What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5401008 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant has been successful with claims brought and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 5401008?

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 5401008?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5401008?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13564112-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5401008 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant has been successful with claims brought and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 5401008?

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 5401008?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5401008?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13564112-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

20 Parsons Road, Meeanee, Napier 4112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5401008 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

20 Parsons Road, Meeanee, Napier 4112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5401008 — Exemplary damages | TenantCheck

Order

The tenant has been successful with claims brought and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
By way of declaration, the agreement is for a fixed term ending on 31 July 2030.
The landlords are required to comply with the 14 day notice to remedy issued by the tenant in respect of the water supply, dated 23 October 2025. The tenant has leave to apply further in the event of non-compliance.
The landlords are required to complete purchase of the tenant’s spa pool.
Within 42 days of the date of this Order the landlords must provide the tenant with a compliance certificate from a qualified installer, confirming the premises has insulation installed complying with Healthy Homes standards. 1
C & M Nagel Trustee Limited Marc Richard Nel must pay [The tenant/s] $10,371.84 immediately as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlords attended though Mr Nel, a director of the corporate Trustee and was represented by counsel.
The tenant appeared for himself with support and assistance from his son.
Following the hearing on 1 April a direction was issued on 8 April 2026 that: “The landlord is to: a. arrange an assessment of whether the insulation at the premises complies with the Healthy Homes insulation standard: b. confer with [The tenant/s] to agree a wording then request that Mr Jones confirm the source of the water sample taken on 3 May 2023 (sample number 23/13251-01 Water Testing Hawkes Bay) that was the subject of the report dated 15 May 2023. The insulation assessment and Mr Jones’ response are to be circulated and provided to the Tribunal no later than 17 April 2026. If either party wants the opportunity to address that evidence they must notify the Tribunal (napiertt@justice.govt.nz) within 7 days of that evidence reply being filed and a short teleconference hearing will be arranged, solely to address that new evidence. Otherwise, the claims will be determined on the evidence heard today and the evidence filed in terms of this direction.”
Nothing has been filed in response to that direction. Counsel for the landlords has been followed up by the Registrar.
A case conference direction dated 29 January 2026 noted: “The issues for determination are: a. what is the term of the tenancy or has it been changed to a periodic tenancy; b. has there been a breach of the landlord’s obligation to record in writing any variation of the tenancy agreement; c. did the landlord breach the tenancy agreement by failing to have an insulation assessment completed; d. did the landlord breach an obligation to ensure a safe and sufficient supply of water to the premises; and i. did the landlord fail to undertake checks to ensure its obligation were met; ii. should the tenant be compensation for the cost of water testing undertaken by him; iii. what is the current state of the water quality; e. is the landlord required to complete purchase of the tenant’s spa pool 2 ; f. did the landlord breach the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises by including in publicly accessible marketing material: i. his spa pool; ii. his personal effects; and by iii. acting coercively concerning his ending the tenancy to provide vacant possession; g. did the landlord give the tenant retaliatory notice of termination. h. if any such beaches are proved, should any award of compensation and/ or exemplary damages be made.”

What is the term of the tenancy or has it been changed to a periodic tenancy?

The agreement provides for an initial fixed term from 1 February 2019 to 31 January 2024.
It is not disputed that the term was then extended to 31 July 2030.
The landlord says that the tenancy was subsequently varied to become a periodic tenancy.
Any variation must be in writing. 3 No written variation agreement was signed.
A variation is not unenforceable because it is not in writing. 4
The landlords wanted to sell the property. The tenant met with Mr Nel and the sales agent. The tenant acknowledges there was a discussion about the possibility of his agreeing to end the tenancy early so vacant possession could be given to a purchaser. The evidence does not prove any greater commitment than that from the tenant.
It was also agreed that the landlord would buy the tenant’s spa pool for $5,000.00. 2 The parties agree that this matter can be seen as a term of the tenancy agreement and within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal 3 S.13B RTA 4 S.13C RTA
Once the landlords had an offer for the property, requiring vacant possession, the trustees approached the tenant asking that he agree to provide vacant possession. Some compensation was offered. The tenant replied in writing that he had considered the proposal and had decided against moving out.
Following negotiations between the parties, the landlords’ solicitor wrote to the tenant on 20 December 2025: “The fixed term tenancy has been varied by agreement between you and the trust. You agreed that the property could be placed on the market acknowledging that vacant possession would be required. First was your request at the trustees purchase the spa pool that you installed. The purchase of the spa pool was agreed on the condition that you agreed that the property could be sold, and that you would provide vacant possession at some point after reasonable notice is given. The variation aligns with logic and practicality. Because of how the spa pool was installed, it was logical to include it in the sale of 20 Parsons Rd. No offer would have been made otherwise. This proposal would have been completely illogical if you had not agreed to vary the agreement and move out of the property. Secondly, there is the rent free period that was given for marketing, viewing purposes and consideration for variation of the original agreement. We are clearly of the view that the fixed term tenancy has been varied to allow a sale with vacant possession and that the notice period for periodic tenancies now applies.”
While, as noted, a variation agreement is not unenforceable because it is not in writing, such a fundamental variation would require clear evidence of agreement to the changed terms.
The evidence provided shows no more than that the tenant agreed to co- operate with the sales/ marketing process and to consider providing vacant possession. He had the benefit of a 5 year term and was entitled to reserve his right to negotiate compensation for yielding that benefit. The terms the landlord asks the Tribunal to imply, which I accept (from the landlords’ perspective) may align with logic and practicality, are not proved as having been agreed. Has there been a breach of the landlord’s obligation to record in writing any variation of the tenancy agreement?
The Tribunal has found there was no variation of the agreement.
The question is whether the landlords breached their obligations by failing to record, in a signed agreement, the variation they say was agreed.
When it comes to a tenancy agreement itself, there is a positive obligation on the landlord to ensure the agreement is in writing. 5 That obligation is reinforced by s.13(4)(a) under which a landlord’s failure to meet that obligation is an unlawful act.
That language is not mirrored in s.13B RTA, which simply provides that “Every variation of a tenancy agreement, and every renewal of a tenancy agreement, shall be in writing and signed by both the landlord and the tenant.”
The positive obligation on the landlord is to provide the tenant with a copy of the variation agreement before it is to take effect. 6 Breach of that obligation is not made an unlawful act.
There being no variation agreement, the landlord was not able to provide a copy to the tenant.
The landlords’ assertions about a variation they had not recorded in writing have caused considerable uncertainty, anxiety and cost. However I do not find a breach of this provision of the RTA proved.
That claim is dismissed.

Did the landlords issue a retaliatory and unlawful notice of termination?

The tenant says that the correspondence from the landlords’ solicitor on 20 December 2025 constituted notice of termination which was retaliatory and unlawful.
That correspondence makes clear the landlords’ view that the agreement had been varied to become a periodic tenancy that could be ended by notice. It did not itself purport to be notice of termination. No date or time period was given by which the tenant was required to vacate, which would be essential elements for such a notice. 7
That claim is dismissed. Did the landlord breach the tenancy agreement by failing to have an insulation assessment completed;
The agreement included a somewhat contradictory insulation statement. It said the premises met minimum insulation requirements for underfloor and ceiling insulation but that the insulation, “...will be assessed before February 2019.” 5 S.13(1) RTA 6 S.13B(2) RTA 7 See s.51(3) and (4) RTA
It is not disputed that no insulation assessment had been completed at the date of the hearing. It has not been done since, despite the Tribunal’s direction.
The landlord characterises that statement in the agreement as a statement of intention, not one creating a binding obligation.
With respect, I disagree. The purpose of provisions requiring landlords to provide insulation (and now Healthy Homes compliance) statements, is so tenants are aware of the standard of premises they are renting or contemplating renting.
In my view, that provision in the agreement gave the tenant an assurance he was entitled to rely on, that the insulation would be assessed immediately after the tenancy began, so as to have confirmation the insulation standard was met. He remains without that confirmation.
I find that the landlords have breached the agreement by failing to have that assessment done. Did the landlord breach an obligation to ensure a safe and sufficient supply of water to the premises; and i.did the landlord fail to undertake checks to ensure its obligation were met; ii.should the tenant be compensated for the cost of water testing undertaken by him; iii.what is the current state of the water quality. Background to water quality issues
The premises are provided with water from a bore.
The bore provides water to the wider rural property, on which the premises are situated, which was leased out for horticultural use.
The water then passes through a filter system before being piped to the premises for domestic use.
Water tests, which I understand were carried out by the horticulture lessee, with test results dated 15 May 2023, showed lead levels of 0.0319 g/m 3 , exceeding the MAV limit of 0.01 g/m 3 . The report notes, “Lead above this level does not comply with DWSNZ 8 and is regarded as a health issue.”
The tenant sent the results to the landlord and made enquiries about possible contamination sources. The tenant began using bottled water. 8 Water Services (Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand) Regulations 2022
On 31 July 2023 the tenant obtained a quote for an improved filtration system. The quote was provided to the landlords on that date.
The tenant followed up about the landlords’ response to the contamination issue and remediation options on 22 August 2023.
The tenant then arranged for further water testing on 24 November 2023. The results, in a report dated 29 November 2023 showed lead levels at 0.0036 g/m 3 , within acceptable levels.
The tenant sent those results to the landlord noting, “It appears there are no highlighted areas of concern regarding Ecoli and other compounds, so by all accounts the water is now suitable for drinking.” The tenant was reimbursed the costs of those tests.
On 4 September 2025, further testing showed safe lead levels but elevated Total Coliforms recorded at 3.1 MPN/ 100ml. The report notes, “Coliforms are a broad class of bacteria found in our environment, not all of which present a risk to public health. Total coliforms forms include bacteria that are found in the soil, and water that has been influenced by surface water, and in human or animal waste. The DWSNZ does not include a maximum value for total coliforms and a high total coliform reading does not necessarily pose a risk to human health. However, total coliforms are a useful indicator drinking water quality and may detect abnormalities and changes in quality over time.
The tenant provided those results to the landlord on 5 September 2025, saying that the levels were above the recommended level for drinking (1 MPN/ 100ml), but that, “The level is not huge and I have not experienced any ill effects, I don’t think it’s necessary to take any drastic measures at this stage as boiling water will kill any bacteria in the system....the e-Coli level is within minimum safety levels.”
The tenant proposed a chlorine flush of the system then a follow up test for coliforms only – on the basis that those actions should have fixed the problem unless the contamination was in the bore itself. In the meantime the tenant boiled water before use, though noting that it was not really practical as a solution.
The chlorine flush was done and the tenant had a coliform test performed which showed total coliform levels at 4.2 MPN/ 100ml.
On 23 October 2025 the tenant sent the landlords a 14 day notice to remedy requiring that they engage a water specialist to diagnose and remedy the contaminated drinking water supply.
This application was filed on 28 November 2025.
The results from testing on 13 February 2026 show total coliforms of 3.1 MPN/ 100ml. Again highlighted in the report as something of note, in the same way as in prior reports. Did the landlord fail to undertake checks to ensure its obligations were met;
The landlords have an obligation to ensure a safe and adequate water supply to the premises, that is protected from contamination. 9
The water test evidence shows that obligation has been breached in that: a. the water contained, at the point of the 15 May 2023 test, unsafe lead levels; and b. there has been an extended presence of elevated total coliforms, indicating a need for assessment and possible maintenance/ repair of the water infrastructure.
The landlords suggest that the tests are not an accurate measure of the water quality supplied to the dwelling, as samples may have been taken from the supply before filtration. However: a. the tenant’s evidence is that he is aware of the samples having been taken from the residential supply; b. the reports themselves record the samples as being from “drinking water”; c. the landlord has been given ample opportunity to obtain evidence about where the samples were taken from, if not from the potable supply, but none has been supplied. 10
I therefore proceed on the basis that the tests provided, analyse the quality of the drinking water supplied to the premises.
The evidence shows that the landlord has not been at all proactive in testing the water quality to ensure its fitness for consumption. Tests have been arranged by the horticultural lessee, tests have been arranged by the tenant (some paid for by the landlords) but only the test in February, part way through these proceedings, was arranged by the landlords.
Even a cursory glance online, 11 highlights the importance of having bore water tested at least annually. 9 G.12 Building Regulations 1992 and s.45(1)(c) RTA 10 Tribunals direction 8 April 2026 11 eg. two clicks reach HB Regional Council bore security information page
As a result of that not having been done, it is not possible to know, how long the unsafe lead contamination was present in the water supply before the test in May 2023, or what other contaminants may have been present until then.
I find that the landlords have beached their obligations under s.45(1)(b) and (c) in that regard.

Should the tenant be compensated for the cost of water testing undertaken by him?

The landlords breached their obligations by not taking reasonable steps to ensure provision of a safe water supply. They had been provided test results showing elevated coliform levels, had been provided a quote recommending an improved filtration system and had taken no steps themselves.
It is a reasonable and foreseeable consequence of that breach that the tenant would arrange his own tests. That caused him a loss he would not have incurred had the landlords met their obligations. There is no suggestion that the cost was unreasonable or was not reasonably mitigated. 12
The tenant should be compensated for that cost.

What is the current state of the water quality?

A series of tests 13 , show ongoing elevated coliform levels in the water. As noted, the DWSNZ does not prescribe a maximum permissible level, but each of the reports notes the importance of monitoring total coliforms as a useful indicator of water quality, an indicator of a change in that quality and of a possible need to check the water system.
My findings are that: a. the consistently elevated coliform levels indicate a need for investigation of the water supply infrastructure with remediation steps taken if indicated; b. the tenant was justified in issuing the 14 day notice to remedy to have that investigation done, that notice should be complied with; c. the Tribunal cannot make a work order without evidence from that assessment, but a further application can be made if required. Is the landlord required to complete purchase of the tenant’s spa pool 14 ? 12 S.49 RTA 13 4 September 2025, 23 October 2025, 13 February 2026
The agreement for the landlords’ purchase of the spa pool is recorded in the following exchanges: a. On 26 August 2025 from Mr Nel to the tenant, “Hi there [Tenant/s], the spa at $5,000.00 would be acceptable; b. On 15 October 2025 from the tenant to Ms Nel, “...I have sourced a new spa pump and this is to be wired in by the electrician tomorrow so the spa will be in perfect working order. Therefore the price is back up to the original as agreed by e-mail.
There is no dispute that a sale was agreed at that price.
The landlords’ position is that the sale was conditional on the tenant having agreed to vacate the premises, so the spa pool could be included in the promotional material and provided to the purchaser with possession on settlement.
The landlords point out that it would not be in the landlords’ interests to buy the spa pool if the tenancy was to continue.
The tenant says that there was no such condition.
Having heard the parties’ evidence, I accept that the landlords genuinely believed that the tenant had agreed to vacate if the premises when sold. That influenced the decision to buy the tenant’s spa pool. It is consistent with an e- mail from Mr Nel to the tenant on 17 October 2025 about the spa purchase (after referring to issues with viewings at the premises) “...I may hold on to the property if we don’t get a good enough offer. Honestly, I am in no rush to spend more money until we get a result.”
That belief though, seems to have arisen from the landlords’ assumption that by the tenant agreeing to cooperate with the sale process and associated viewings, he had necessarily agreed to his tenancy ending if the property sold.
That is not the case. The landlords have the right to sell their property but unless agreed otherwise, any sale is subject to the tenant’s existing rights.
The written exchanges comprising the spa sale contract make no mention of the condition asserted by the landlords.
I have considered whether the mistake provisions of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (“CCLA”) might apply here. 15 The evidence does not 14 The parties agree that this matter can be seen as a term of the tenancy agreement and within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal 15 Subpart 2 Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 show that the landlords’ mistaken assumption was mutual or was known to the tenant 16 .
For those reasons, while I accept that the benefit of the agreement for the landlord is significantly lessened if the property is not sold with vacant possession, I do not see a basis for making the contract subject to a condition that is not shown to have been agreed at the time. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises by including in publicly accessible marketing material: i. his spa pool; ii. his personal effects; and by iii. acting coercively concerning his ending the tenancy to provide vacant possession;
A tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises. The landlord must not interfere with that quiet enjoyment. 17
Accommodating measures by a landlord to sell the premises, working around open homes, keeping the premises in viewing condition and so forth, interfere with a tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.
Significant compensation was paid to the tenant for the intrusion of the sale process. The tenant says that compensation was just to recompense him for the loss of income from his sub tenants/ flatmates, who did not want to stay, given the possibility that the property would be sold.
Nothing in the evidence “ring fences” the compensation in that way.
I do not find it proved that further compensation is payable to the tenant for the interference by the sales process with his use and enjoyment of the premises. Spa Pool
The tenant says that because the landlords reneged on the agreement to buy the spa pool, they had no right to use photos of it in their marketing material.
I understand the tenant considers it unfair that the landlord got the marketing advantage of using photos of the spa pool, while refusing to pay him for it, but 16 See s.24 CCLA 17 S.38(1) and (2) RTA that does not comprise an interference with his, “...peace, comfort or privacy...”. 18
That claim is dismissed. Personal Effects
A landlord must be careful, when taking photos of a tenant’s home, not to include photos that breach a tenant’s privacy. They should not take photos of the tenant or family, family photos or personal effects.
Tenants have some responsibility, after being given proper notice, to be sensible about removing from view anything they consider personal where they reasonably can.
The evidence from the marketing photos shows that in some photos taken by the sales agent, the tenant and his daughter are just visible. In some, there are photos of family members, although indistinct.
The tenant made it clear how much he values his privacy. In those respect the sales agent took some images they should not have and intruded into the tenant’s privacy.
I do note however that at the time, the real concern for the tenant seems to have been the landlords’ use of spa photos in the marketing material when he was annoyed he had not been paid for it.
An e-mail from the tenant to the landlords on 20 October 2025, after noting his intention to pursue payment for the spa pool, the tenant said, “...all photos of the spa pool are to be removed from any advertising...”
Later, on 4 November 2025 he wrote, “...I have subsequently ascertained that all other photos containing my personal effects, belongings and family portraits required by consent for publication...”. That suggests that it was the landlord’s failure to consult rather than the photographs themselves that was upsetting.
On balance, my view is that while the sales agent was less carful than he ought to have been when taking and using photos of the premises, the actual harm caused at the time does not warrant a separate award of compensation. Coercive action
This claim relates largely to the letter from the landlords’ solicitor dated 20 December 2025, which has been referred to. 18 S.38(2)
In instructing their solicitor to write that letter, in response to the tenant’s application to the Tribunal on 28 November 2025, the landlords were acting on their view that the agreement had been varied to allow the landlord to end the tenancy by notice.
The letter had the expressed purpose, “....to address the claims you have made against the Trust and to propose a pathway forward for both parties.”
The position taken by the landlords has not been supported by the Tribunal. As noted, pursuing that position has caused the tenant considerable uncertainty, anxiety and cost.
Really though, that is inherent in situations of conflict.
By analogy, Tribunal proceedings themselves involve considerable uncertainty, anxiety and cost but except in certain specified circumstances, the Tribunal cannot award costs. 19
Usually, negotiations prior to and in an attempt to avoid or settle that litigation can be pursued equally robustly.
I am not persuaded that those negotiations constitute an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy “...in the use of the premises by the tenant.” 20 Remedies
The landlords have been found to have breached their obligations to: a. ensure the premises met the insulation standard (s.45(1)(bb)); b. ensure a safe and adequate water supply (s.45(1)(c)).
Each of those breaches is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded, in addition to compensation. 21
For the Tribunal to consider awarding exemplary damages, the breach must be intentional. If so, the Tribunal must consider the landlords’ intentions, the effect of the breach, the interest of the tenant and the public interest. 22 Insulation
The landlords breached the obligation to have an insulation assessment completed when the tenancy began and did not comply with a Tribunal direction to have current compliance assessed. 19 S.102 RTA 20 S.38(2) RTA 21 Schedule 1A RTA 22 S.109(3) RTA
I can only infer that the premises are not compliant and haven’t been throughout the tenancy.
The tenant has not brought evidence that proves any financial loss or loss of amenity in his use for the premises due to the quality of the insulation.
A basis for compensatory damages is not proved.
The breach was intentional. Mr Nel’s evidence is that the landlords simply never got around to having the assessment done. That may explain the initial oversight but not the current lack of assessment evidence.
The tenant has not taken steps to follow up on the assessment. It really seems to have become an issue when the parties came into conflict about other matters.
Nevertheless, the landlord breached and has continued to breach an important obligation. The public interest at least requires that there be a recognition of that through a punitive award.
Weighing the above considerations I assess an award of $750.00 to be just.
A formal Order is appropriate to require that compliance is confirmed. Water
Issues with the safety of the water supply have had proven effects on the amenity of the premises for the tenant. He has been required to: a. arrange water testing himself; b. use bottled water when there was a health threat due to lead contamination; c. boil water before use when there was a health concern from elevated coliform counts; d. regularly pursue the landlords to have legitimate concerns about the water reticulation and quality investigated; e. be concerned about the health effects of the lead contamination in particular.
My assessment is that a global compensatory award of $2,000.00 would be fair.
The landlords are not the cause of the lead contamination. It is clear that bore water supplies come with a higher risk of exposure to bacterial contamination - hence the need for regular testing.
The landlords’ breach was of the obligation to ensure the water was tested regularly and the infrastructure assessed, to ensure, as best as they could, the safety of the water supply they are responsible for providing.
In terms of whether an award of exemplary damages should be made, my assessment of the landlords’ intention is that they largely left it to the tenant to monitor and deal with water issues. That is to some extent understandable. The rest of the property was leased out under a commercial lease where the landlords had a much more “hands off” role. This too, is a long term tenancy.
Nevertheless, the responsibility is the landlords’. The consequence of the landlords’ approach is that: a. the water at the premises contained unsafe lead levels in May 2023 and for an unknown period before that; b. the presence or otherwise of any other contaminants in the water from the start of the tenancy up to that point is unknown; c. those results were only as a result of 3 rd party testing, not anything done by the landlords; d. there has been an elevated level of total coliforms in the water for a significant period, without any investigation of the cause and despite a quote recommending an improved filtration system and a legitimate 14 day notice having been given by the tenant.
The public interest requires that the health of water supplied to residential premises is taken seriously.
Taking into account those considerations and also that a compensatory award has been made, I find it just to make an award of exemplary damages of 1/3rd the maximum.
The tenant has had claims upheld and is refunded the filing fee.

Order

The tenant has been successful with claims brought and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
By way of declaration, the agreement is for a fixed term ending on 31 July 2030.
The landlords are required to comply with the 14 day notice to remedy issued by the tenant in respect of the water supply, dated 23 October 2025. The tenant has leave to apply further in the event of non-compliance.
The landlords are required to complete purchase of the tenant’s spa pool.
Within 42 days of the date of this Order the landlords must provide the tenant with a compliance certificate from a qualified installer, confirming the premises has insulation installed complying with Healthy Homes standards. 1
C & M Nagel Trustee Limited Marc Richard Nel must pay [The tenant/s] $10,371.84 immediately as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlords attended though Mr Nel, a director of the corporate Trustee and was represented by counsel.
The tenant appeared for himself with support and assistance from his son.
Following the hearing on 1 April a direction was issued on 8 April 2026 that: “The landlord is to: a. arrange an assessment of whether the insulation at the premises complies with the Healthy Homes insulation standard: b. confer with [The tenant/s] to agree a wording then request that Mr Jones confirm the source of the water sample taken on 3 May 2023 (sample number 23/13251-01 Water Testing Hawkes Bay) that was the subject of the report dated 15 May 2023. The insulation assessment and Mr Jones’ response are to be circulated and provided to the Tribunal no later than 17 April 2026. If either party wants the opportunity to address that evidence they must notify the Tribunal (napiertt@justice.govt.nz) within 7 days of that evidence reply being filed and a short teleconference hearing will be arranged, solely to address that new evidence. Otherwise, the claims will be determined on the evidence heard today and the evidence filed in terms of this direction.”
Nothing has been filed in response to that direction. Counsel for the landlords has been followed up by the Registrar.
A case conference direction dated 29 January 2026 noted: “The issues for determination are: a. what is the term of the tenancy or has it been changed to a periodic tenancy; b. has there been a breach of the landlord’s obligation to record in writing any variation of the tenancy agreement; c. did the landlord breach the tenancy agreement by failing to have an insulation assessment completed; d. did the landlord breach an obligation to ensure a safe and sufficient supply of water to the premises; and i. did the landlord fail to undertake checks to ensure its obligation were met; ii. should the tenant be compensation for the cost of water testing undertaken by him; iii. what is the current state of the water quality; e. is the landlord required to complete purchase of the tenant’s spa pool 2 ; f. did the landlord breach the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises by including in publicly accessible marketing material: i. his spa pool; ii. his personal effects; and by iii. acting coercively concerning his ending the tenancy to provide vacant possession; g. did the landlord give the tenant retaliatory notice of termination. h. if any such beaches are proved, should any award of compensation and/ or exemplary damages be made.”

What is the term of the tenancy or has it been changed to a periodic tenancy?

The agreement provides for an initial fixed term from 1 February 2019 to 31 January 2024.
It is not disputed that the term was then extended to 31 July 2030.
The landlord says that the tenancy was subsequently varied to become a periodic tenancy.
Any variation must be in writing. 3 No written variation agreement was signed.
A variation is not unenforceable because it is not in writing. 4
The landlords wanted to sell the property. The tenant met with Mr Nel and the sales agent. The tenant acknowledges there was a discussion about the possibility of his agreeing to end the tenancy early so vacant possession could be given to a purchaser. The evidence does not prove any greater commitment than that from the tenant.
It was also agreed that the landlord would buy the tenant’s spa pool for $5,000.00. 2 The parties agree that this matter can be seen as a term of the tenancy agreement and within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal 3 S.13B RTA 4 S.13C RTA
Once the landlords had an offer for the property, requiring vacant possession, the trustees approached the tenant asking that he agree to provide vacant possession. Some compensation was offered. The tenant replied in writing that he had considered the proposal and had decided against moving out.
Following negotiations between the parties, the landlords’ solicitor wrote to the tenant on 20 December 2025: “The fixed term tenancy has been varied by agreement between you and the trust. You agreed that the property could be placed on the market acknowledging that vacant possession would be required. First was your request at the trustees purchase the spa pool that you installed. The purchase of the spa pool was agreed on the condition that you agreed that the property could be sold, and that you would provide vacant possession at some point after reasonable notice is given. The variation aligns with logic and practicality. Because of how the spa pool was installed, it was logical to include it in the sale of 20 Parsons Rd. No offer would have been made otherwise. This proposal would have been completely illogical if you had not agreed to vary the agreement and move out of the property. Secondly, there is the rent free period that was given for marketing, viewing purposes and consideration for variation of the original agreement. We are clearly of the view that the fixed term tenancy has been varied to allow a sale with vacant possession and that the notice period for periodic tenancies now applies.”
While, as noted, a variation agreement is not unenforceable because it is not in writing, such a fundamental variation would require clear evidence of agreement to the changed terms.
The evidence provided shows no more than that the tenant agreed to co- operate with the sales/ marketing process and to consider providing vacant possession. He had the benefit of a 5 year term and was entitled to reserve his right to negotiate compensation for yielding that benefit. The terms the landlord asks the Tribunal to imply, which I accept (from the landlords’ perspective) may align with logic and practicality, are not proved as having been agreed. Has there been a breach of the landlord’s obligation to record in writing any variation of the tenancy agreement?
The Tribunal has found there was no variation of the agreement.
The question is whether the landlords breached their obligations by failing to record, in a signed agreement, the variation they say was agreed.
When it comes to a tenancy agreement itself, there is a positive obligation on the landlord to ensure the agreement is in writing. 5 That obligation is reinforced by s.13(4)(a) under which a landlord’s failure to meet that obligation is an unlawful act.
That language is not mirrored in s.13B RTA, which simply provides that “Every variation of a tenancy agreement, and every renewal of a tenancy agreement, shall be in writing and signed by both the landlord and the tenant.”
The positive obligation on the landlord is to provide the tenant with a copy of the variation agreement before it is to take effect. 6 Breach of that obligation is not made an unlawful act.
There being no variation agreement, the landlord was not able to provide a copy to the tenant.
The landlords’ assertions about a variation they had not recorded in writing have caused considerable uncertainty, anxiety and cost. However I do not find a breach of this provision of the RTA proved.
That claim is dismissed.

Did the landlords issue a retaliatory and unlawful notice of termination?

The tenant says that the correspondence from the landlords’ solicitor on 20 December 2025 constituted notice of termination which was retaliatory and unlawful.
That correspondence makes clear the landlords’ view that the agreement had been varied to become a periodic tenancy that could be ended by notice. It did not itself purport to be notice of termination. No date or time period was given by which the tenant was required to vacate, which would be essential elements for such a notice. 7
That claim is dismissed. Did the landlord breach the tenancy agreement by failing to have an insulation assessment completed;
The agreement included a somewhat contradictory insulation statement. It said the premises met minimum insulation requirements for underfloor and ceiling insulation but that the insulation, “...will be assessed before February 2019.” 5 S.13(1) RTA 6 S.13B(2) RTA 7 See s.51(3) and (4) RTA
It is not disputed that no insulation assessment had been completed at the date of the hearing. It has not been done since, despite the Tribunal’s direction.
The landlord characterises that statement in the agreement as a statement of intention, not one creating a binding obligation.
With respect, I disagree. The purpose of provisions requiring landlords to provide insulation (and now Healthy Homes compliance) statements, is so tenants are aware of the standard of premises they are renting or contemplating renting.
In my view, that provision in the agreement gave the tenant an assurance he was entitled to rely on, that the insulation would be assessed immediately after the tenancy began, so as to have confirmation the insulation standard was met. He remains without that confirmation.
I find that the landlords have breached the agreement by failing to have that assessment done. Did the landlord breach an obligation to ensure a safe and sufficient supply of water to the premises; and i.did the landlord fail to undertake checks to ensure its obligation were met; ii.should the tenant be compensated for the cost of water testing undertaken by him; iii.what is the current state of the water quality. Background to water quality issues
The premises are provided with water from a bore.
The bore provides water to the wider rural property, on which the premises are situated, which was leased out for horticultural use.
The water then passes through a filter system before being piped to the premises for domestic use.
Water tests, which I understand were carried out by the horticulture lessee, with test results dated 15 May 2023, showed lead levels of 0.0319 g/m 3 , exceeding the MAV limit of 0.01 g/m 3 . The report notes, “Lead above this level does not comply with DWSNZ 8 and is regarded as a health issue.”
The tenant sent the results to the landlord and made enquiries about possible contamination sources. The tenant began using bottled water. 8 Water Services (Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand) Regulations 2022
On 31 July 2023 the tenant obtained a quote for an improved filtration system. The quote was provided to the landlords on that date.
The tenant followed up about the landlords’ response to the contamination issue and remediation options on 22 August 2023.
The tenant then arranged for further water testing on 24 November 2023. The results, in a report dated 29 November 2023 showed lead levels at 0.0036 g/m 3 , within acceptable levels.
The tenant sent those results to the landlord noting, “It appears there are no highlighted areas of concern regarding Ecoli and other compounds, so by all accounts the water is now suitable for drinking.” The tenant was reimbursed the costs of those tests.
On 4 September 2025, further testing showed safe lead levels but elevated Total Coliforms recorded at 3.1 MPN/ 100ml. The report notes, “Coliforms are a broad class of bacteria found in our environment, not all of which present a risk to public health. Total coliforms forms include bacteria that are found in the soil, and water that has been influenced by surface water, and in human or animal waste. The DWSNZ does not include a maximum value for total coliforms and a high total coliform reading does not necessarily pose a risk to human health. However, total coliforms are a useful indicator drinking water quality and may detect abnormalities and changes in quality over time.
The tenant provided those results to the landlord on 5 September 2025, saying that the levels were above the recommended level for drinking (1 MPN/ 100ml), but that, “The level is not huge and I have not experienced any ill effects, I don’t think it’s necessary to take any drastic measures at this stage as boiling water will kill any bacteria in the system....the e-Coli level is within minimum safety levels.”
The tenant proposed a chlorine flush of the system then a follow up test for coliforms only – on the basis that those actions should have fixed the problem unless the contamination was in the bore itself. In the meantime the tenant boiled water before use, though noting that it was not really practical as a solution.
The chlorine flush was done and the tenant had a coliform test performed which showed total coliform levels at 4.2 MPN/ 100ml.
On 23 October 2025 the tenant sent the landlords a 14 day notice to remedy requiring that they engage a water specialist to diagnose and remedy the contaminated drinking water supply.
This application was filed on 28 November 2025.
The results from testing on 13 February 2026 show total coliforms of 3.1 MPN/ 100ml. Again highlighted in the report as something of note, in the same way as in prior reports. Did the landlord fail to undertake checks to ensure its obligations were met;
The landlords have an obligation to ensure a safe and adequate water supply to the premises, that is protected from contamination. 9
The water test evidence shows that obligation has been breached in that: a. the water contained, at the point of the 15 May 2023 test, unsafe lead levels; and b. there has been an extended presence of elevated total coliforms, indicating a need for assessment and possible maintenance/ repair of the water infrastructure.
The landlords suggest that the tests are not an accurate measure of the water quality supplied to the dwelling, as samples may have been taken from the supply before filtration. However: a. the tenant’s evidence is that he is aware of the samples having been taken from the residential supply; b. the reports themselves record the samples as being from “drinking water”; c. the landlord has been given ample opportunity to obtain evidence about where the samples were taken from, if not from the potable supply, but none has been supplied. 10
I therefore proceed on the basis that the tests provided, analyse the quality of the drinking water supplied to the premises.
The evidence shows that the landlord has not been at all proactive in testing the water quality to ensure its fitness for consumption. Tests have been arranged by the horticultural lessee, tests have been arranged by the tenant (some paid for by the landlords) but only the test in February, part way through these proceedings, was arranged by the landlords.
Even a cursory glance online, 11 highlights the importance of having bore water tested at least annually. 9 G.12 Building Regulations 1992 and s.45(1)(c) RTA 10 Tribunals direction 8 April 2026 11 eg. two clicks reach HB Regional Council bore security information page
As a result of that not having been done, it is not possible to know, how long the unsafe lead contamination was present in the water supply before the test in May 2023, or what other contaminants may have been present until then.
I find that the landlords have beached their obligations under s.45(1)(b) and (c) in that regard.

Should the tenant be compensated for the cost of water testing undertaken by him?

The landlords breached their obligations by not taking reasonable steps to ensure provision of a safe water supply. They had been provided test results showing elevated coliform levels, had been provided a quote recommending an improved filtration system and had taken no steps themselves.
It is a reasonable and foreseeable consequence of that breach that the tenant would arrange his own tests. That caused him a loss he would not have incurred had the landlords met their obligations. There is no suggestion that the cost was unreasonable or was not reasonably mitigated. 12
The tenant should be compensated for that cost.

What is the current state of the water quality?

A series of tests 13 , show ongoing elevated coliform levels in the water. As noted, the DWSNZ does not prescribe a maximum permissible level, but each of the reports notes the importance of monitoring total coliforms as a useful indicator of water quality, an indicator of a change in that quality and of a possible need to check the water system.
My findings are that: a. the consistently elevated coliform levels indicate a need for investigation of the water supply infrastructure with remediation steps taken if indicated; b. the tenant was justified in issuing the 14 day notice to remedy to have that investigation done, that notice should be complied with; c. the Tribunal cannot make a work order without evidence from that assessment, but a further application can be made if required. Is the landlord required to complete purchase of the tenant’s spa pool 14 ? 12 S.49 RTA 13 4 September 2025, 23 October 2025, 13 February 2026
The agreement for the landlords’ purchase of the spa pool is recorded in the following exchanges: a. On 26 August 2025 from Mr Nel to the tenant, “Hi there [Tenant/s], the spa at $5,000.00 would be acceptable; b. On 15 October 2025 from the tenant to Ms Nel, “...I have sourced a new spa pump and this is to be wired in by the electrician tomorrow so the spa will be in perfect working order. Therefore the price is back up to the original as agreed by e-mail.
There is no dispute that a sale was agreed at that price.
The landlords’ position is that the sale was conditional on the tenant having agreed to vacate the premises, so the spa pool could be included in the promotional material and provided to the purchaser with possession on settlement.
The landlords point out that it would not be in the landlords’ interests to buy the spa pool if the tenancy was to continue.
The tenant says that there was no such condition.
Having heard the parties’ evidence, I accept that the landlords genuinely believed that the tenant had agreed to vacate if the premises when sold. That influenced the decision to buy the tenant’s spa pool. It is consistent with an e- mail from Mr Nel to the tenant on 17 October 2025 about the spa purchase (after referring to issues with viewings at the premises) “...I may hold on to the property if we don’t get a good enough offer. Honestly, I am in no rush to spend more money until we get a result.”
That belief though, seems to have arisen from the landlords’ assumption that by the tenant agreeing to cooperate with the sale process and associated viewings, he had necessarily agreed to his tenancy ending if the property sold.
That is not the case. The landlords have the right to sell their property but unless agreed otherwise, any sale is subject to the tenant’s existing rights.
The written exchanges comprising the spa sale contract make no mention of the condition asserted by the landlords.
I have considered whether the mistake provisions of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (“CCLA”) might apply here. 15 The evidence does not 14 The parties agree that this matter can be seen as a term of the tenancy agreement and within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal 15 Subpart 2 Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 show that the landlords’ mistaken assumption was mutual or was known to the tenant 16 .
For those reasons, while I accept that the benefit of the agreement for the landlord is significantly lessened if the property is not sold with vacant possession, I do not see a basis for making the contract subject to a condition that is not shown to have been agreed at the time. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises by including in publicly accessible marketing material: i. his spa pool; ii. his personal effects; and by iii. acting coercively concerning his ending the tenancy to provide vacant possession;
A tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises. The landlord must not interfere with that quiet enjoyment. 17
Accommodating measures by a landlord to sell the premises, working around open homes, keeping the premises in viewing condition and so forth, interfere with a tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.
Significant compensation was paid to the tenant for the intrusion of the sale process. The tenant says that compensation was just to recompense him for the loss of income from his sub tenants/ flatmates, who did not want to stay, given the possibility that the property would be sold.
Nothing in the evidence “ring fences” the compensation in that way.
I do not find it proved that further compensation is payable to the tenant for the interference by the sales process with his use and enjoyment of the premises. Spa Pool
The tenant says that because the landlords reneged on the agreement to buy the spa pool, they had no right to use photos of it in their marketing material.
I understand the tenant considers it unfair that the landlord got the marketing advantage of using photos of the spa pool, while refusing to pay him for it, but 16 See s.24 CCLA 17 S.38(1) and (2) RTA that does not comprise an interference with his, “...peace, comfort or privacy...”. 18
That claim is dismissed. Personal Effects
A landlord must be careful, when taking photos of a tenant’s home, not to include photos that breach a tenant’s privacy. They should not take photos of the tenant or family, family photos or personal effects.
Tenants have some responsibility, after being given proper notice, to be sensible about removing from view anything they consider personal where they reasonably can.
The evidence from the marketing photos shows that in some photos taken by the sales agent, the tenant and his daughter are just visible. In some, there are photos of family members, although indistinct.
The tenant made it clear how much he values his privacy. In those respect the sales agent took some images they should not have and intruded into the tenant’s privacy.
I do note however that at the time, the real concern for the tenant seems to have been the landlords’ use of spa photos in the marketing material when he was annoyed he had not been paid for it.
An e-mail from the tenant to the landlords on 20 October 2025, after noting his intention to pursue payment for the spa pool, the tenant said, “...all photos of the spa pool are to be removed from any advertising...”
Later, on 4 November 2025 he wrote, “...I have subsequently ascertained that all other photos containing my personal effects, belongings and family portraits required by consent for publication...”. That suggests that it was the landlord’s failure to consult rather than the photographs themselves that was upsetting.
On balance, my view is that while the sales agent was less carful than he ought to have been when taking and using photos of the premises, the actual harm caused at the time does not warrant a separate award of compensation. Coercive action
This claim relates largely to the letter from the landlords’ solicitor dated 20 December 2025, which has been referred to. 18 S.38(2)
In instructing their solicitor to write that letter, in response to the tenant’s application to the Tribunal on 28 November 2025, the landlords were acting on their view that the agreement had been varied to allow the landlord to end the tenancy by notice.
The letter had the expressed purpose, “....to address the claims you have made against the Trust and to propose a pathway forward for both parties.”
The position taken by the landlords has not been supported by the Tribunal. As noted, pursuing that position has caused the tenant considerable uncertainty, anxiety and cost.
Really though, that is inherent in situations of conflict.
By analogy, Tribunal proceedings themselves involve considerable uncertainty, anxiety and cost but except in certain specified circumstances, the Tribunal cannot award costs. 19
Usually, negotiations prior to and in an attempt to avoid or settle that litigation can be pursued equally robustly.
I am not persuaded that those negotiations constitute an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy “...in the use of the premises by the tenant.” 20 Remedies
The landlords have been found to have breached their obligations to: a. ensure the premises met the insulation standard (s.45(1)(bb)); b. ensure a safe and adequate water supply (s.45(1)(c)).
Each of those breaches is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded, in addition to compensation. 21
For the Tribunal to consider awarding exemplary damages, the breach must be intentional. If so, the Tribunal must consider the landlords’ intentions, the effect of the breach, the interest of the tenant and the public interest. 22 Insulation
The landlords breached the obligation to have an insulation assessment completed when the tenancy began and did not comply with a Tribunal direction to have current compliance assessed. 19 S.102 RTA 20 S.38(2) RTA 21 Schedule 1A RTA 22 S.109(3) RTA
I can only infer that the premises are not compliant and haven’t been throughout the tenancy.
The tenant has not brought evidence that proves any financial loss or loss of amenity in his use for the premises due to the quality of the insulation.
A basis for compensatory damages is not proved.
The breach was intentional. Mr Nel’s evidence is that the landlords simply never got around to having the assessment done. That may explain the initial oversight but not the current lack of assessment evidence.
The tenant has not taken steps to follow up on the assessment. It really seems to have become an issue when the parties came into conflict about other matters.
Nevertheless, the landlord breached and has continued to breach an important obligation. The public interest at least requires that there be a recognition of that through a punitive award.
Weighing the above considerations I assess an award of $750.00 to be just.
A formal Order is appropriate to require that compliance is confirmed. Water
Issues with the safety of the water supply have had proven effects on the amenity of the premises for the tenant. He has been required to: a. arrange water testing himself; b. use bottled water when there was a health threat due to lead contamination; c. boil water before use when there was a health concern from elevated coliform counts; d. regularly pursue the landlords to have legitimate concerns about the water reticulation and quality investigated; e. be concerned about the health effects of the lead contamination in particular.
My assessment is that a global compensatory award of $2,000.00 would be fair.
The landlords are not the cause of the lead contamination. It is clear that bore water supplies come with a higher risk of exposure to bacterial contamination - hence the need for regular testing.
The landlords’ breach was of the obligation to ensure the water was tested regularly and the infrastructure assessed, to ensure, as best as they could, the safety of the water supply they are responsible for providing.
In terms of whether an award of exemplary damages should be made, my assessment of the landlords’ intention is that they largely left it to the tenant to monitor and deal with water issues. That is to some extent understandable. The rest of the property was leased out under a commercial lease where the landlords had a much more “hands off” role. This too, is a long term tenancy.
Nevertheless, the responsibility is the landlords’. The consequence of the landlords’ approach is that: a. the water at the premises contained unsafe lead levels in May 2023 and for an unknown period before that; b. the presence or otherwise of any other contaminants in the water from the start of the tenancy up to that point is unknown; c. those results were only as a result of 3 rd party testing, not anything done by the landlords; d. there has been an elevated level of total coliforms in the water for a significant period, without any investigation of the cause and despite a quote recommending an improved filtration system and a legitimate 14 day notice having been given by the tenant.
The public interest requires that the health of water supplied to residential premises is taken seriously.
Taking into account those considerations and also that a compensatory award has been made, I find it just to make an award of exemplary damages of 1/3rd the maximum.
The tenant has had claims upheld and is refunded the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5401008 — Exemplary damages at 20 Parsons Road, Meeanee, Napier 4112

Tenancy Tribunal case 5401008 — Exemplary damages at 20 Parsons Road, Meeanee, Napier 4112

Order

Reasons

What is the term of the tenancy or has it been changed to a periodic tenancy?

Did the landlords issue a retaliatory and unlawful notice of termination?

Should the tenant be compensated for the cost of water testing undertaken by him?

What is the current state of the water quality?

Order

Reasons

What is the term of the tenancy or has it been changed to a periodic tenancy?

Did the landlords issue a retaliatory and unlawful notice of termination?

Should the tenant be compensated for the cost of water testing undertaken by him?

What is the current state of the water quality?