplary Damages

The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages for this breach of the tenancy agreement. The tenant said he was deprived of the ability to cook roasts or lasagna and had to rely on take aways or frozen dinners. Furthermore, that he had to pay for parking elsewhere, out of the apartment complex.

Compensation may be awarded if the tenant suffered actual loss as a result of the misdescription. The tenant did not have a vehicle at the start of the tenancy. There was no documented contractual agreement shown in the tenancy agreement that stated that a car park was part of the tenancy. The tenant responded to the advertisement that expressly stated that there was no car park with this apartment. Despite this the tenant viewed and subsequently took the tenancy. Parking costs outside the complex is a natural consequence of having a vehicle and not having a designated parking spot in the complex.

It should be noted that the initial tenancy was a 3-month fixed term tenancy, which was later fixed for another term and then was a periodic tenancy. It is likely that had the apartment, and its lack of an oven and car parking had been a significant issue that the tenancy would not have continued.

It is unfortunate that the tenancy agreement was not more explicit and detailed on the chattel and healthy home compliance statement. However, I sensed from the new property manager that the issues that have been identified during this process have been remedied.

Exemplary damages may be awarded if the landlord intentionally included false or misleading information in the tenancy agreement, and it is just to do so. Delay in Complaint

The fact that the tenant lived in the property for 19 months without complaint is relevant. It suggests the tenant accepted the appliances as provided and did not suffer significant detriment. Furthermore, knew that a car park was not part of this tenancy.

The Tribunal will consider whether the tenant’s late complaint (after the end of the tenancy) is genuine or opportunistic.

There is no evidence that the landlord intentionally misled the tenant or acted in bad faith.

The tenant has not established that they suffered any actual loss as a result of the misdescription, nor that exemplary damages are justified in the circumstances.

The tenant’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed. Deliberately not processing the bond in a reasonable time

The tenant says that the landlord deliberately did not refund the bond in a timely manner. He says that the tenancy ended on 6 November 2025 and the final exit inspection was completed on 9 November 2025.

The tenant had to follow up on the bond form for some weeks before he completed the form and sent it to the landlord. The bond was eventually refunded in December 2025.

The landlord claimed that there were some preliminary requirements that needed to be attended to before sending off the bond refund form. The landlord did not think that the time frame of approximately 6 weeks from the end of the tenancy to full refunding of the bond was unreasonably long.

I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven to me that the landlord has deliberately acted to hold up the payment of the bond.

As the tenant has not been successful, I am not reimbursing the filing fee nor suppressing his name and details.

Reasons