What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5412529?

The tribunal order states: Beta Property Investment Limited must pay Ramegus Te Wake $31,462.00

How much money was awarded in case 5412529?

Compensation: Failure to comply with…: $2,484.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $10,850.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $7,200.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5412529?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes, Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5412529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13203834-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5412529?

The tribunal order states: Beta Property Investment Limited must pay Ramegus Te Wake $31,462.00

How much money was awarded in case 5412529?

Compensation: Failure to comply with…: $2,484.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $10,850.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $7,200.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5412529?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes, Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5412529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13203834-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

47 Yeovil Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5412529 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

47 Yeovil Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5412529 — State of repair | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5412529 — net $31,462.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to provide premises in reasonable state of cleanliness	$1,500.00	t seeks compensation for this breach. Considering the following factors, I find $1,500.00 to be reasonable: a.
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide premises in reasonable state of cleanliness	$3,000.00	all of the above matters into account, the Tribunal orders the landlord to pay $3,000.00 in exemplary damages. Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain th…
Compensation: Failure to provide and maintain premises in reasonable state of repair	$10,850.00	mpensation for the landlord’s breach. Considering the following factors, I find $10,850.00 to be reasonable.
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide and maintain premises in reasonable state of repair	$7,200.00	Failure to provide and maintain premises in reasonable state of repair
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with requirements in respect of smoke alarms	$4,000.00	all of the above matters into account, the Tribunal orders the landlord to pay $4,000.00 in exemplary damages. Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy…
Compensation: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards	$2,484.00	t seeks compensation for this breach. Considering the following factors, I find $2,484.00 to be reasonable: a.
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards	$2,400.00	85. Considering all of the above factors, I order the landlord to pay $2,400.00 in exemplary damages.
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$31,462.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$31,462.00

Claims and awards for application 5412529 — net $31,462.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: Failure to provide premises in reasonable state of cleanliness

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: t seeks compensation for this breach. Considering the following factors, I find $1,500.00 to be reasonable: a.

Exemplary damages: Failure to provide premises in reasonable state of cleanliness

Amount: $3,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: all of the above matters into account, the Tribunal orders the landlord to pay $3,000.00 in exemplary damages. Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain th…

Compensation: Failure to provide and maintain premises in reasonable state of repair

Amount: $10,850.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: mpensation for the landlord’s breach. Considering the following factors, I find $10,850.00 to be reasonable.

Exemplary damages: Failure to provide and maintain premises in reasonable state of repair

Amount: $7,200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to provide and maintain premises in reasonable state of repair

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Property damage Cleanliness Exemplary damages Replace Smoke Alarms Filing Fee

Order

Beta Property Investment Limited must pay Ramegus Te Wake $31,462.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing on 27 February 2026. The landlord did not.
The tenancy began on 12 May 2025 and ended on 14 December 2025. Hugh Chen and Queenie Wong managed the tenancy on behalf of the landlord. Mr Chen stopped managing the tenancy towards the latter part of 2025. Ms Wong continued managing the tenancy. The notice of hearing and application were sent to the email address recorded as an address for service for the landlord in the tenancy agreement. They were also sent to Ms Wong’s email address. Therefore, I am satisfied the landlord received appropriate notice of the hearing and failed to attend.
The tenant claims the premises were provided to them in a very poor condition at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant claims the landlord told them the premises were going to be demolished and the landlord did not want to spend any money fixing it. The tenant claims the landlord told them that if the tenant wanted to rent the premises and complete some of the work themselves, they could do this, and the landlord would reimburse them. The tenant gave evidence that they were in a very desperate situation at the time, because their living situation was not pro-social. Therefore, the tenant accepted the landlord’s offer.
The tenant claims the house was not clean and the previous tenant’s belongings were still at the premises at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant also claims there were numerous maintenance issues that needed fixing and there were no working smoke alarms. Further, the tenant claims the premises did not comply with the healthy homes standards. Due to the poor condition of the premises, the tenant did not pay the full amount of rent. Rent arrears accrued and the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal for termination and rent arrears in late 2025. Because the tenant did not file a cross- application, the landlord’s application was granted on 9 December 2025. Had the tenant filed this application back then, the result may well have been very different.
The issues I must determine are: a. Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness? b. Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? c. Did the landlord comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms? d. Did the landlord comply with the healthy homes standards?
Before determining each issue, I discuss the general legal principles that apply to the case and summarise some of the evidence.

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Standard of proof

As the applicant, the tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Compensation and exemplary damages – the law generally
Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
The following factors are relevant when deciding to award compensation: 1 • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different from compensation. They are designed to punish and deter. They are like a fine.
Under the RTA, exemplary damages may be ordered for certain defined, unlawful acts. 1 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667.
The usual approach of the Tribunal is to award one third of the maximum of exemplary damages, unless there are aggravating or excusing factors in play. 2
Section 109(3) RTA states that exemplary damages may be ordered if the unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just, having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first been served on the tenant.
Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal that: 3 Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis, there was no intention established. Therefore, there was no basis to order exemplary damages.

THE EVIDENCE

The tenant submitted a number of photographs, which they took shortly before the tenancy began. The photographs were taken when the tenant viewed the 2 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781. 3 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 premises. The tenant gave evidence that they undertook some work on the premises before the tenancy began. Notwithstanding this, the tenant claims the photographs provide a broadly accurate account of the state of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy. I accept the tenant’s evidence on this point for the following reasons: a. The tenant submitted videos of the premises taken during the tenancy. The state of the premises in the videos is consistent with the state of the premises in the photographs. This indicates that only a small amount of work was completed before the tenancy began. a. The photographs show the premises to be in a very poor condition. The tenant submitted emails and text messages sent to the landlord on 20 May 2025 and 6 June 2025, complaining about maintenance issues. The fact that the tenant complained about so many maintenance issues early on in the tenancy indicates that only a very little amount of remedial work was completed before the tenancy began.
The Tribunal called the former property manager, Hugh Chen, during the hearing. Mr Chen gave evidence that the premises were not new, and the condition of the house reflected this. Mr Chen also said the previous tenant damaged the premises, but he could not recall any windows being broken. Further, Mr Chen said that the house was not in good condition after the previous tenant left, but that skip bins were organised to remove the previous tenant’s belongings.
The Tribunal tried calling Queenie Wong, however, no answer was received.
Reece Greeves was called as a witness for the tenant. Mr Greeves signed the tenancy agreement with the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy but left the tenancy in late 2025. Mr Greeves’ evidence about the state of the premises during the tenancy was largely consistent with the tenant’s evidence. TENANT’S CLAIMS

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

The law

Section 45(1)(a) RTA states that the landlord shall “provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.”
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 4 It does not mean commercially clean, 5 4 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. spotless 6 or to a hotel or motel standard. 7 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 8 Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant gave evidence the premises were generally dirty at the beginning of the tenancy and a lot of the former tenant’s rubbish and belongings were present. The tenant claims the carpet was dirty and there were fleas, cockroaches and rats.
The tenant claims they organised for the removal of the rubbish and former tenant’s belongings. The tenant also claims they deep cleaned the premises, including the carpet, and undertook pest control. The tenant claims it took them approximately one month, working approximately 4 – 6 hours per day to do all of this.
The tenant submitted photographs and videos of the premises to support their claim. They also called the former co-tenant, Reece Greeves, as a witness. Mr Greeves said the premises were not clean at the beginning of the tenancy and were damp. He also said the former tenant’s belongings were left in the garage. Mr Greeves could not recall seeing any bugs or rodents. Analysis
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the tenant’s evidence, which is supported by photographs and videos of the premises, as well as the evidence of Mr Greeves.
The photographs show the garage is full of the former tenant’s belongings. There are couches, mattresses, chairs, tables, bikes and children’s toys present, as well as a number of other things. Some of the photographs also show rubbish and paper. Inside the premises, there is furniture, clothes, books and other household belongings.
The photographs also show the carpet is stained. There is a photograph of a wall with a large stain on it as well.
There are no photographs of fleas, cockroaches or rats however, the tenant submitted copies of text messages and emails sent to the landlord on 5 and 6 June 2025 complaining about cockroaches and rats. The state of the premises as shown in the photographs, together with the tenant’s written communications 6 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 8 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. to the landlord complaining about rats and cockroaches early on in the tenancy, means I am convinced that premises had an issue with pests at the beginning of the tenancy.
For all of these reasons, I find the landlord did not provide the premises to the tenant in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. Considering the following factors, I find $1,500.00 to be reasonable: a. The nature of the breach. There was a significant amount of the former tenant’s belongings and rubbish present at the beginning of the tenancy. The carpets were in a poor condition, and there was a problem with pests. The nature and extent of the breach in this case falls towards the upper end of the spectrum in terms of seriousness. b. The duration of the breach. The tenant gave evidence it took them approximately one month to clean the premises and get rid of the former tenant’s rubbish and belongings. Considering the state of the premises as shown in the photographs and videos, I find the tenant’s evidence on this point to be credible. I find the breach endured for one month and was only remedied because of actions the tenant took, not the landlord. c. The effect of the breach on the party. The tenant did all of the labour themselves to bring the premises to a reasonable state of cleanliness. They spent money hiring skip bins and submitted an invoice for $450.00 for a 9m² skip bin. The tenant also claims they spent money on cleaning products, pest control products and fuel travelling between the tenancy address and the tip. I accept the tenant’s evidence on these points.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered. 9
I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. No evidence to the contrary was submitted and it is difficult to envisage how the landlord could have accidentally, negligently or mistakenly provided the premises to the tenant in the state they were in. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord knew the premises were unclean and the former tenant’s belongings had not been removed. I am satisfied that they turned their mind to this fact and deliberately did nothing to remedy the issue. 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 45(1)(a), (1A) and Schedule 1A.
Considering the following factors, I find it just to order exemplary damages: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. The landlord acted intentionally. b. The effect of the unlawful act. See paragraph [27(c)] above. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. The tenant spent a significant amount of time and labour in removing the former tenant’s belongings and rubbish, as well as cleaning the premises. This was inconvenient, time consuming and stressful. The fact that the tenant undertook the remedial work themselves is an aggravating factor. d. The public interest. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords are deterred from providing premises to tenants in the state these premises were in at the beginning of the tenancy. The nature and extent of the breach in this case is serious and is another aggravating factor.
Taking all of the above matters into account, the Tribunal orders the landlord to pay $3,000.00 in exemplary damages. Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? The law
Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires a landlord to 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 they are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
A landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy it. 10
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach. 11 However, notice 10 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 11 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 12
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 13 Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant gave evidence the premises were provided in a very poor state of repair. The tenant claims the following issues were present at the beginning of the tenancy: a. The oven did not work. b. The water constantly leaked from the kitchen, laundry and outdoor taps. c. One internal bedroom door was missing. d. One internal bedroom door was badly damaged. e. The exit door for one of the bedrooms did not have a handle or lock and a knife was needed to open and close it. f. The kitchen door glass panes were broken. g. Three windows in one of the bedrooms were broken and one window in the lounge was broken. h. There were holes in the walls, including a large hole in the kitchen wall. i. All of the window latches were broken, and a number of windows were nailed shut. j. The flooring in one of the bedrooms was water damaged and rotting. k. The lights in the lounge did not work. l. There were a number of broken power sockets throughout the house.
The tenant submitted photographs, videos, text messages and emails sent to the landlord.
The tenant gave evidence that the leaking taps were fixed in late May/early June 2025. They also claim a new oven was installed and the lights in the lounge were fixed around late June 2025. Although two internal doors were provided by the landlord, the tenant claims they were too small and proper replacements were never provided.
The tenant claims they fixed the broken windows and glass panes themselves however, all of the other issues remained unrepaired until the end of the tenancy. 12 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 13 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. Analysis
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the tenant’s evidence about the state of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy, which is also supported by other evidence.
The photographs submitted show entry doors without door handles, broken windows in a bedroom and the lounge, and broken glass panes in the kitchen door.
The videos submitted show some windows nailed shut, water damaged carpet and wooden flooring in one of the bedrooms, bedroom doors missing or damaged and broken window stays. One of the videos also shows the replacement bedroom doors that were installed, which are too small. A gap can be seen around the body of the entire door between the door and doorframe.
The tenant submitted copies of text messages sent to the landlord on 20 May 2025, complaining about the water running in the kitchen and laundry, as well as the light in the lounge not working. The tenant also submitted an email sent to the landlord on 5 June 2025 attaching a photograph of a large hole in the kitchen wall. The email also lists a number of things the tenant claims needs fixing such as, the installation of door handles on entry doors, replacement of the oven, repairs to the carpet and flooring, window handle repairs, holes in the walls and the installation of new internal doors to replace the ones that are either missing or broken.
Reece Greeves gave evidence that there were a lot of things wrong with the premises at the beginning of the tenancy. He referred to his bedroom as being in a particularly poor condition because it did not have an internal door, and the exit/entry door did not have a lock or handle. Mr Reeves said there was a lot of broken glass and windows in the premises. He also said the carpet and flooring in his bedroom by the exit/entry door was rotting.
All of this evidence supports the tenant’s oral evidence about the state of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy. I am convinced the premises had numerous defects at the beginning of the tenancy, which would have been apparent to the landlord from observation. For this reason, I find the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that, with the exception of the oven, light in the lounge and the dripping taps, the landlord did not repair any of the other defects. Mr Reeves gave consistent evidence on this issue, stating that the reason he chose to leave the tenancy in late 2025 was because of the state of the premises and the fact that nothing was getting fixed.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach. Considering the following factors, I find $10,850.00 to be reasonable. a. The nature of the breach. Failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is a serious breach. This is evidenced by the fact that the maximum amount in exemplary damages that may be ordered is $7,200.00. 14 This reflects the seriousness with which Parliament intended the Tribunal to view breaches of this nature. I consider the breach in this case to be serious. The state of the premises as shown in the photographs and videos is very bad. The premises look like they have been abandoned or are in the middle of construction. Quite frankly, no one should have been living in them. b. The duration of the breach. The breach endured from 12 May 2025 to the end of the tenancy on 14 December 2025. This is approximately 31 weeks, which is a long time. c. The effect of the breach on the party. The tenant gave evidence that it was depressing to live in premises that were in such a poor condition. The broken windows and glass panes in the kitchen door meant they were exposed to the wind and rain. The tenant gave evidence the premises were very cold, especially in winter. The tenant could not cook for the first 1 – 2 months of the tenancy, because the oven did not work. The tenant could not secure the house, because the entry doors did not have handles or locks. The numerous maintenance issues significantly detracted from the amenity of the premises. They also compromised the tenant’s health and safety.
The amount of compensation ordered equates to $350.00 per week over 31 weeks. $350.00 reflects a 65% reduction to the total weekly rent of $540.00 that was charged to the tenant during the tenancy.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is an unlawful act, for which a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered in exemplary damages. 15
I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to provide the premises to the tenant in a reasonable state of repair, and in failing to fix the majority of issues within a reasonable timeframe. This is because the majority of defects would have been apparent from observation. The landlord must have known about them. Despite this, no steps to were taken complete repairs before the tenancy 14 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A. 15 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A. began. I am satisfied the landlord turned their mind to the state of the premises and deliberately did nothing to remedy the issue.
I find it just to order exemplary damages considering the following factors: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. I find the landlord acted intentionally. b. The effect of the unlawful act. See paragraph [48(c)] above. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. The tenant lived in the premises, which were in a very poor condition, for approximately 31 weeks. d. The public interest. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords are deterred from providing premises to tenants in the state these premises were in at the beginning of the tenancy. There is also a strong public interest in ensuring landlords are deterred from delaying repairs. The extent of the breach in this case is serious. This is because there were numerous defects that were not simply cosmetic. The defects significantly detracted from the amenity of the premises and jeopardised the health and safety of the tenant. These are all aggravating factors.
Taking these matters into account, the Tribunal orders the landlord to pay $7,200.00 in exemplary damages. This is an appropriate case in which to order the maximum amount of exemplary damages.

Did the landlord comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms?

The law

Section 45(1)(ba) RTA requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A. The Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 are regulations made under this section.
Regulations 5 states: 5Smoke alarms to be qualifying smoke alarms and installed in certain locations: tenancies other than boarding house tenancies (1)The requirements set out in subclauses (4), (6), and (8) are imposed on all landlords for the purposes of section 45(1)(ba) of the Act. (2)The requirements must be met as at the commencement of the tenancy and at all subsequent times during the tenancy. ... (4)Every smoke alarm that is installed at the premises must be a qualifying smoke alarm. ... (6)There must be at least 1 qualifying smoke alarm installed – (a) in the sleeping space; or (b) otherwise at the premises within 3 metres of the entrance (or main entrance) to the sleeping space. ... (8)There must be at least 1 qualifying smoke alarm installed on the storey or level in the habitable space or in at least 1 of the habitable spaces (as the case may be).
Regulation 7 defines what constitutes a “qualifying smoke alarm.” It relevantly states: 16 a. The alarm must be fully operational and otherwise in full working order, with no faults, defects or damage; and b. The alarm must be installed at a location that accords with the manufacturers instructions for the alarm. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant claims the premises were only provided with one smoke alarm, which was covered in fly pooh and did not work. The tenant claims there were brackets for holding other smoke alarms on the ceiling inside the premises, but no smoke alarms were present. The tenant claims the premises did not have qualifying smoke alarms for the entire tenancy. Analysis
The photographs submitted by the tenant support their claim that the premises did not have any qualifying smoke alarms. The photographs show one smoke alarm attached to the ceiling. It looks very old and dirty. The state of the smoke alarm supports the tenant’s claim that it did not work. Mr Greeves also gave evidence that there were no working smoke alarms.
The other photographs submitted by the tenant show other areas of the ceiling where smoke alarms should have been but were not present. The smoke alarm brackets are attached to the ceiling, but no smoke alarms are present. 16 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2019, regulation 7(1)(a) & (b).
The tenancy agreement contains a section about smoke alarms. It states: Landlord – please confirm you have met at least these minimum legal requirements before you rent the premises: o There is at least one working smoke alarm in each bedroom or within three metres of each bedroom’s door – this applies to any room a person might reasonably sleep in. o If there is more than one storey or level, there is at least one working smoke alarm on each storey or level, even if no-one sleeps there. o If there is a caravan, sleep-out or similar, there is at least one working smoke alarm in it. o None of the smoke alarms has passed the manufacturer’s expirty or recommended replacement date. o All new or replacement smoke alarms, installed from 1 July 2016 onward, are long-life photoelectric smoke alarms with a total battery life when installed of either years or a hard-wired smoke alarm system, and meet the product standards in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) regulations 2016. o All of the smoke alarms are properly installed by the landlord or their agent in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. o All the smoke alarms are working at the start of the tenancy, including having working batteries.
The landlord did not select any of the options listed.
All of this evidence convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the premises did not have any qualifying smoke alarms for the entire tenancy.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered. 17
I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to ensure the premises had qualifying smoke alarms. No evidence to the contrary was submitted. The landlord has not completed the section of the tenancy agreement pertaining to smoke alarms. The photographs submitted by the tenant clearly show there are smoke alarms missing from the brackets in the ceiling. This would have been 17 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Scheduled 1A. obvious to the landlord from observation. I am satisfied the landlord turned their mind to this issue and deliberately chose not instal qualifying smoke alarms.
I find it just to order exemplary damages considering the following factors: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. I find the landlord acted intentionally. b. The effect of the unlawful act. Fortunately, there was no fire at the premises during the tenancy however, not having qualifying smoke alarms was a cause of anxiety and concern for the tenant. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. The tenant lived in the premises without qualifying smoke alarms for approximately 31 weeks. The fact that there were no qualifying smoke alarms in the entire premises for the whole tenancy is an aggravating factor. d. The public interest. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords are deterred from failing to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. Failure to install qualifying smoke alarms poses a serious risk to the tenant’s health and safety. If there is a fire, there is a chance the tenant may not be alerted and the outcome could be catastrophic. This is especially the case if the fire occurs while the tenant is sleeping.
Taking all of the above matters into account, the Tribunal orders the landlord to pay $4,000.00 in exemplary damages.

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

The law

Section 45(1)(bb) RTA requires a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards.
The healthy homes standards are found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (“HHS”). Subparts 2 to 5 provide a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in respect of insulation, heating, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture and drainage.
Regulation 6 requires the landlord of residential premises to ensure the premises meet the standards set out in subparts 2 to 5.
Regulation 31 provides a general exemption where the premises are due to be demolished or substantially rebuilt. It relevantly states: 31Exemption if premises due to be demolished or substantially rebuilt (1)The landlord need not comply with regulation 6 if, - (a) before the commandment of the tenancy, the landlord applied for consent to demolish or substantially rebuild the premises, with that work to begin with the grace period; and (b) as at the commencement of the tenancy, - (i) the application is still pending; or (ii) if consent was granted before the tenancy commenced, the consent remains in force. ... Analysis
The tenancy began on 12 May 2025. The landlord had until 1 July 2025 to comply with the HHS, unless an exemption applied.
The tenant gave evidence the premises did not comply with the HHS during the tenancy. The tenant claims the premises were very cold and there was no extractor fan or qualifying ventilation in the kitchen or bathroom. The tenant also claims there were broken windows in one of the bedrooms and lounge. The tenant claims a number of windows could not open or close, because they had been nailed shut or the window stays did not work. Further, the tenant claims there was no heat pump or other heating source in the lounge.
The photographs and videos submitted by the tenant support the tenant’s evidence regarding the state of the windows. They show windows that are broken or nailed shut.
There are no photographs of the kitchen, bathroom or ceiling insulation however, the premises appear relatively old in the photographs and videos. Older premises are less likely to have extractor fans or qualifying ventilation in the kitchen and bathroom. They are also less likely to have adequate insulation.
The tenancy agreement contains a healthy homes compliance statement, which states that the premises do not comply with the HHS. The compliance statement has been completed electronically and has not been signed by the landlord however, the tenant submitted an email sent by the landlord on 16 May 2025 attaching the tenancy agreement. I viewed the tenancy agreement attached to the email. It records that the premises do not comply with the HHS.
All of this evidence convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the premises did not comply with the HHS in all respects by 1 July 2025. The onus now shifts to the landlord to prove an exemption applies, on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord did not attend and the only evidence that a general exemption may apply is contained in the HHS compliance statement. It states: ✓ The landlord intends to demolish or substantially rebuild the rental property and has applied for or has been granted the relevant building consent... ... The house will be demolished in 12 months and the RC review has been completed.
This evidence alone is insufficient to convince me on the balance of probabilities that regulation 31 applies to exempt the landlord from needing to comply with the HHS. No copy of the application for resource consent was submitted, nor was any evidence submitted from the Auckland Council confirming that the resource consent had been granted. No evidence of the premises having been demolished or substantially rebuilt within the period from 12 May 2025 – 12 May 2026 was submitted either. In the absence of this kind of supporting evidence, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the exemption in regulation 31 applies.
The tenant has proven the premises did not comply with the HHS by 1 July 2025, on the balance of probabilities. The landlord has not proven that the exemption in regulation 31 applies. For these reasons, the tenant has proven that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. Considering the following factors, I find $2,484.00 to be reasonable: a. The nature of the breach. Failure to comply with the HHS is a serious breach. This is evidenced by the fact that the maximum amount in exemplary damages that may be ordered is $7,200.00. This reflects the seriousness with which Parliament intended the Tribunal to view breaches of this nature. The extent of the breach in this case is serious. The photographs and videos submitted show multiple broken windows and windows nailed shut. This is not a case where “unreasonable gaps” relate to the area around the window frame only. Entire windows are broken, missing or unable to be opened at all. The evidence also establishes that the premises were non-compliant in all respects. This is not a case where non-compliance is related to one aspect of the HHS. b. The duration of the breach. The breach endured from 1 July 2025 to the end of the tenancy on 14 December 2025. This is approximately 23 weeks. c. The effect of the breach on the party. The tenant gave evidence that the premises were very cold, especially in winter. I accept that premises with broken windows, no source of heating and insufficient insulation are likely to be very cold in winter. The lack of extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen meant the premises could not be properly ventilated. The same can be said regarding the fact that some windows were nailed shut and could not be opened. The extent of the non-compliance significantly detracted from the amenity of the premises.
The amount of compensation ordered equates to $108.00 per week over 23 weeks. This reflects a 20% reduction in the total weekly rent charged of $540.00 per week.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to comply with the healthy homes standards is an unlawful act, for which a maximum amount of $7,200.00 may be ordered in exemplary damages. 18
I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to comply with the HHS. The landlord clearly knew the premises did not comply, because they have stated this in the HHS compliance statement. Insufficient evidence was submitted to support the claim that regulation 31 applied to exempt the landlord. I am satisfied the landlord has turned their mind to the issue and deliberately failed to comply with the HHS or provide sufficient evidence to prove an exemption applied.
I find it just to order exemplary damages considering the following factors: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. I find the landlord acted intentionally. b. The effect of the unlawful act. See paragraph [80(c)] above. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. I am convinced the premises were non-compliant in all respects. The premises should have complied by 1 July 2025. There is approximately 23 weeks between 1 July 2025 and 14 December 2025, which is the date the tenancy ended. d. The public interest. There is a high public interest in ensuring landlords are deterred from failing to comply with the HHS. Where landlords claim general exemptions apply to excuse them from complying with all aspects of the healthy homes standards, they should be encouraged to provide supporting evidence of this, not just a bare statement of an intention to develop the premises and resource consents being applied for.
Considering all of the above factors, I order the landlord to pay $2,400.00 in exemplary damages. 18 Residential Tenancies At 1986, section 45(1A) & Schedule 1A. Filing fee & name suppression
The tenant has been wholly successful with their claim. Therefore, I must order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant did not seek name suppression.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5412529 — net $31,462.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to provide premises in reasonable state of cleanliness	$1,500.00	t seeks compensation for this breach. Considering the following factors, I find $1,500.00 to be reasonable: a.
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide premises in reasonable state of cleanliness	$3,000.00	all of the above matters into account, the Tribunal orders the landlord to pay $3,000.00 in exemplary damages. Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain th…
Compensation: Failure to provide and maintain premises in reasonable state of repair	$10,850.00	mpensation for the landlord’s breach. Considering the following factors, I find $10,850.00 to be reasonable.
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide and maintain premises in reasonable state of repair	$7,200.00	Failure to provide and maintain premises in reasonable state of repair
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with requirements in respect of smoke alarms	$4,000.00	all of the above matters into account, the Tribunal orders the landlord to pay $4,000.00 in exemplary damages. Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy…
Compensation: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards	$2,484.00	t seeks compensation for this breach. Considering the following factors, I find $2,484.00 to be reasonable: a.
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards	$2,400.00	85. Considering all of the above factors, I order the landlord to pay $2,400.00 in exemplary damages.
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$31,462.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$31,462.00

Claims and awards for application 5412529 — net $31,462.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: Failure to provide premises in reasonable state of cleanliness

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: t seeks compensation for this breach. Considering the following factors, I find $1,500.00 to be reasonable: a.

Exemplary damages: Failure to provide premises in reasonable state of cleanliness

Amount: $3,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: all of the above matters into account, the Tribunal orders the landlord to pay $3,000.00 in exemplary damages. Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain th…

Compensation: Failure to provide and maintain premises in reasonable state of repair

Amount: $10,850.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: mpensation for the landlord’s breach. Considering the following factors, I find $10,850.00 to be reasonable.

Exemplary damages: Failure to provide and maintain premises in reasonable state of repair

Amount: $7,200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to provide and maintain premises in reasonable state of repair

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Property damage Cleanliness Exemplary damages Replace Smoke Alarms Filing Fee

Order

Beta Property Investment Limited must pay Ramegus Te Wake $31,462.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing on 27 February 2026. The landlord did not.
The tenancy began on 12 May 2025 and ended on 14 December 2025. Hugh Chen and Queenie Wong managed the tenancy on behalf of the landlord. Mr Chen stopped managing the tenancy towards the latter part of 2025. Ms Wong continued managing the tenancy. The notice of hearing and application were sent to the email address recorded as an address for service for the landlord in the tenancy agreement. They were also sent to Ms Wong’s email address. Therefore, I am satisfied the landlord received appropriate notice of the hearing and failed to attend.
The tenant claims the premises were provided to them in a very poor condition at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant claims the landlord told them the premises were going to be demolished and the landlord did not want to spend any money fixing it. The tenant claims the landlord told them that if the tenant wanted to rent the premises and complete some of the work themselves, they could do this, and the landlord would reimburse them. The tenant gave evidence that they were in a very desperate situation at the time, because their living situation was not pro-social. Therefore, the tenant accepted the landlord’s offer.
The tenant claims the house was not clean and the previous tenant’s belongings were still at the premises at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant also claims there were numerous maintenance issues that needed fixing and there were no working smoke alarms. Further, the tenant claims the premises did not comply with the healthy homes standards. Due to the poor condition of the premises, the tenant did not pay the full amount of rent. Rent arrears accrued and the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal for termination and rent arrears in late 2025. Because the tenant did not file a cross- application, the landlord’s application was granted on 9 December 2025. Had the tenant filed this application back then, the result may well have been very different.
The issues I must determine are: a. Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness? b. Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? c. Did the landlord comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms? d. Did the landlord comply with the healthy homes standards?
Before determining each issue, I discuss the general legal principles that apply to the case and summarise some of the evidence.

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Standard of proof

As the applicant, the tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Compensation and exemplary damages – the law generally
Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
The following factors are relevant when deciding to award compensation: 1 • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different from compensation. They are designed to punish and deter. They are like a fine.
Under the RTA, exemplary damages may be ordered for certain defined, unlawful acts. 1 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667.
The usual approach of the Tribunal is to award one third of the maximum of exemplary damages, unless there are aggravating or excusing factors in play. 2
Section 109(3) RTA states that exemplary damages may be ordered if the unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just, having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first been served on the tenant.
Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal that: 3 Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis, there was no intention established. Therefore, there was no basis to order exemplary damages.

THE EVIDENCE

The tenant submitted a number of photographs, which they took shortly before the tenancy began. The photographs were taken when the tenant viewed the 2 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781. 3 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 premises. The tenant gave evidence that they undertook some work on the premises before the tenancy began. Notwithstanding this, the tenant claims the photographs provide a broadly accurate account of the state of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy. I accept the tenant’s evidence on this point for the following reasons: a. The tenant submitted videos of the premises taken during the tenancy. The state of the premises in the videos is consistent with the state of the premises in the photographs. This indicates that only a small amount of work was completed before the tenancy began. a. The photographs show the premises to be in a very poor condition. The tenant submitted emails and text messages sent to the landlord on 20 May 2025 and 6 June 2025, complaining about maintenance issues. The fact that the tenant complained about so many maintenance issues early on in the tenancy indicates that only a very little amount of remedial work was completed before the tenancy began.
The Tribunal called the former property manager, Hugh Chen, during the hearing. Mr Chen gave evidence that the premises were not new, and the condition of the house reflected this. Mr Chen also said the previous tenant damaged the premises, but he could not recall any windows being broken. Further, Mr Chen said that the house was not in good condition after the previous tenant left, but that skip bins were organised to remove the previous tenant’s belongings.
The Tribunal tried calling Queenie Wong, however, no answer was received.
Reece Greeves was called as a witness for the tenant. Mr Greeves signed the tenancy agreement with the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy but left the tenancy in late 2025. Mr Greeves’ evidence about the state of the premises during the tenancy was largely consistent with the tenant’s evidence. TENANT’S CLAIMS

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

The law

Section 45(1)(a) RTA states that the landlord shall “provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.”
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 4 It does not mean commercially clean, 5 4 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. spotless 6 or to a hotel or motel standard. 7 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 8 Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant gave evidence the premises were generally dirty at the beginning of the tenancy and a lot of the former tenant’s rubbish and belongings were present. The tenant claims the carpet was dirty and there were fleas, cockroaches and rats.
The tenant claims they organised for the removal of the rubbish and former tenant’s belongings. The tenant also claims they deep cleaned the premises, including the carpet, and undertook pest control. The tenant claims it took them approximately one month, working approximately 4 – 6 hours per day to do all of this.
The tenant submitted photographs and videos of the premises to support their claim. They also called the former co-tenant, Reece Greeves, as a witness. Mr Greeves said the premises were not clean at the beginning of the tenancy and were damp. He also said the former tenant’s belongings were left in the garage. Mr Greeves could not recall seeing any bugs or rodents. Analysis
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the tenant’s evidence, which is supported by photographs and videos of the premises, as well as the evidence of Mr Greeves.
The photographs show the garage is full of the former tenant’s belongings. There are couches, mattresses, chairs, tables, bikes and children’s toys present, as well as a number of other things. Some of the photographs also show rubbish and paper. Inside the premises, there is furniture, clothes, books and other household belongings.
The photographs also show the carpet is stained. There is a photograph of a wall with a large stain on it as well.
There are no photographs of fleas, cockroaches or rats however, the tenant submitted copies of text messages and emails sent to the landlord on 5 and 6 June 2025 complaining about cockroaches and rats. The state of the premises as shown in the photographs, together with the tenant’s written communications 6 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 8 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. to the landlord complaining about rats and cockroaches early on in the tenancy, means I am convinced that premises had an issue with pests at the beginning of the tenancy.
For all of these reasons, I find the landlord did not provide the premises to the tenant in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. Considering the following factors, I find $1,500.00 to be reasonable: a. The nature of the breach. There was a significant amount of the former tenant’s belongings and rubbish present at the beginning of the tenancy. The carpets were in a poor condition, and there was a problem with pests. The nature and extent of the breach in this case falls towards the upper end of the spectrum in terms of seriousness. b. The duration of the breach. The tenant gave evidence it took them approximately one month to clean the premises and get rid of the former tenant’s rubbish and belongings. Considering the state of the premises as shown in the photographs and videos, I find the tenant’s evidence on this point to be credible. I find the breach endured for one month and was only remedied because of actions the tenant took, not the landlord. c. The effect of the breach on the party. The tenant did all of the labour themselves to bring the premises to a reasonable state of cleanliness. They spent money hiring skip bins and submitted an invoice for $450.00 for a 9m² skip bin. The tenant also claims they spent money on cleaning products, pest control products and fuel travelling between the tenancy address and the tip. I accept the tenant’s evidence on these points.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered. 9
I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. No evidence to the contrary was submitted and it is difficult to envisage how the landlord could have accidentally, negligently or mistakenly provided the premises to the tenant in the state they were in. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord knew the premises were unclean and the former tenant’s belongings had not been removed. I am satisfied that they turned their mind to this fact and deliberately did nothing to remedy the issue. 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 45(1)(a), (1A) and Schedule 1A.
Considering the following factors, I find it just to order exemplary damages: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. The landlord acted intentionally. b. The effect of the unlawful act. See paragraph [27(c)] above. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. The tenant spent a significant amount of time and labour in removing the former tenant’s belongings and rubbish, as well as cleaning the premises. This was inconvenient, time consuming and stressful. The fact that the tenant undertook the remedial work themselves is an aggravating factor. d. The public interest. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords are deterred from providing premises to tenants in the state these premises were in at the beginning of the tenancy. The nature and extent of the breach in this case is serious and is another aggravating factor.
Taking all of the above matters into account, the Tribunal orders the landlord to pay $3,000.00 in exemplary damages. Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? The law
Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires a landlord to 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 they are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
A landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy it. 10
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach. 11 However, notice 10 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 11 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 12
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 13 Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant gave evidence the premises were provided in a very poor state of repair. The tenant claims the following issues were present at the beginning of the tenancy: a. The oven did not work. b. The water constantly leaked from the kitchen, laundry and outdoor taps. c. One internal bedroom door was missing. d. One internal bedroom door was badly damaged. e. The exit door for one of the bedrooms did not have a handle or lock and a knife was needed to open and close it. f. The kitchen door glass panes were broken. g. Three windows in one of the bedrooms were broken and one window in the lounge was broken. h. There were holes in the walls, including a large hole in the kitchen wall. i. All of the window latches were broken, and a number of windows were nailed shut. j. The flooring in one of the bedrooms was water damaged and rotting. k. The lights in the lounge did not work. l. There were a number of broken power sockets throughout the house.
The tenant submitted photographs, videos, text messages and emails sent to the landlord.
The tenant gave evidence that the leaking taps were fixed in late May/early June 2025. They also claim a new oven was installed and the lights in the lounge were fixed around late June 2025. Although two internal doors were provided by the landlord, the tenant claims they were too small and proper replacements were never provided.
The tenant claims they fixed the broken windows and glass panes themselves however, all of the other issues remained unrepaired until the end of the tenancy. 12 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 13 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. Analysis
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the tenant’s evidence about the state of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy, which is also supported by other evidence.
The photographs submitted show entry doors without door handles, broken windows in a bedroom and the lounge, and broken glass panes in the kitchen door.
The videos submitted show some windows nailed shut, water damaged carpet and wooden flooring in one of the bedrooms, bedroom doors missing or damaged and broken window stays. One of the videos also shows the replacement bedroom doors that were installed, which are too small. A gap can be seen around the body of the entire door between the door and doorframe.
The tenant submitted copies of text messages sent to the landlord on 20 May 2025, complaining about the water running in the kitchen and laundry, as well as the light in the lounge not working. The tenant also submitted an email sent to the landlord on 5 June 2025 attaching a photograph of a large hole in the kitchen wall. The email also lists a number of things the tenant claims needs fixing such as, the installation of door handles on entry doors, replacement of the oven, repairs to the carpet and flooring, window handle repairs, holes in the walls and the installation of new internal doors to replace the ones that are either missing or broken.
Reece Greeves gave evidence that there were a lot of things wrong with the premises at the beginning of the tenancy. He referred to his bedroom as being in a particularly poor condition because it did not have an internal door, and the exit/entry door did not have a lock or handle. Mr Reeves said there was a lot of broken glass and windows in the premises. He also said the carpet and flooring in his bedroom by the exit/entry door was rotting.
All of this evidence supports the tenant’s oral evidence about the state of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy. I am convinced the premises had numerous defects at the beginning of the tenancy, which would have been apparent to the landlord from observation. For this reason, I find the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that, with the exception of the oven, light in the lounge and the dripping taps, the landlord did not repair any of the other defects. Mr Reeves gave consistent evidence on this issue, stating that the reason he chose to leave the tenancy in late 2025 was because of the state of the premises and the fact that nothing was getting fixed.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach. Considering the following factors, I find $10,850.00 to be reasonable. a. The nature of the breach. Failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is a serious breach. This is evidenced by the fact that the maximum amount in exemplary damages that may be ordered is $7,200.00. 14 This reflects the seriousness with which Parliament intended the Tribunal to view breaches of this nature. I consider the breach in this case to be serious. The state of the premises as shown in the photographs and videos is very bad. The premises look like they have been abandoned or are in the middle of construction. Quite frankly, no one should have been living in them. b. The duration of the breach. The breach endured from 12 May 2025 to the end of the tenancy on 14 December 2025. This is approximately 31 weeks, which is a long time. c. The effect of the breach on the party. The tenant gave evidence that it was depressing to live in premises that were in such a poor condition. The broken windows and glass panes in the kitchen door meant they were exposed to the wind and rain. The tenant gave evidence the premises were very cold, especially in winter. The tenant could not cook for the first 1 – 2 months of the tenancy, because the oven did not work. The tenant could not secure the house, because the entry doors did not have handles or locks. The numerous maintenance issues significantly detracted from the amenity of the premises. They also compromised the tenant’s health and safety.
The amount of compensation ordered equates to $350.00 per week over 31 weeks. $350.00 reflects a 65% reduction to the total weekly rent of $540.00 that was charged to the tenant during the tenancy.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is an unlawful act, for which a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered in exemplary damages. 15
I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to provide the premises to the tenant in a reasonable state of repair, and in failing to fix the majority of issues within a reasonable timeframe. This is because the majority of defects would have been apparent from observation. The landlord must have known about them. Despite this, no steps to were taken complete repairs before the tenancy 14 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A. 15 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A. began. I am satisfied the landlord turned their mind to the state of the premises and deliberately did nothing to remedy the issue.
I find it just to order exemplary damages considering the following factors: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. I find the landlord acted intentionally. b. The effect of the unlawful act. See paragraph [48(c)] above. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. The tenant lived in the premises, which were in a very poor condition, for approximately 31 weeks. d. The public interest. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords are deterred from providing premises to tenants in the state these premises were in at the beginning of the tenancy. There is also a strong public interest in ensuring landlords are deterred from delaying repairs. The extent of the breach in this case is serious. This is because there were numerous defects that were not simply cosmetic. The defects significantly detracted from the amenity of the premises and jeopardised the health and safety of the tenant. These are all aggravating factors.
Taking these matters into account, the Tribunal orders the landlord to pay $7,200.00 in exemplary damages. This is an appropriate case in which to order the maximum amount of exemplary damages.

Did the landlord comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms?

The law

Section 45(1)(ba) RTA requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A. The Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 are regulations made under this section.
Regulations 5 states: 5Smoke alarms to be qualifying smoke alarms and installed in certain locations: tenancies other than boarding house tenancies (1)The requirements set out in subclauses (4), (6), and (8) are imposed on all landlords for the purposes of section 45(1)(ba) of the Act. (2)The requirements must be met as at the commencement of the tenancy and at all subsequent times during the tenancy. ... (4)Every smoke alarm that is installed at the premises must be a qualifying smoke alarm. ... (6)There must be at least 1 qualifying smoke alarm installed – (a) in the sleeping space; or (b) otherwise at the premises within 3 metres of the entrance (or main entrance) to the sleeping space. ... (8)There must be at least 1 qualifying smoke alarm installed on the storey or level in the habitable space or in at least 1 of the habitable spaces (as the case may be).
Regulation 7 defines what constitutes a “qualifying smoke alarm.” It relevantly states: 16 a. The alarm must be fully operational and otherwise in full working order, with no faults, defects or damage; and b. The alarm must be installed at a location that accords with the manufacturers instructions for the alarm. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant claims the premises were only provided with one smoke alarm, which was covered in fly pooh and did not work. The tenant claims there were brackets for holding other smoke alarms on the ceiling inside the premises, but no smoke alarms were present. The tenant claims the premises did not have qualifying smoke alarms for the entire tenancy. Analysis
The photographs submitted by the tenant support their claim that the premises did not have any qualifying smoke alarms. The photographs show one smoke alarm attached to the ceiling. It looks very old and dirty. The state of the smoke alarm supports the tenant’s claim that it did not work. Mr Greeves also gave evidence that there were no working smoke alarms.
The other photographs submitted by the tenant show other areas of the ceiling where smoke alarms should have been but were not present. The smoke alarm brackets are attached to the ceiling, but no smoke alarms are present. 16 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2019, regulation 7(1)(a) & (b).
The tenancy agreement contains a section about smoke alarms. It states: Landlord – please confirm you have met at least these minimum legal requirements before you rent the premises: o There is at least one working smoke alarm in each bedroom or within three metres of each bedroom’s door – this applies to any room a person might reasonably sleep in. o If there is more than one storey or level, there is at least one working smoke alarm on each storey or level, even if no-one sleeps there. o If there is a caravan, sleep-out or similar, there is at least one working smoke alarm in it. o None of the smoke alarms has passed the manufacturer’s expirty or recommended replacement date. o All new or replacement smoke alarms, installed from 1 July 2016 onward, are long-life photoelectric smoke alarms with a total battery life when installed of either years or a hard-wired smoke alarm system, and meet the product standards in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) regulations 2016. o All of the smoke alarms are properly installed by the landlord or their agent in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. o All the smoke alarms are working at the start of the tenancy, including having working batteries.
The landlord did not select any of the options listed.
All of this evidence convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the premises did not have any qualifying smoke alarms for the entire tenancy.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered. 17
I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to ensure the premises had qualifying smoke alarms. No evidence to the contrary was submitted. The landlord has not completed the section of the tenancy agreement pertaining to smoke alarms. The photographs submitted by the tenant clearly show there are smoke alarms missing from the brackets in the ceiling. This would have been 17 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Scheduled 1A. obvious to the landlord from observation. I am satisfied the landlord turned their mind to this issue and deliberately chose not instal qualifying smoke alarms.
I find it just to order exemplary damages considering the following factors: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. I find the landlord acted intentionally. b. The effect of the unlawful act. Fortunately, there was no fire at the premises during the tenancy however, not having qualifying smoke alarms was a cause of anxiety and concern for the tenant. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. The tenant lived in the premises without qualifying smoke alarms for approximately 31 weeks. The fact that there were no qualifying smoke alarms in the entire premises for the whole tenancy is an aggravating factor. d. The public interest. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords are deterred from failing to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. Failure to install qualifying smoke alarms poses a serious risk to the tenant’s health and safety. If there is a fire, there is a chance the tenant may not be alerted and the outcome could be catastrophic. This is especially the case if the fire occurs while the tenant is sleeping.
Taking all of the above matters into account, the Tribunal orders the landlord to pay $4,000.00 in exemplary damages.

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

The law

Section 45(1)(bb) RTA requires a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards.
The healthy homes standards are found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (“HHS”). Subparts 2 to 5 provide a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in respect of insulation, heating, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture and drainage.
Regulation 6 requires the landlord of residential premises to ensure the premises meet the standards set out in subparts 2 to 5.
Regulation 31 provides a general exemption where the premises are due to be demolished or substantially rebuilt. It relevantly states: 31Exemption if premises due to be demolished or substantially rebuilt (1)The landlord need not comply with regulation 6 if, - (a) before the commandment of the tenancy, the landlord applied for consent to demolish or substantially rebuild the premises, with that work to begin with the grace period; and (b) as at the commencement of the tenancy, - (i) the application is still pending; or (ii) if consent was granted before the tenancy commenced, the consent remains in force. ... Analysis
The tenancy began on 12 May 2025. The landlord had until 1 July 2025 to comply with the HHS, unless an exemption applied.
The tenant gave evidence the premises did not comply with the HHS during the tenancy. The tenant claims the premises were very cold and there was no extractor fan or qualifying ventilation in the kitchen or bathroom. The tenant also claims there were broken windows in one of the bedrooms and lounge. The tenant claims a number of windows could not open or close, because they had been nailed shut or the window stays did not work. Further, the tenant claims there was no heat pump or other heating source in the lounge.
The photographs and videos submitted by the tenant support the tenant’s evidence regarding the state of the windows. They show windows that are broken or nailed shut.
There are no photographs of the kitchen, bathroom or ceiling insulation however, the premises appear relatively old in the photographs and videos. Older premises are less likely to have extractor fans or qualifying ventilation in the kitchen and bathroom. They are also less likely to have adequate insulation.
The tenancy agreement contains a healthy homes compliance statement, which states that the premises do not comply with the HHS. The compliance statement has been completed electronically and has not been signed by the landlord however, the tenant submitted an email sent by the landlord on 16 May 2025 attaching the tenancy agreement. I viewed the tenancy agreement attached to the email. It records that the premises do not comply with the HHS.
All of this evidence convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the premises did not comply with the HHS in all respects by 1 July 2025. The onus now shifts to the landlord to prove an exemption applies, on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord did not attend and the only evidence that a general exemption may apply is contained in the HHS compliance statement. It states: ✓ The landlord intends to demolish or substantially rebuild the rental property and has applied for or has been granted the relevant building consent... ... The house will be demolished in 12 months and the RC review has been completed.
This evidence alone is insufficient to convince me on the balance of probabilities that regulation 31 applies to exempt the landlord from needing to comply with the HHS. No copy of the application for resource consent was submitted, nor was any evidence submitted from the Auckland Council confirming that the resource consent had been granted. No evidence of the premises having been demolished or substantially rebuilt within the period from 12 May 2025 – 12 May 2026 was submitted either. In the absence of this kind of supporting evidence, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the exemption in regulation 31 applies.
The tenant has proven the premises did not comply with the HHS by 1 July 2025, on the balance of probabilities. The landlord has not proven that the exemption in regulation 31 applies. For these reasons, the tenant has proven that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. Considering the following factors, I find $2,484.00 to be reasonable: a. The nature of the breach. Failure to comply with the HHS is a serious breach. This is evidenced by the fact that the maximum amount in exemplary damages that may be ordered is $7,200.00. This reflects the seriousness with which Parliament intended the Tribunal to view breaches of this nature. The extent of the breach in this case is serious. The photographs and videos submitted show multiple broken windows and windows nailed shut. This is not a case where “unreasonable gaps” relate to the area around the window frame only. Entire windows are broken, missing or unable to be opened at all. The evidence also establishes that the premises were non-compliant in all respects. This is not a case where non-compliance is related to one aspect of the HHS. b. The duration of the breach. The breach endured from 1 July 2025 to the end of the tenancy on 14 December 2025. This is approximately 23 weeks. c. The effect of the breach on the party. The tenant gave evidence that the premises were very cold, especially in winter. I accept that premises with broken windows, no source of heating and insufficient insulation are likely to be very cold in winter. The lack of extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen meant the premises could not be properly ventilated. The same can be said regarding the fact that some windows were nailed shut and could not be opened. The extent of the non-compliance significantly detracted from the amenity of the premises.
The amount of compensation ordered equates to $108.00 per week over 23 weeks. This reflects a 20% reduction in the total weekly rent charged of $540.00 per week.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to comply with the healthy homes standards is an unlawful act, for which a maximum amount of $7,200.00 may be ordered in exemplary damages. 18
I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to comply with the HHS. The landlord clearly knew the premises did not comply, because they have stated this in the HHS compliance statement. Insufficient evidence was submitted to support the claim that regulation 31 applied to exempt the landlord. I am satisfied the landlord has turned their mind to the issue and deliberately failed to comply with the HHS or provide sufficient evidence to prove an exemption applied.
I find it just to order exemplary damages considering the following factors: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. I find the landlord acted intentionally. b. The effect of the unlawful act. See paragraph [80(c)] above. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. I am convinced the premises were non-compliant in all respects. The premises should have complied by 1 July 2025. There is approximately 23 weeks between 1 July 2025 and 14 December 2025, which is the date the tenancy ended. d. The public interest. There is a high public interest in ensuring landlords are deterred from failing to comply with the HHS. Where landlords claim general exemptions apply to excuse them from complying with all aspects of the healthy homes standards, they should be encouraged to provide supporting evidence of this, not just a bare statement of an intention to develop the premises and resource consents being applied for.
Considering all of the above factors, I order the landlord to pay $2,400.00 in exemplary damages. 18 Residential Tenancies At 1986, section 45(1A) & Schedule 1A. Filing fee & name suppression
The tenant has been wholly successful with their claim. Therefore, I must order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5412529 — State of repair at 47 Yeovil Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5412529 — State of repair at 47 Yeovil Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

THE EVIDENCE

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Did the landlord comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

THE EVIDENCE

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Did the landlord comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions