What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5399598 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 5399598?

Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5399598?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5399598?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13775483-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5399598 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 5399598?

Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5399598?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5399598?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13775483-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2F, 5 Cheshire Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5399598 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5399598 — net $878.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to complete HH compliance statement	$350.00	Failure to complete HH compliance statement
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$878.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$878.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5399598 — net $878.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to complete HH compliance statement	$350.00	Failure to complete HH compliance statement
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$878.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$878.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Bayside Rentals Limited As Agent For G Cummins Sue Elizabeth Clark must pay [The tenant/s] $878.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background
The premises consist of a one-bedroom studio apartment. The landlord estimates the building to be at least 15 years old.
The tenancy started on 5 April 2025 and was for a fixed period of 12 months. The tenant resided there by herself. The tenancy ended on 11 August 2025 when the tenant was released from her fixed term obligation.
The tenant provided written material in support of her claims. The landlord also provided written material during the hearing in support of their response to the tenant’s application.
I have carefully considered all evidence placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must decide are these: a. Did the landlord commit any unlawful acts? If so, Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages? b. Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? Relevant law
Section 13A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out what is required to be contained in a tenancy agreement. Section 13(1CA) requires a landlord to sign a statement that on, or after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord with comply with the HHS, and a statement that includes the information prescribed by regulations made under section 138B(5) RTA – information relating to the HHS.
Section 19 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibility in respect of bond money.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them is the requirement that a landlord comply with the HHS.
A failure by a landlord to comply with these requirements is an unlawful act in each case – section 13A(1F) RTA and section 45(1A) RTA.
Section 85 RTA provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Other legal considerations
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: a. The nature of the breach; b. The duration of the breach; and c. The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
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 RTA. Those factors are: a. The intention of the person; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest. Discussion Breach of Healthy Homes Standards (heating)
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
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. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The premises are in a Body Corporate development. The HHS regulations provide for some exemptions when premises are located within body corporate developments. Sometimes, it is not possible to strictly comply, although landlords are expected to make efforts to ensure compliance when it can reasonably be achieved.
The tenant claims that there was no heating in the apartment. At the start of the tenancy the tenant claims that a heat pump was listed as being part of the chattels. The tenant says that after she moved in her friend suggested that the apartment would be good for her as it was close to work. She mentioned this to her friend who knew there was no heating. The tenant says that she did not notice that there was no heater when she initially inspected the apartment.
The landlord says that the arrangement with renting this apartment was very informal throughout the tenancy due to the tenant’s friendship with an employee from the property manager’s office.
The landlord accepts that the heat pump was listed as a chattel but says that this was a genuine mistake. The landlord says that the tenancy agreement was signed but the chattels template was unfortunately not updated. Once the tenant raised this as a concern the property manager tried to get some heating in the apartment. The landlord says there was no fixed heating source installed in the property for the reasons outlined in the HH assessment report.
The tenant responds by stating that she reported the heat pump issue on the Monday after she moved in. She raised this issue with Annette from the property manager’s office. The response from Annette was that “I thought there was one”. The tenant says that she saw a different apartment for rent online which she says clearly shows heating on the wall. The tenant says that when she read the HH assessment report it made mention that there is no existing heater in the apartment.
The landlord says that they showed 14 parties through. The landlord further stated that there was no mention of a lack of heating from the people who viewed the apartment. The tenant suggests that the reason it took so long to rent is because it had no heater. The tenant provided no evidence in support of this.
The tenant also raised in her application the issue of condensation on the glass doors and mould growing on the stairs and furniture.
The tenant produced several photos, one of them being a photo of a foot of a table. She says that she took the photo sometime in July 2025.
The tenant also says that the hot water cylinder was not wrapped. The landlord says that no concerns were ever brought to the attention of the landlord during the tenancy. They also say that tenant behaviour can influence mould growing on furniture and other internal areas. No evidence was provided to the landlord of this during the tenancy. The landlord says that had this issue been reported they would have acted straight away. They also had no issue with this property with previous tenants.
The tenant states that there was a hole in a light in the wardrobe. She brought this to the attention of Annette. The landlord maintains that the issue of the light was not brought to their attention. She says that other maintenance issues were not raised with them. Analysis
The tenant claims that the landlord breached the Healthy Homes Standards in relation to heating. However, the evidence does not support this claim.
The premises form part of an apartment complex and the landlord produced a Healthy Homes assessment report from Enstall Insulation Limited dated 26 July 2022 confirming that certain Healthy Home requirements, including the relevant heating requirements, were exempt by virtue of the premises being situated within an apartment building. The reason for the exemption reads “The landlord doesn’t own the whole of the tenancy building, and in order to comply, the landlord needs to provide or install something in a part of the building they do not own, or access part of the building they do not own”.
I also accept the landlord’s explanation that the recording of a heat pump on the chattel list was an oversight.
The tenant has not produced any independent evidence, assessment report, or other reliable evidence of their own establishing that the premises were not compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards.
The tenant also raised concerns regarding condensation appearing on the glass doors, stairs and the leg of a table. Apart from a small number of photographs taken approximately three months after the commencement of the tenancy, the tenant provided no evidence linking these observations to any breach of the landlord’s statutory obligations or demonstrating that the condition of the premises fell below the required standard.
The tenant further referred to a hole in the wardrobe ceiling adjacent to a light fixture. The landlord’s evidence was that the matter was never brought to their attention during the tenancy, and there is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the landlord was aware, or ought reasonably to have been aware, of the issue and failed to remedy it.
Accordingly, the tenant has failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the landlord breached the Healthy Homes Standards in this respect.
The claim has not been established. Failure to lodge bond
The tenant claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says that the landlord failed to lodge the bond within the required timeframe.
The landlord says that the bond lodgement form was completed and signed but not lodged with the bond centre due to the circumstances of the tenant wanting to exit the tenancy.
The bond was returned to the tenant as soon as the tenancy officially ended in August. The landlord says that because of the trust basis in the beginning they held the bond also knowing that the tenant was wanting to get out of the fixed term.
The tenant says that she was not aware that the bond had not been lodged. In an email to Annette dated 18 July 2025 she says that she did not recall receiving any notification from Tenancy Services about the bond. The parties also agreed that the bond issue was not raised at the start of the tenancy when the tenant indicated that she wanted to move out. Analysis
Section 19 of the RTA sets out the “Duties of landlord on receipt of bond”, and confirms that the landlord shall, within 23 working days after the payment is made, forward the amount received to the chief executive, together with a statement of particulars in the approved form signed by the landlord and the tenant.
For the purposes of this provision, the bond is considered to be lodged with the Chief Executive, by lodging the bond with the Bond Centre.
Section 19(2) of the RTA confirms that failure to lodge the bond in accordance with the section 19 requirements, is declared to be an unlawful Act, and therefore could be the subject of an order of exemplary damages. Analysis
There is no dispute that the tenant’s bond money was not forwarded to the bond centre. While I accept the landlord’s explanation that this was an unusual situation, it is my view that the bond should have been forwarded to the bond centre when it became apparent that it would take some time to find a replacement tenant. The process of forwarding bond money to the bond centre takes no time at all and should have been done the moment it was received, regardless of the tenant’s desire to end the fixed term agreement early.
I am satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligations because the bond was not lodged within 23 working days “after the payment [was] made”. The bond money does not belong to the landlord, there was no right for them to hold it. a. I consider exemplary damages should be ordered for these reasons: i.I consider it likely the failure to lodge the bond was intentional. The landlord is represented by a professional property manager who should have been well aware of the landlord’s obligations to lodge the bond following the payment being made. ii.The effect for the tenant is that her bond was not secure in the Bond Centre. iii.There is a strong interest for landlords, tenants and the public generally that the bond system be robust, and of course that means landlords lodging tenants bond money as they are required to do. iv.It would be just to make an order. b. The maximum level of exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond is $1,500.00. I consider this breach to be at the less serious end of the scale of breaches and order exemplary damages of $500.00 to be paid to the tenant. Failure to complete the Healthy Homes Compliance Statement
The tenant claims the landlord has not included Healthy Homes compliance details in the tenancy agreement.
The tenant claims that she did not receive a copy of the completed and signed HH compliance statement as part of her tenancy agreement. The tenant produced a copy of the signed tenancy agreement during the hearing.
The landlord responded by stating that they confirmed their obligations as recorded under the ‘Landlord Responsibilities’ section as per the Tenancy Agreement. The landlord says that they feel they have satisfied their obligations in this regard.
The tenant says that she thought a HH compliance statement was required under the Act.
A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. That on, and after, the commencement of the tenancy the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by the Act. b. And include any information prescribed by the regulations made under s138B(5) of the Act.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Analysis
The landlord failed to complete the details of compliance with the Healthy Homes standards. I find the landlord 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The RTA is very clear in respect of the Healthy Homes compliance statements. Put simply, a landlord cannot rely on a set of general clauses to satisfy their obligations in this regard. The Act places an obligation on a landlord to record in the affirmative that the HHS have been (or will be) complied with. Providing a generic list of landlord obligations does not satisfy this statutory requirement.
I consider the landlord’s failure in this respect must be deliberate. There is a pre-formatted section in the tenancy agreement for them to complete and they have failed to do so.
I consider there is a public interest, and an interest for these tenants specifically, in landlords turning their minds to the Healthy Homes requirements, and proactively ensuring that rented premises are compliant.
I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate. In the circumstances, I award $350.00. Rent refund
The tenant seeks a refund of 20% of the rent paid during the tenancy.
An award of compensation or a rent refund requires the tenant to establish that the landlord breached an obligation under the RTA and that a tenant suffered loss, damage or a reduction in the value of the tenancy as a result.
As discussed above, the tenant has failed to establish any breach of the landlord’s obligations in respect of the Healthy Homes Standards.
The landlord provided evidence demonstrating compliance with the standards, including a 2022 Healthy Homes assessment report. The tenant failed to produce sufficient evidence of their own to substantiate the alleged defects or to demonstrate that any issues complained of arose from a failure by the landlord to meet their statutory obligations in this regard.
In the absence of an established breach there is no basis upon which a rent refund can be awarded. Furthermore, the tenant has not provided evidence of any loss of amenity or reduction in the rental value of the premises which would justify the rent refund sought.
Accordingly, the tenant’s claim for a rent refund has not been established and is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s]has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The tenant has applied for a name suppression order. The tenant is entitled to name suppression as the application is partly successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5399598 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2F, 5 Cheshire Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5399598 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2F, 5 Cheshire Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions