Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5399409 — Healthy homes
Decided 11 Jun 2026 · Published 11 Jun 2026 · Application 5399409
- Healthy homes
- Cleanliness
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.
- Jordyn Sullivan must pay [The tenant/s] $460.00 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
- All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the boarding house tenancy.
- The tenant has made a cross application seeking compensation and exemplary damages for several alleged landlord breaches. Background
- The tenancy commenced on 15 July 2024 and ended on 9 November 2025.
- The tenancy was for a two-bedroom unit, that was a guest wing to the main house, where the landlord usually resided. At times, when the landlord was away, the house was rented out as short term accommodation.
- The tenancy unit was self-contained to the extent it included a bathroom, lounge, dining area and kitchenette (that was expanded during the tenancy). The tenant shared laundry and gym facilities with the landlord.
- The tenant was, at times, told they could use the full kitchen in the landlord’s house, however, in practice it if not clear how often this occurred.
- The parties signed a standard boarding house tenancy agreement for the tenancy although the landlord conceded at the hearing that this was not the correct form. Jurisdiction and legislative framework
- There is a preliminary issue as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction. Section 77(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal can hear claims relating to any tenancy to which the RTA applies. Section 4 confirms the RTA applies unless specifically excluded.
- Although the parties signed a boarding house tenancy agreement, the premises do not meet the definition of a boarding house under section 66B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The premises were not occupied, nor intended to be occupied, by at least six tenants at any one time.
- The Tribunal must look at the substance of the arrangement, not just at the label or the form of agreement used. On review, I consider that the tenancy is not a boarding house tenancy. Even though a boarding house agreement was signed, the actual arrangement was for a self-contained unit.
- The unit is a self-contained part of the property, with its own access, bathroom, lounge, dining area, and kitchenette. The landlord resided in the main house, and the tenant had exclusive access to the unit. There were two distinct household units, with only the laundry/gym being shared.
- Based on this, I do not consider that this is an excluded arrangement under section 5(1)(n), as the relevant “premises” were the self-contained unit not the entire house. 1 1 Harding v Caroto and Ors [2021] NZHC 1265.
- Therefore, the tenancy is a standard residential tenancy to which the RTA applies, and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim. General legal principles
- Before moving to the individual claims being made by the parties, I first set out some general legal principles relevant to consideration of these claims. Standard of proof
- With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
- As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, 2 in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.
- I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Exemplary damages
- The tenant has sought exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell, 3 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 2 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, (DC) TT233/02. 3 Auckland City Council v Blundell, 3 [1986] NZLR 732. 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 that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA.
- Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
- The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA.
- The principle from the District Court decision of Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, 4 is that if there are multiple breaches of a particular section, then only one set of exemplary damages could be ordered for that breach. Landlord’s claims
- The landlord claims for vacated damages including: a. Painting of $2,587.50 b. Oven/air fryer replacement of $155.00. c. Carpet replacement of $1,086.00. d. Cleaning, carpet cleaning and blind cleaning totalling $632.73.
- The landlord says there were various other items, however, they have tried to be reasonable and have not claimed for everything. 4 Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, DC Wellington, CIV 2014-085-13, 27 August 2014.
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) RTA.
- The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. They submit that they were required to carry out general cleaning throughout including to surfaces, ceilings, cupboards, floors and walls. They claim the invoiced amount of $162.50 for general cleaning and there is also an amount for wall cleaning products of $130.23. The landlord also claims for carpet cleaning, deodorising and stain removal of the carpet at the invoiced cost of $150.00. In addition, the landlord claims for the cost to clean and remove pet dander to a roman blind of $190.00.
- The issue here, is that I only have a few photographs that predominantly appear to relate to damage. From the photographs I can see that the blind was more likely than not, not left reasonably clean and tidy, and this amount is therefore proven.
- However, for the carpet cleaning, general cleaning and wall cleaning, I do not consider that I have sufficient photographs or contemporaneous records to prove that the property did not meet the statutory standard. There is no formal final inspection report, and nothing in the invoices notes anything about the property being in poor or dirty condition. I simply cannot be sure enough based on the evidence provided that the property was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
- The remaining claims for cleaning and carpet cleaning are therefore dismissed.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
- Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
- Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
- Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
- Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
- 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.
- The landlord says that the carpet was very new at the commencement of the tenancy, and at the end of the tenancy there were several pet stains and odour. The carpet cleaning did not remove these and carpet replacement was said to be required.
- The landlord claims the invoiced amount of $1,086.00 for this cost which is for installation only. As the property was recently built, they were able to use left over carpet and did not need to purchase any new carpet.
- In addition, the landlord says that the wall and windowsills had scratch marks on them, there was pinhole damage around window joinery. The landlord was required to carry out wall repairs and painting and claims the invoiced cost of $2,587.50. The invoice notes that there were repairs and painting to walls and frames in two rooms.
- The landlord also says that the oven/air fryer required replacement due to the condition it was left in. They have provided evidence of the cost of replacement as $155.00 and a photograph of its condition.
- There was no pre-tenancy inspection report done; the landlord has instead provided photographs from the tenancy advert. A handful of photographs have been provided of damaged items (including carpet, curtains, windowsill) together with invoices of the cost of repair.
- Although the photographs show that the oven/air fryer was left incredibly dirty, there is insufficient evidence to support a claim for replacement of this. This claim is dismissed. Some reasonable wear and tear is also expected at the end of the tenancy, and any replacement claims would need to consider deduction to reflect betterment.
- However, the real difficulty with the remaining claims for damage, is that there is inadequate evidence of the carpet, walls and windowsills prior to the tenancy. The listing photographs do not really show the condition of any individual furnishings, and there are no contemporaneous comments on specific items (as would usually be included in a pre-tenancy inspection report). I understand that the tenants were not the first to occupy the unit, and there had been pet(s) in the unit prior.
- I simply do not have sufficient evidence to show that the damaged items claimed by the landlord were caused carelessly or intentionally by the tenant during the tenancy, and/or that they exceeded fair wear and tear.
- As a result, the claims for vacated damages are dismissed. Tenant’s claims
- The tenant has made several claims as follows: a. Unlawful pet bond. b. Failure to lodge bond with the bond centre. c. No insurance statement supplied. d. No separate address, letterbox or rubbish bins provided. e. No Healthy Homes Certification provided at commencement. f. Tenants had to remove their items from the property while council attended to approve the kitchen sink installation. g. No kitchen sink or exhaust vent within the tenancy. h. Healthy homes and failure to maintain concern (including mould on the bedroom sliding door, air conditioning unit leaking, rat faeces). i. Unlawful entry. j. Breach of quiet enjoyment (due to Airbnb rental of the main dwelling).
- The tenant seeks a rent refund of $14,586.00 and $5,000.00 for stress and health and safety breaches.
- The tenant has provided a social worker letter, advising that the tenant has suffered stress and mental health impacts as a result of the tenancy and the dispute (and Tribunal hearing). Bond failures
- The tenant claims the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time and that they unlawfully requested an additional amount of bond for having a pet.
- Originally the landlord requested a bond of $1,300.00 however, this was increased to $1,500.00, due to the tenant having a pet. The tenant says that it was illegal to charge a ‘pet bond’ prior to the legislation change on 1 December 2025.
- Section 18(1) of the RTA (prior to the amendment) stated that a landlord could require a bond of no more than four weeks’ rent, regardless of the purpose (including for pets). So, any request for additional funds as bond above four weeks would be unlawful. The weekly rent for the unit was $650.00 and therefore the landlord was entitled to charge up to $2,600.00. The bond sought was less than this and therefore there is no breach in this respect.
- However, a landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- The landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre as required by the RTA. I find they have 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 did not lodge the bond, believing the tenancy was a boarding house tenancy. The landlord should have made further enquiries. The law requires landlords to be aware of their obligations and ignorance of the law is not usually an excuse. However, given that this does appear to have been the result of a lack of experience and genuine confusion, I am not satisfied that it would be just to award exemplary damages in this case.
- This claim is dismissed. Insurance statement
- [The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not provided a copy of the insurance policy for the premises when requested.
- A tenant can request the landlord to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises. The landlord must provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time. The landlord must notify the tenant of any changes to the information provided, or if the premises are no longer insured. See s 45(2B) and (2C) RTA.
- Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $900.00. See section 45(2D) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- The tenant’s representative requested a copy of the insurance statement by email on 8 November 2025. It was not provided until 20 January 2026 and in the context of evidence for this Tribunal claim.
- The tenant requested the insurance statement while the tenancy was still in effect, although I note that the tenancy ended one day after the request. The landlord was still required to provide the information within a reasonable time, regardless of the impending end of the tenancy.
- Jordyn Sullivan failed to provide the insurance statement in a reasonable time, with it taking around 10 weeks from request to provision. I find the Jordyn Sullivan has committed an unlawful act.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that 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.
- I consider that the landlord should have been aware of their obligations under the RTA. However, in the context of the tenancy ending the following day, the mistaken but genuine belief of it being a boarding house tenancy, the limited impact on the tenant (if any), I do not consider that it is just to award exemplary damages and this claim is dismissed. No separate address
- The tenant has claimed that there were no separate address, letterbox or rubbish bins provided.
- This is not disputed; however, the landlords say that they did obtain an additional rubbish bin for the tenant’s use.
- I am not aware of any legal obligation for a separate address or letterbox under the RTA, and given the tenancy was for the guest wing unit of the main house, it is understandable as to why these wouldn’t be readily available.
- This claim is dismissed. Healthy homes breaches (both provision of certification and breaches) and failure to maintain
- The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under the RTA in relation to healthy homes standards.
- Section 45 of the RTA requires properties to comply with HHS requirements in several different respects.
- For insulation, the date of compliance was 1 July 2019. For other HHS requirements, 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.
- 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 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- In addition, section 13A(1CA) of the RTA requires a landlord to include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement confirming compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards and providing any prescribed information. Section 13A (1F) declares it an unlawful act is the landlord fails to comply with this requirement.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages can be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See Section 1A RTA.
- The landlord failed to provide a signed statement in the tenancy agreement. I find they have 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
- Again, a landlord is expected to know and understand their obligations. In this instance, even in a boarding house there is a requirement to include a signed statement about compliance with Healthy Homes in the tenancy agreement. In other words, even if the tenancy had been a boarding house tenancy this would have been required (see section 66C(1) of the RTA). It is of utmost public importance to tenants to clearly understand whether a property is healthy, or whether further work will be done to reach the required standard.
- I therefore consider it appropriate to award $450.00 in exemplary damages for failure to comply.
- With respect to the claim that the property did not comply with healthy homes, I consider that I do not have sufficient evidence to prove or show that it didn’t comply. Submissions on mould are not sufficient to prove a landlord breach, particularly as the management of mould is a dual obligation on both a tenant and landlord.
- This claim is dismissed.
- I also have insufficient evidence of any failure to maintain by the landlord, or that issues were raised during the tenancy by the tenant for repairs or maintenance and weren’t attended to within a reasonable time.
- This claim is dismissed. Unlawful entry
- The tenant says that the landlord entered the property without giving sufficient notice in around February 2025.
- Section 48 of the RTA provides that a landlord may only enter the premises with the tenant’s consent, or in specific circumstances as set out in s48(2) of the RTA (such as emergencies, inspections with notice or for other limited reasons).
- The landlord says that she had advised the tenants that the windows were to be washed, and to have the windows closed. On the day in question, the window washing was about to commence, and a window wasn’t closed in the unit.
- The landlord says she knocked and said hello, but after there was no response, she ran in and closed the kitchen window. She says she did this to avoid water entering the inside of the unit and causing damage.
- I consider that the evidence provided shows the landlord entered for genuine emergency reasons, being to stop imminent water damage. She advised the tenants of this when it was raised at the time.
- There is another claim regarding entry by an electrician at a different time, however, the evidence in support is a message sent to a family member of the tenant, and I find that this is not compelling evidence or sufficient proof of an unlawful entry.
- I therefore find there was no unlawful act and this claim is dismissed. Breach of quiet enjoyment
- The tenant says that the landlord has breached their quiet enjoyment as the main dwelling (where the landlord’s resided) was rented out on Airbnb when they went away. The tenant says that during this time, occupants would have parties, there would be excessive vehicles parks, and yelling and screaming.
- Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” The Act further confirms that contravention of subsection 2 in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act.
- The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds, 5 considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
- In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
- From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder, 6 the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
- Although I have no doubt that the incidences with Airbnb occupants was disturbing and frustrating, I do not consider that the evidence provided by the 5 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010. 6 Whatiura v Shoulder, Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987. tenant prove that the landlord has breached the quiet enjoyment of the tenant, to the level of harassment required.
- I also note that the messages show that the tenant would sometimes clean for incoming Airbnb guests to earn extra money, so appeared to be okay with the arrangement and in fact at times, benefitted from it. For the purpose of Airbnb, the parties also discussed the tenants being described as co-hosts on the platform so the tenants could quickly deal with any issues.
- This claim is dismissed. Other claims
- The tenants say that they had to remove all items from the property while the council attended to approve the kitchen sink installation as the council is unaware that this is being rented as a separate second dwelling.
- However, the text messages show that the landlord retracted that request and stated that as long as the tenants knew there wouldn’t be a functioning kitchen in the unit (but they would have access to the kitchen in the main house) for the weekend, then they didn’t need to leave. In messages, the tenant appears to respond, confirming that was “perfect”. There is also a note about the rent being reduced over this time to reflect the situation.
- The RTA requires landlords to comply with all building, health and safety requirements (section 45(1)(c)). The tenant submits that the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 require a kitchen sink. I have been provided with very little evidence in support of the situation within the house and consider I have insufficient evidence to prove this, and this claim is dismissed.
- In addition, the application in respect of this breach sought termination for unlawful premises, however, the tenancy had already ended, so this was no longer relevant, and I did not consider this further. Summary and other matters
- It appears several of these issues could have been avoided if both parties had been clear on the arrangement at the outset. Most claims (by both parties) failed due to a lack of evidence, and better documentation and record keeping could have prevented this.
- Had the landlord not incorrectly perceived this to be a boarding house tenancy or a flatmate/boarding situation, then I suspect the landlord would have approached things differently (for example, by carrying out a pre-tenancy inspection and formal post-tenancy inspection).
- Similarly, the tenant would have been clear on expectations and the required statutory standards before, during and after the tenancy, with it less likely to end at the Tribunal in dispute.
- The total bond paid was $1,500.00 however, there was unpaid rent arrears of $1,300.00 that was not disputed (and was held by the landlord), and so I have just dealt with the remaining $200.00 of bond.
- The tenant sought name suppression. The landlords did not. As the tenant has successfully reduced some of the claims against them, this is granted. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 11 June 2026