What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407988 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] the sum of $8,575.00 as

How much money was awarded in case 5407988?

Compensation: Hot Water: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407988?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407988?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13888354-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407988 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] the sum of $8,575.00 as

How much money was awarded in case 5407988?

Compensation: Hot Water: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407988?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407988?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13888354-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Rear unit residence area, 137 -151 Cuba street, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5407988 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5407988 — net $8,575.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: ventilation	$2,400.00	ventilation
Exemplary damages: heating	$2,400.00	heating
Compensation: hot water	$375.00	hot water
Exemplary damages: breach of quiet enjoyment	$1,000.00	breach of quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: no smoke alarm	$2,400.00	no smoke alarm
Net award	$8,575.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$8,575.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5407988 — net $8,575.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: ventilation	$2,400.00	ventilation
Exemplary damages: heating	$2,400.00	heating
Compensation: hot water	$375.00	hot water
Exemplary damages: breach of quiet enjoyment	$1,000.00	breach of quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: no smoke alarm	$2,400.00	no smoke alarm
Net award	$8,575.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$8,575.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] the sum of $8,575.00 as calculated in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 18 June 2026. The landlord was represented by Ms Liddicott of Diligence Property Limited. I acknowledge that she had been instructed only approximately two weeks before the hearing.
On 11 February 2026, Mr van den Hout filed an application for Craig Dunlop to be their representative because he was their property manager and he deals with their commercial building issues. The application for representation was approved and Mr Dunlop appeared at the hearing on 27 March 2026 on the question of jurisdiction.
Following that March hearing, on 7 April 2026 I made an order declaring that there is a residential tenancy agreement between the applicant, Blair Stewart McBeth and [The landlord/s] at Rear unit residence area, 137 -151 Cuba Street, Palmerston north 4410. Summary of events
The tenant took possession of the premises on 1 August 2025, at which time the agent, Colliers, ceased to have any involvement with the lease, and the tenant’s communications were with the owners, Filip and Carla Van Den Hout.
When the tenant first moved in, he was setting up his creative space in the studio area. He noticed some water in the flat but thought it may have been a spill.
By late September 2025, the tenant identified roof leaks in the skylight in the studio area and in the kitchen. He engaged Wallace Roofing to repair them and notified the landlord on 29 September 2025. He understood that it was his responsibility to have the repairs undertaken because he thought the lease referred to minor repairs being his responsibility.
With the landlord’s agreement, Wallace Roofing attended to repairs, but then the leaks returned, and some new ones appeared.
In late October, the landlord took over the role of repairing the roof, but the tenant felt that his quiet enjoyment was being disturbed.
In two emails dated 3 November, the landlord told him that he should not be living in the premises. They said that the building was leased as commercial premises and that the tenant had to vacate.
The landlord employed Mr Dunlop as an agent, and there was an ongoing dispute about whether the premises were residential, and the tenant was told he needed to move out. There was also a disagreement about access to the premises for inspection/repair of the roof.
In February 2026 the tenant reported that he had no hot water. The landlord refused to fix the hot water.
On 27 March 2026 there was a hearing on the matter of jurisdiction and on 7 April 2026 the decision confirming jurisdiction was issued.
On 9 April the hot water was fixed.
On 23 April Mr Dunlop offered the tenant accommodation within one of the residential units on the property. The tenant declined. The tenant’s claims
In accordance with directions issued, in April 2026, the tenant set out a compensation summary as follows: a. Compensation of $6,125 (100% rent abatement); b. $5,000 for business losses c. $9,000 for failure to maintain the premises because of ongoing leaks (section 45); d. $4,000 for failure to provide an essential service (hot water) (sections 45 and 46); e. $5,000 for interference with quiet enjoyment because of ongoing disruption for ongoing maintenance, contractor interference, inability to use premises; f. $3,000 for unlawful entry/attempted entry under section 48. This related to Multiple attendances without proper notice; Unidentified individuals attending the property; Attempted access while tenant absent; g. $22,500 in exemplary damages for failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards: i. Moisture ingress (failure to maintain a watertight structure) ii. Ventilation iii. Heating.
The tenant’s application also referred to lack of insulation, inadequate draft- stopping and non-compliant smoke alarm placement, for which he sought compensation and exemplary damages.
The landlord has filed no evidence in reply.
Although the decision on jurisdiction has already been recorded with reasons, some of the decision is repeated here as context. Summary of jurisdiction decision made on 7 April 2026
There was no dispute that the property was advertised by Colliers Real Estate Agency and on 8 July 2025 the tenant made enquiries about the property. In particular, he asked if he could use the space for commercial and residential purposes. The agent replied that the property could be the tenant’s residence as well. This was confirmed in a further email.
On 22 July 2025, the tenant and landlord signed a lease in which the “General address of the premises” is described as 137 -151 Cuba Street, Palmerston North. In the First Schedule of the agreement, the premises are described as “the rear unit comprising of 80sqm workshop and residence”.
The commencement date is 1 August 2025 and the term of the lease is two years. The rent is recorded as $18,000 a year plus GST and a carpark is included.
Clause 19 of the Third Schedule records that the premises may be used for: - creative business AND - residence AND/OR - any other use permitted under the District Plan that the landlord agrees to.
As recorded in the decision of 7 April, that is what the respondent agreed to when he signed the agreement. It is consistent with the communications that the agent and applicant had in writing before the signing of the agreement, and so it was found that the parties entered into an agreement to rent premises that were intended for occupation by the applicant as a place of residence. Unlawful residential premises
Before the jurisdiction hearing, Mr Dunlop provided a copy of an email from Planning Services at the Palmerston North City Council. It is signed off by someone called Olivia, who says, “I have had a look and cannot see any Resource Consent for Residential Accommodation at this site within my search”.
It is possible that the premises are unlawful residential premises because they are in a non-residential zone. Even if the premises cannot be lawfully leased for residential purposes, the definition of residential premises found in section 2 is any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful.
I do not need to make an order under section 78A that the premises are unlawful residential premises. The applications from the tenant include applications for rent abatement, which is an order that could also be made if the premises are unlawful. Exemplary damages
The Act provides that a breach of some, but not all, rights under the Act amounts to an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages may be ordered. Section 109(3) says that if a party applies for an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal may order the other party to pay such damages. The Tribunal must decide if it would be just to require exemplary damages, having regard to: a. the intent of that person in committing the unlawful act; and b. the effect of the unlawful act; and c. the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. the public interest.
The maximum amounts for exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.
With two exceptions that do not apply here, an application for exemplary damages must be made within 12 months after the date of the commission of the unlawful act. The tenant’s application was filed within 6 months of the start of the tenancy and so there are no issues with time limitations. Compensation
Much of the tenant’s disappointment and frustration stems from the impediment of his vision for the premises. In particular, he says that because of problems with a leaking roof, was not able to get his business off the ground. This Tribunal has no jurisdiction over commercial leases and cannot consider any loss of income that may have resulted from a leaking roof.
There is an overlap of the tenant’s claims. For example, he seeks compensation for certain issues and also seeks rent rebate of 100%. When ordering compensation for some items, the Tribunal often calculates it as a percentage of rental.
The tenant has continued to live in the premises and has had the use of the premises. He has not paid rent for some months. At the time of the hearing the landlord had not filed any application for rent arrears. It is possible that there will be offset of the parties’ respective claims, but in the absence of any claim from the landlord, the Tribunal must simply decide the quantum to be ordered to the tenant. Burden of proof
The burden of proof is on the applicant, and the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. That means that the onus is on the tenant to produce the evidence to support his claims and satisfy the Tribunal that the alleged facts are more likely than not to be true. Issues
The issues to be determined are: a. Has the landlord failed to provide or maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair in relation to: i. The roof ii. The hot water? b. Has the landlord entered the premises without the tenant’s consent? c. Has the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? d. Has the landlord failed to comply with the regulations concerning: i. Smoke alarms ii. Insulation iii. Ventilation iv. Heating v. Moisture ingress e. If yes, what, if any compensation or exemplary damages should be ordered. Has the landlord failed to provide or maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair by not fixing the roof?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 1
The tenancy began on 1 August 2025.
On 29 September 2025 the tenant emailed the landlord advising that Wallace Roofing had kindly offered to repair the skylights and fix a few leaks in the building at no cost to the landlords. He said that he had been working hard to get the studio fully operational and asked for a short-term rent adjustment.
The landlord replied, acknowledging the tenant’s email and reminding him that he should notify the landlord about repairs. The tenant was asked to ring Mr van den Hout and to send in the report when the leak occurred.
The tenant replied, apologising for not looping them in earlier. He explained that he had only just realised the extent of the leaks. He confirmed that Wallace Roofing were completing the following work at no cost to the landlord: a. Replacing the two garage skylights to stop the leak and bring more light into the Creative Studio b. Repairing the kitchen leak that only became obvious with heavy rain c. Fixing the small garage leak d. Looking at bedroom leak.
The tenant also said that he had noticed a dribbling sound in the roof above the bedroom and he commented that the bathroom had no fan, and there were watermarks from steam.
In late September, early October the parties agreed on a 50% rent reduction for one month.
On 4 October, a contractor on behalf of the landlord attended. 1 Section 45(1)(b).
On 9 and 10 October 2025, Wallace Roofing continued to attend to repairs.
On 21 October the tenant emailed the landlord stating that the leaks had been sealed but the two leaks started again and he now had one in the bedroom over his TV. He also said that the panels were still to be done as the weather was too strong for them.
On the same day, the tenant says he was woken by someone on the roof at about 9am. He had received no notice of this and considers it was a breach of his rights. This is discussed further below.
The tenant also reported to the landlord that the whole panel was leaking, that there was a leak by the main doorway where guests enter, and a bedroom leak. He reported that the hallway and kitchen leaks were still happening. He said that he could not run a business effectively in these conditions.
On 22 October the landlord emailed declining a further rent reduction. They said that the rent reduction in October was for the tenant’s repair of the leak. They said that they now had Rashid looking into the job and he would liaise with the landlord’s roofer to come and fix the roof.
The tenant emailed Mr van den Hout saying that repairs had been undertaken on multiple occasions and that the fibreglass panels had not been replaced yet because the weather was very unsafe. On at least 2 occasions, Rashid had arrived or climbed on to the roof without giving him 48 hours’ notice.
On 29 October, the tenant heard noise on the roof at 9am, when the owner’s roofers attended.
The tenant continued to ask for a rent reduction.
On 30 October, Mr van den Hout sent an email asking if Wallace had repaired the roof. He also asked the tenant to give him a ring and asked for the phone number of the tenant’s roofer. He said that no rent reduction would be given and that the roofer was coming to replace the sheets the next day. He said they had agreed to a 50% rent reduction for the month of October, hoping that the problem was solved. They said that it appeared that nothing was happening from Wallace Roofing and as soon as they heard the roof was not fixed, they engaged Rashid, who communicates with them and Sam, their roofer. He said that the roof should be fixed either that week or the beginning of next week. He went on to note that it was not until 24 October that they were aware that Wallace Roofing had not completed the roof repairs. The tenant was told to contact them immediately with any issues.
On 30 October the tenant sent two emails. In one, he said that he would not provide Wallace Roofing’s details to the landlord. He said that once the owner’s roofers turned up and measured, the responsibility sat with them. He said that the proposed time for works was not acceptable to him as he had a Hallowe’en event.
On 31 October the tenant sent a long email in which he said that he would not be paying rent until the roof was watertight and fit for use. The owner’s roofers had turned up that morning and the tenant had turned them away. He said that water was coming into his bedroom, soaking clothing and costumes, which also affected his ability to run his business.
Between 3 November and 9 November, the owners sent emails telling the tenant that it was not a residential tenancy, and he needed to vacate. He was told that Craig Dunlop was now the owner’s agent.
On 9 November the tenant emailed recording that he was very grateful for Rashid’s efforts, that the fibreglass panels in the main studio looked great and the leak by the main door seemed to have resolved.
On 11 November the tenant reported some further leaks and asked for the email address for the agent (Mr Dunlop). He made it clear that he would not be vacating the premises.
During November, the parties exchanged communication regarding the repair of the roof.
On 2 December, the tenant emailed saying that he had offered full access on 24 November and told them that he would be overseas 27 to 28 November. He complained that access attempts had been made when he was unavailable. He said that access had been attempted via the back door, when the tenant had no keys for that entrance. The email says that the landlord’s email had “noted someone living in the property”. 2 The tenant goes on to say that he remains willing to allow limited access for one qualified roofing contractor only, for the sole purpose of assessing or repairing the new leak reported approximately 3 weeks earlier. He asked for “the required 24 hours’ written notice of the roofer’s proposed timeframe and roofers’ details.
On 3 December the landlord emailed asking if they could check the leak out that day. The tenant replied that he required the proper written notice as well as the name of the roofer, the company, the exact time they wished to enter and confirmation the visit was limited to assessing the leak. He said that once the notice was provided, he could confirm whether he was available. He said that access would be provided to a registered roofer only.
Mr Dunlop replied that was incorrect and that they wished to gain access that day because it was raining heavily.
On 4 December the landlord emailed saying they wanted access to the inside of the premises the next day between 10am and 12.39pm. They had wanted to look at the leak the day before while it was raining. 2 It is not clear what email the tenant is referring to.
The tenant replied that he was unavailable the next day due to longstanding commitments.
On 8 December 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord saying they were in breach of their responsibilities by: a. Failure to meet Healthy Homes Standards b. Unresolved leaks (kitchen, hallway, bedroom, lounge) c. Non-compliance with heating, moisture, draught-stopping, ventilation requirements, d. Ongoing unlawful access attempts Breaching my right to quiet enjoyment.
The landlord was given a notice to remedy the situation by 22 December 2025.
On 12 December the tenant followed up the notice to remedy with an offer of a “global settlement” and on 16 December the tenant emailed Mr Dunlop saying that he had filed an application with the Tenancy Tribunal and that he did not consent to any access by Mr Dunlop because he was not a qualified tradesperson.
The tenant says that on 16 December Mr Dunlop attended the premises without notice and said words to the effect of, “I want you out” and “you shouldn’t be living here”. The tenant told him there was nothing to discuss and removed the notice that had been taped to the door. This was a rent arrears notice. The tenant submitted a photo showing Mr Dunlop in his vehicle, smiling and waving.
The tenant said that on 29 December 2025, an unidentified contractor attended during a storm, wanting to come inside and look at the leak. The man said that he was from Redex. He was wearing scuffs and socks. The tenant could see no van or ladder. The tenant told him that the matter was before the Tribunal.
On 5 January another unidentified contractor attended and on 10 January 2026 a Redex agent delivered some invoices.
The tenant says that on 3 February a couple visited, wanting to look at the leak and he declined.
During May, the landlord attempted to gain access to repair the leaks. This is outlined below.
At the hearing, the tenant said that: a. Wallace roofing has stopped the leak by the front door, bedroom and kitchen. b. The hallway and kitchen have been plugged up since October; c. The bedroom is not as bad as it was; d. There is some leaking again in the skylight, in the same spot. e. There is a leak by the entrance into the residence.
Ms Liddicoat said that there was no evidence of any ongoing problem, but was making arrangements to look at the skylight. Discussion Has the landlord failed to provide or maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair by not fixing the roof?
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
Based on the tenant’s evidence, it seems likely that there was a minor leak at the start of the tenancy, but initially, the tenant was not sure if it was simply a spill of water.
At some point between 1 August and 29 September 2025, the tenant realised that there was a leak. He says in his timeline that in late September the leaks in the skylight and kitchen were noticed.
Rather than notify the landlord about it, the tenant organised a repair himself between 25 and September 2025. It was not until his email of 29 September that he made the landlord aware of the leak.
In fact, under section 40(1)(d), the tenant was obliged to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs. It appears that he notified them within a few days.
On 21 October the tenant emailed the landlord stating that the leaks had been sealed but the two leaks started again and he now had one in the bedroom over his TV. He also said that the panels were still to be done as the weather was too strong for them.
He complains that he should have been allowed to continue with Wallace Roofing undertaking the repairs and that he was disturbed by the landlord’s roofers attending.
I do not agree. It was the landlord’s responsibility to attend to the repairs. Under section 45(1)(d), a landlord must compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where— i.the state of disrepair has arisen otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant and is likely to cause injury to persons or property or is otherwise serious and urgent; and ii.the tenant has given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so.
The tenant has not shown that the state of disrepair was likely to cause injury to persons or property or was otherwise serious and urgent, or that he had given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair before 29 September.
Once the landlord had been notified of the leak, the landlord had an obligation to attend and repair or send someone to do so. It is not uncommon to provide the tenant’s contact details to a contractor so that they can give 24 hours’ notice.
During November the landlord attempted to have contractors attend. In an email on 11 November, the owners told them that they had appointed an agent, Mr Craig Dunlop, and gave the tenant his phone number. The tenant asked for an email address for Mr Dunlop. Between 20 November and 24 November, the tenant asked for evidence of Mr Dunlop’s authority.
In an email on 3 December to Mr Dunlop, the tenant stipulated that only a registered roofer could attend. He said:
On 16 December, the tenant reiterated that he did not consent to any access by Mr Dunlop because he is not a qualified tradesperson.
On 13 May 2026 Mr Dunlop sent a 24-hour notice that the next day a roofer would come to repair the roof. The tenant replied asking the name of the qualified roofing contractor and company and the expected time of arrival as he had work commitments and needed to plan accordingly. The tenant said that access would be provided only to the confirmed roofing contractor attending and not access would be provided to any other parties. He said that once the details were confirmed, he would be happy to provide access. The tenant sent another email saying that because he had not received the information, he would not allow internal access. Mr Dunlop replied that the tradespeople would be there and they would not be supplying qualifications etc.
I do not understand there to be a register of roofers. In fact, it was reasonable for the landlord to attend or to send someone to have a look at the issue before deciding what services were required. The landlord may decide to engage a carpenter, builder, home handyman, glazier or roofer, depending on the assessment of the damage.
The landlord is not obliged to provide the names of individuals or to specify a time. The tenant does not need to be present, and the time of repairs does not revolve around a tenant’s availability. The landlord needs to attend to repairs promptly not only for the sake of the tenant, but also to prevent further damage to their asset.
Mr Dunlop is the landlord’s agent. The definition of “landlord” in section 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act includes agent. The landlord does not require the tenant’s consent to enter the premises provided proper notice is given.
I find that from late November 2025 onwards, the tenant has made it difficult for the landlord to assess and/or repair the leak.
The skylight is in the studio area. The tenant says that the hallway and kitchen have been plugged up since October, and the bedroom is “not as bad”, and has provided a photograph of a ceiling panel and some water pooling. He also says that the studio wall leaks at the entrance to the residential part. He has provided not photographs of ongoing leaks in the bedroom.
I find: a. At the start of the tenancy there was an issue with leaks. b. The tenant notified the landlord in late September. c. The leaks in the residential area were rectified in late October. d. The tenant has had a 50% rent reduction for the month of October. e. The landlord has taken reasonable steps to repair and maintain the property and has compensated the tenant for the leaks during October. f. Any leak by the entrance to the residence is more appropriately considered under the commercial lease. g. There may be an ongoing issue with the bedroom, but the extent of the leak has not been established. h. The tenant has not established that the landlord has intentionally failed to maintain or repair the roof/leaks and so there is no basis for an order for exemplary damages in relation to the leaking roof.
Because the tenant has insisted that any assessment or repairs fit in around his schedule, and has made unreasonable demands about who may or may not attend, he has contributed to any ongoing issues with the leaks.
The tenant has not established the extent of a leak in the bedroom, if any. He has not mitigated his loss. I find his reluctance to allow an unnamed agent or contractor to enter on 29 December and 5 January was reasonable, but his emails in late November and 5 December were misguided.
The tenant has not established that an order for compensation should be made for the leaking roof in the residential unit since October 2025. Has the landlord failed to provide or maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair in relation to the hot water?
The tenant seeks compensation for a lack of hot water.
On Monday 23 February 2026, the tenant emailed Mr Dunlop advising that the hot water had not been working since the previous Thursday (19 February). He had contacted the owners about it and been directed to the agent. He said that the hot water cylinder was located within the external toilet/cupboard area and so it could be accessed without the tenant being present.
Mr Dunlop replied on 26 February that the tenant needed to pay his rent and that he should not be living at the premises.
On 16 March the tenant emailed Mr Dunlop saying that he had just returned from being on tour for two weeks and the hot water issue remained unresolved.
On 20 March Mr Dunlop replied that he could not find within the lease that hot water was to be provided and asked to be directed to that (within the lease).
On 7 April the tenant sent another email asking for the hot water to be fixed.
On 9 April the hot water was fixed.
I find that from 23 February to 9 April, the landlord took no action to fix the hot water. This is a breach of the landlord’s obligations to provide and maintain the premises. The tenant should be compensated for this, taking into account that fact that he was away for 2 weeks during this period. The monthly rent is $1500. I order compensation of $375, representing 25% reduction for that period.

Did the landlord breach section 48?

The tenant says that the landlord breached section 48 by turning up unannounced and sending contractors around without giving notice.
In the present circumstances, the tenant complains that: a. The roofers attended the outside of the property without giving notice; b. Contractors attempted to gain access to the tenancy without giving the right notice; c. Mr Dunlop attended without giving notice; d. A contractor attended on 29 December and again on 5 January without giving notice.
Section 48 sets out the law relating to the landlord’s right of entry. In particular, a landlord may enter the premises at any time with the tenant’s consent. 3 That is the same position as when anyone comes to the door. An occupier may choose whether to let them in.
Section 48 then sets out all of the circumstances in which the landlord may enter the premises without the tenant’s consent, provided the relevant notice period has been given. These include entry: a. for inspection provided at least 48 hours’ and no more than 14 days’ notice has been given. 4 b. for the purpose of carrying out necessary repairs to or necessary maintenance of, the premises, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry. 5
This means that the landlord does not need to obtain the tenant’s consent to enter the premises in order to undertake repairs. They simply need to comply with the prescribed notice requirements. It also means that the tenant does not need to be present for any maintenance or repairs.
Another significant provision is section 48(7), which says that for the purposes section 48, “premises” does not include land or facilities. In other words, it only means the building. That means that a landlord can be on the land without the tenant’s consent. There may be circumstances in which the manner, frequency or duration of a landlord’s visit could amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment under section 38, but that does not mean there has been a breach of the landlord’s obligations under section 48.
I find that the tenant has not established on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has entered the premises unlawfully. Has the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
The tenant says that his quiet enjoyment has been breached by the ongoing disruption by contractors and Mr Dunlop as outlined above.
I accept that being woken by people on the roof without being given notice in October 2025 would have been disconcerting, and it would have been courteous to give the tenant some warning. However, this occurred during business hours, and they did not enter the premises.
It also would have been polite and prudent for the landlord to let the tenant know that someone would be visiting on 29 December or 5 January to look at the leak, 3 Section 48(1)(a). 4 Section 48(2)(b). 5 Section 48(2)(d). and, as noted above, it is understandable that a tenant would not feel comfortable agreeing to them coming in, but individually that does not amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment of the property.
I also do not find that Mr Dunlop’s decision to tape a notice to the door on 16 December 2025 is a breach of quiet enjoyment. Section 136 sets out the ways in which notices or documents may be served. One of those is delivering the notice to the premises to which any address for service relates and attaching it to the door in a prominent position. It is not clear that the premises have been listed as an address for service, but the point here is not whether the notice was properly served, but whether attaching the notice to the tenant’s door amounts to a breach of quiet enjoyment.
The notice was for unpaid rent. Attaching notices to the door of the premises to which the tenancy relates is not unreasonable. I do not find this amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment.
On 10 January 2026, a Redex contractor delivered some invoices. Again, I do not consider that an unannounced visit is a breach of quiet enjoyment. Anyone is entitled to deliver mail or other documents.
The tenant has referred to constant disruption from contractors. His evidence is that there were some people on the roof twice and that twice someone knocked on the door asking to look at the leak.
Mr Dunlop has attempted to send contractors on other occasions, but the tenant has refused.
The tenant has not established that there has been constant disruption or that the extent of the attempts to conduct maintenance amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment.
The tenant has not established that his tenancy has been disrupted by contractors.
However, for the reasons outlined below, I find that there is a pattern of behaviour by the landlords that does amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment and to harassment.
The owners first told the tenant to vacate in an email of 3 November 2025:
This notice seems to have been based on a misunderstanding of what the parties had had signed. The tone is professional. On its own, it would be disconcerting, but not necessarily a breach of quiet enjoyment. It is odd that they did not appreciate that they had let residential premises given the wording of the lease. It is also surprising that they did not raise this issue on 21 October when the tenant had told them about leaks in the bedroom over his TV.
On 9 November 2025, the tenant emailed the owners saying that the new fibreglass panels in the main studio looked great and the leak by the main door seemed to have resolved. He expressed concern about moisture and mould forming in the back area. He said he was happy to move his bed into the other room while keeping an eye on it. He was keen to ensure there was no long-term health risk and that the space remains solid for the future.
On 11 November the owners acknowledged the tenant’s email of 9 November and told him that the agreement was a commercial lease and that he needed to vacate. They provided the phone number for Mr Dunlop.
The tenant replied, asking for the email address for Craig Dunlop. He reminded them that the First Schedule of the lease said that the premises was workshop and residence.
On 12 December Mr Dunlop sent the following email:
The tenant says that on 16 December when Mr Dunlop visited with the notice, he said to the tenant words to the effect of, “I want you out” and “you shouldn’t be living here”. Mr Dunlop has not given evidence or denied that, and so I find it more likely than not to have occurred.
In an email sent about a week before Christmas, Mr Dunlop said: ...
Then on 17 December Mr Dunlop sent an email saying that he had contacted both the New Zealand Police and Worksafe. He continued: It is a basic premise of NZ law that you cannot contract out of the law. The premises is commercial, not residential. Please pay your outstandings and please desist in living within the premises.
I find that by mentioning the Police, the email’s tone would be disconcerting and upsetting to residential tenant.
On 23 February 2026 the tenant contacted Mr Dunlop about a lack of hot water. Mr Dunlop replied, “You need to pay your rent. And you may not live in the property as it is illegal to do so. You have been told this many times.”
The landlords had signed a lease that had a residential component. The tenant had referred them to the relevant clause, which unequivocally says that a residence was part of the lease. If they thought that there was an error, or that the clauses were open to interpretation, they were clearly on notice that the tenant was living there and understood he was entitled to live there.
The landlords could have filed their own application in the Tenancy Tribunal for a declaration about jurisdiction. It was not until April, after the Tribunal’s jurisdiction decision had been issued, that they offered to find the tenant alternative accommodation.
Instead, Mr Dunlop sent a series of curt emails telling the tenant move out, even after the tenant had filed proceedings on 12 December 2025, and in February 2026, when the tenant asked for the hot water to be fixed, he was told to move out.
The tenant sought exemplary damages. Section 38(2) says that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find that the combination of Mr Dunlop’s verbal statement on 16 December that he wanted the tenant out, sending someone to look at the roof on 29 December between Christmas and New Year without any notice, along with the number of emails and the tone of the emails in which the tenant was told to move out amounts to harassment. This is an unlawful act.
Each of these emails and statements was made intentionally. The impact on the tenant was undoubtedly stressful and has led to his attempts to guard his privacy and lack of trust of the agent. I consider it is just to order $1,000 in exemplary damages.

Has the landlord failed to comply with smoke alarms requirements?

The tenant further claims that the landlord has failed to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. 6
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no dispute that there are no smoke alarms. The regulations require a smoke alarm within 3 metres of any bedroom.
When the landlord signed an agreement for a residential tenancy, they needed to ensure compliance with all regulations. They knew that the tenant was living there and that he believed he had a combined commercial and residential tenancy agreement. Once the Tribunal’s decision on jurisdiction was issued on 7 April 2026, still no steps were taken to ensure compliance.
The landlord has failed to provide a smoke alarm.
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 6 Section 45(1)(ba) 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 landlord knew that there was no smoke alarm and so the unlawful act was committed intentionally. No attempt was made to supply and instal a smoke alarm, even after the decision on jurisdiction was issued on 7 April 2026. This is a serious matter for any tenant’s safety. It is in the public interest that this landlord and others are reminded of their responsibilities. It is just to order $2,400 exemplary damages.

Has the landlord failed to comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard?

The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The tenant has provided no evidence that this standard has been breached. The matter of the leaking roof is not evidence of non-compliance with the moisture ingress and drainage standard. This claim is dismissed.

Has the landlord failed to adequately insulate the premises?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the obligations by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. 7
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is
3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated. 7 under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986
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.
The tenant has provided photographs which show some insulation. It is unknown how thick the insulation is or the extent of the insulation within the residential premises. Other photos show no insulation, but in these ones, there appears to be no space below the roof. It is therefore unclear if there are any exemptions owing to the lack of or height of any ceiling cavity. Without a details assessment of relevant spaces and measurements of insulation, I cannot determine whether the insulation standard has been met.
The evidence is equivocal and so the tenant has not established on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has failed to comply with the insulation standard. This claim is dismissed.

Has the landlord failed to comply with the heating standard?

The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025 and this tenancy began on 1 August 2025.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the main living 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 heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
There is no dispute that there is no heating provided in the living room.
The landlord is aware that there is no heating but has provided no evidence to show that an exemption applies. Even after the jurisdiction order was made on 7 April, the landlord has not provided evidence of compliance, despite knowing this was one of the tenant’s claims. I therefore find that the tenant has established on the balance of probabilities that the heating standard has not been complied with.
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(1A).
The tenant has not been provided with heating over autumn and winter. The landlord has done nothing to mitigate the impact on the tenant. I consider it is just to order $2,400.00 in exemplary damages.

Has the landlord failed to comply with the ventilation standard?

The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard because there is no ventilation in the kitchen and bathroom.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. Again, the landlord has provided no evidence of exemptions or attempts to comply with the standard at any time since the tenancy began.
The landlord has committed an unlawful act.
The tenant was concerned about the impact of moisture on his costumes. Again there is a public interest in this landlord and others being reminded of their obligations under the Healthy Homes Standards. It is just to order $2,400 exemplary damages. Conclusion
The landlord has let out a commercial premise with a residential unit. Therefore compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act is required.
That applies to both parties. The tenant has obligations as a tenant of a residential property.
The tenant has not substantially succeeded and so I have not ordered refund of the filing fee.
The tenant confirmed at the hearing that he does not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407988 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Rear unit residence area, 137 -151 Cuba street,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407988 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Rear unit residence area, 137 -151 Cuba street,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach section 48?

Has the landlord failed to comply with smoke alarms requirements?

Has the landlord failed to comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard?

Has the landlord failed to adequately insulate the premises?

Has the landlord failed to comply with the heating standard?

Has the landlord failed to comply with the ventilation standard?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach section 48?

Has the landlord failed to comply with smoke alarms requirements?

Has the landlord failed to comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard?

Has the landlord failed to adequately insulate the premises?

Has the landlord failed to comply with the heating standard?

Has the landlord failed to comply with the ventilation standard?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions