What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5415109 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5415109?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5415109?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5415109?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13381806-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5415109 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5415109?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5415109?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5415109?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13381806-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5415109 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5415109 — Healthy homes | TenantCheck

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Gill Corporation Limited, Mandeep Singh, Sandeep Singh, Jatinder Singh and Gill Singh must pay the tenants $11,428.00 immediately, calculated in the table below. DescriptionTenants Compensation Exemplary damages regarding HHS $6,000.00 $5,400.00 Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total award $11,428.00 Bond $640.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $11,428.00
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Brenda Hadfield and Henare Rogers Hadfield immediately.

Reasons

The applicants appeared for the hearing. They were represented at the hearing by Laura Drew. The respondents did not appear.
The tenants have made several claims in their application. These include: a. The landlord breached the landlord’s obligation regarding Healthy Homes Standards and b. The landlord failed to maintain the premises and c. The landlord failed to provide them with a copy of their tenancy agreement and d. The landlord failed to provide them with a HHS statement or/and insulation statement and e. The landlord failed to inform them that the property was for sale.
The applicants have requested compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s unlawful acts.
The Tribunal must also determine whether the named respondents are the landlord. Were the respondents named in this application, the ‘landlord’ during the tenancy?
The applicants have named a company and four other persons to be the landlord.
The information from the Bond Centre records that the tenancy began on 10 June 2019 and the bond was lodged by the landlord on 24 June 2019. The landlord in 2019 is recorded as Alatett NZ Ltd.
The tenants report that some time in 2021-2022, they were visited at the property by four brothers who stated that they were the new owners of the property. They gave the tenants a piece of paper and asked them to make rent payments to Gill Corporation Ltd. The bank account number for the company was also written on the piece of paper. The tenants stated that were not sure who their landlord was from that date.
Counsel for the tenants has submitted that it is reasonable for all brothers and the company to be named as the respondents in this claim, in view of the landlord’s failure to specifically identify the landlord to the tenants. Ms Drew believes any order made by the Tribunal can then be sorted out between the brothers and the director of Gill Corporation Limited. Mandeep Singh is currently the only director of that company.
It is always important to have the correct party or parties named in any order made by the Tribunal. It is not good practice to cast a wide net and hope to catch the correct party to the contract while also ordering other parties to be liable for a debt they have no legal responsibility for. Therefore I have been cautious before holding all the named parties to be in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Tenancy Agreement. However I have decided that it is reasonable to do so because: a. It is quite possible for all the named parties to be the landlords. There are often many people who are ‘the landlord’ in any tenancy. b. The fact that there was payment to a company bank account does not mean that the company must be the landlord. Where money is paid is not necessarily an indication of a party to a contract. c. The named respondents have not disputed that they are respondents. They were served with notice of the tenants’ application on 2 March 2026. None of the respondents corresponded with Tenancy Services requesting that they be removed from the application. None of the respondents appeared at the hearing to request that they be removed from the proceedings. d. All the named brothers appeared at the time the tenants were informed that ownership of the property had changed. The tenants believed that they were all to be the new ‘landlord’ for their tenancy.
For these reasons I am satisfied that it is reasonable for all the named respondents to be included in this Tribunal order.

Did the landlord breach Healthy Homes Standards?

When did HHS apply in this tenancy?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage, and ventilation standards.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The tenancy began in June 2019. HHS did not apply when the tenancy began. The evidence suggests that the tenancy was periodic, at least from June 2020. There was no new or renewed tenancy after 2019 that I have been made aware of.
Counsel for the tenants submitted that a change of landlord in 2020-2021 was a change of tenancy for the purposes of the HHS.
The HHS compliance deadlines and obligations are based on the tenancy itself, not on who the landlord is. If the property is sold and a new landlord takes over, the tenancy continues on the same terms and the compliance date for HHS does not reset. The new landlord steps into the shoes of the previous landlord and inherits all existing obligations, including any HHS compliance requirements and deadlines.
Therefore the date for compliance with HHS for this tenancy was 1 July 2025.

Did the premises comply with HHS on 1 July 2025?

The applicants provided photographs showing the condition of the premises in July 2025. It is clear that the premises did not comply with HHS standards regarding draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage, and ventilation. The premises was in poor condition. The living room ceiling had partly collapse from water leaking onto it, there were gaps in windows, gutters were overflowing, and extractor fans were not compliant. The landlord was made aware of the problems with the property on many occasions and should also have been aware of the requirements for the property to meet HHS by 1 July 2025.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. I find Gill Corporation Limited, Mandeep Singh, Sandeep Singh, Jatinder Singh and Gill Singh committed an unlawful act.
I will deal with the claim for exemplary damages under section 45 after addressing the issue of maintenance by the landlord.

Did the landlord maintain the premises?

It is clear from what has already been written above that the landlord failed to maintain the premises. A landlord has an obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair under Section 45(1)(b) of the RTA.
In March 2024 the roof began to leak. Despite many promises by the landlord after that date, the roof was not repaired by the time the tenancy ended in November 2025. What began as a leak became a partially collapsed ceiling in the lounge in June 2025. There was dampness in the premises for about a year and eight months resulting from that leak. There were also draughts and ventilation issues at the property. In October 2024 the tenants sought the assistance of Te Whatu Ora regarding the maintenance issues at the property. Te Whatu Ora emailed Gill Singh on 30 October 2024. There were further phone calls to the landlords with the tenants leaving voicemails however no replies were received from the landlord. The tenants stated that contractors were sent to inspect the property however no work was carried out.
The tenants have sought compensation and exemplary damages for the unlawful act of failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable condition.
It is clear that the tenants are entitled to compensation for the compromised living conditions they experienced while tenanting the premises. Counsel has requested that compensation be ordered “from the beginning of the tenancy until this point”.
When that request was raised by counsel in the hearing I referred counsel to section 49 RTA for comment. That section provides that where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the RTA the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach. I suggested to counsel that there was an onus on the tenants to take reasonable steps to keep the amount of time they experienced conditions to a minimum and therefore the compensation to be paid to a minimum. Counsel did not have the same view.
My opinion is that reasonable steps included making an application to the Tribunal in 2024 rather than December 2025. That was the date this application was lodged. In 2024 the Tribunal could have ordered the landlord to carry out work to remedy the defects and provide the tenants with healthy premises that did not require compensation be paid by the landlord. The tenants have experienced unsatisfactory living conditions for far longer than was necessary. For example, the leak that began in March 2024 should not have become a collapsed ceiling in June 2025 if the tenants had applied to the Tribunal in 2024. A Tribunal order against the landlord in 2024 could have avoided that increased inconvenience.
My conclusion is that compensation ordered should reflect the time where the tenants’ inconvenience could have come to an end by taking reasonable steps to mitigate loss. I accept that in 2024 (and 2025) the landlord made promises to repair the problems at the property. The tenants took a reasonable step by involving Te Whatu Ora in October 2024. When these steps failed the tenants needed to apply to the Tribunal to bring the problem to an end.
Taking into account (i) that the landlord’s promises to act prolonged the problem for the tenants and (ii) the time necessary for Te Whatu Ora to attempt to get the landlord to remedy defects and (iii) the time it would take to have a case heard in the Tribunal, I have allowed compensation for a period of 40 weeks at $150.00 per week amounting to $6000.00 for all maintenance issues that were neglected by the landlord.

Should exemplary damages be ordered and if so, how much?

Breaching any of the obligations set out in section 45, without a reasonable excuse 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.
The applicants have applied for exemplary damages for the unlawful act of failing to maintain the premises and meet HHS obligations.
Section 45(1A) provides that the failure by the landlord to comply with any of paragraphs (a) to (ca) of subsection (1) is declared to be an unlawful act. These paragraphs include both HHS and maintenance obligations. Therefore any exemplary damages order for those breaches has a combined maximum of $7,200.00. This is confirmed by the decision of Judge MS Williams in MBIE v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583. The correct approach regarding exemplary damages is a global approach, meaning one order to a single maximum irrespective of the number of breaches of a section. Separate exemplary damages orders are not to be made where the unlawful acts include both maintenance and HHS. Exemplary damages regarding the unlawful act of failing to maintain the premises.
There is another issue regarding the applicants’ request for exemplary damages for the maintenance breach. Section 109(2) provides that: A landlord or a tenant may not apply under subsection (1) later than— (a) 12 months after the termination of the tenancy in the case of— `(i) an unlawful act to which section 19(2) refers; or (ii) a failure to keep records in respect of bonds that is an unlawful act to which section 30(2) refers; or (b) 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act in the case of any other unlawful act.
In the hearing I raised with counsel that I would have to take this section into account when considering the request for exemplary damages regarding the failure to maintain the premises. Ms Drew’s view was that the 12 month limitation should not apply. Her submission was that because the roof maintenance failure was ongoing and became worse, the date of commission should move with ongoing failure to maintain. For example, when the leaking roof collapsed because it was not repaired, that would restart the date of commission regarding the failure to maintain. Counsel submitted that different maintenance issues would be result in a different date of commission of an unlawful act.
In considering whether the 12 month limitation applies in this case, attention must be paid to the wording of the section. What does the ‘date of commission’ refer to? ‘The date of commission’ refers to when the unlawful act first occurred. The failure to maintain is a continuing unlawful act for as long as the landlord fails to remedy the problem. However, for the purposes of exemplary damages, the 12- month limitation period under section 109(2) RTA runs from the date the landlord first failed to act within a reasonable time after being notified.
Therefore regarding the roof leak that eventually became a partially collapsed ceiling, the date of commencement of the unlawful act is the date when the roof should have been repaired. The tenants’ evidence is that they advised the landlord when the leak through the lounge ceiling happened in March 2024. The unlawful act commences on the date when the landlord should have had the roof repaired. It would be reasonable for the leak to be repaired by April 2024 and therefore that is the date of the commencement of the unlawful act regarding roof maintenance. The applicants applied to the Tribunal on 16 December 2025. That is more than 12 months after the commencement date of the unlawful act to maintain the roof.
The tenants’ application refers to other maintenance issues apart from the roof leak. The evidence provided shows that on 23 October 2024 Te Whatu Ora wrote to the landlord setting out all the maintenance issues referred to in the tenants’ application. The landlord failed to address those maintenance issues. A landlord could have arranged for contractors to address those issues by mid November 2024. I have therefore determined that the date of commencement of the unlawful acts of regarding all other maintenance issues would be some time in November 2024. The applicants application to the Tribunal on 16 December 2025 is more than 12 months after the commencement date of those unlawful acts.
The RTA does not give me jurisdiction to order exemplary damages in this case for the unlawful acts of failing to maintain because the application was more than 12 months after the date of the commission of all maintenance matters. Therefore regarding the claim for exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of maintenance obligations, no order for exemplary damages may be made.
Counsel suggested that the landlords’ flagrant breaches of their maintenance obligations should not be rewarded with the avoidance of exemplary damages orders. However the 12 month limit has been statutorily imposed for several reasons. a. It provides certainty for both landlords and tenants, so they are not exposed to exemplary damages claims for an indefinite period. b. It encourages parties to address and resolve issues in a timely manner, which aligns with the overall objective of the RTA to promote quick and efficient dispute resolution. c. The limit helps ensure that evidence is still available and reliable when a claim is made, as memories fade and documents may be lost over time. d. It balances the interests of both parties by not allowing old claims to be resurrected long after the event, which could be unfair to the party accused of the unlawful act.
This approach is consistent with limitation periods in other areas of law which are designed to promote justice by requiring claims to be made within a reasonable period after the relevant event. I accept that the landlord’s neglect of the property was serious and ongoing however that does not change the statutory requirement that exemplary damages claims must be within 12 months of their commission. Exemplary damages regarding the unlawful act of failing to meet HHS obligations.
In paragraphs 17-19 above I determined that the landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to meet HHS by 1 July 2025. The date of commission of the unlawful act was 1 July 2025.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA. a. I have determined that the unlawful act was intentional because the landlord was repeatedly made aware of work that needed to be done to meet HHS but ignored the obligation. The landlord must have turned their mind to the obligation because of the amount of correspondence the landlord received regarding HHS compliance work needed. The failure to then carry out that work shows an intention to ignore the responsibility. b. The effect of the unlawful act was that the tenants were living in an unhealthy environment, including having to close off the living area. They were subject to the inconvenience and additional cost of heating their home. There was more moisture in the house because of the ventilation defects. It is well known that poor ventilation can cause mould and health issues for occupants. c. The landlords benefitted by not having the expense of carrying out the work necessary to make the premises compliant. d. It is in the public interest that tenancies meet HHS so individuals and families can be confident that their tenancy is in a healthy home.
I have taken into account the nature and extent of the unlawful act regarding HHS. I accept that there is no other evidence that the landlords have been fined for similar HHS breaches. I have ordered exemplary damages of $5,400.00, being three quarters of the maximum. The maximum is applied in the most serious cases and for recidivist offenders. Notice to the tenants of premises put on the market.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 47 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Under section 47, a landlord must give written notice to the tenants, immediately if the premises are placed on the market.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1800.00 See section 47(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not give notice to the tenants of an intention to sell except by a ‘For Sale’ sign. The first the tenants knew about the sale of the property was when they arrived home one day in June/July 2025 and noticed a ‘For Sale’ sign on the property. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
I have considered whether it would be just to order exemplary damages for this unlawful act. An order for exemplary damages requires the Tribunal to find that the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally. Intentional conduct means the landlord has turned their mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it, rather than simply being negligent or careless. As discussed in Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust NZDC 17667, negligence does not equate to intention.
I find there is insufficient evidence to prove that the landlord intentionally committed this unlawful act and therefore decline to order exemplary damages.

Did the landlord breach requirements regarding the Tenancy Agreement?

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord did not provide a tenancy agreement including the landlord’s name and contact details. Secondly the applicants have claimed that the landlord failed to provide a Healthy Homes Standards compliance statement or insulation statement. The claims are made under sections 13A(1) and 13A(1CA) and 13A(1A).
There appears to be some confusion in the claim. A tenancy agreement was to be provided by the original landlord in 2019. When there was a change of landlord there was no requirement to provide a new tenancy agreement or compliance statements. The confusion appears to be that the applicants believe that the change of landlord was a new tenancy and therefore section 13A would apply. Section 13A does not apply in this case.
The section that could apply in this case is section 15; ‘Notification of successor to landlord or tenant’. However the applicants have not made a claim under section 15(2) RTA. Filing fee
Because the tenants been successful with the claim the filing fee of $28.00 is ordered to be paid by the landlord. Suppression
The tenants have applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim and therefore name suppression is granted.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Gill Corporation Limited, Mandeep Singh, Sandeep Singh, Jatinder Singh and Gill Singh must pay the tenants $11,428.00 immediately, calculated in the table below. DescriptionTenants Compensation Exemplary damages regarding HHS $6,000.00 $5,400.00 Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total award $11,428.00 Bond $640.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $11,428.00
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Brenda Hadfield and Henare Rogers Hadfield immediately.

Reasons

The applicants appeared for the hearing. They were represented at the hearing by Laura Drew. The respondents did not appear.
The tenants have made several claims in their application. These include: a. The landlord breached the landlord’s obligation regarding Healthy Homes Standards and b. The landlord failed to maintain the premises and c. The landlord failed to provide them with a copy of their tenancy agreement and d. The landlord failed to provide them with a HHS statement or/and insulation statement and e. The landlord failed to inform them that the property was for sale.
The applicants have requested compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s unlawful acts.
The Tribunal must also determine whether the named respondents are the landlord. Were the respondents named in this application, the ‘landlord’ during the tenancy?
The applicants have named a company and four other persons to be the landlord.
The information from the Bond Centre records that the tenancy began on 10 June 2019 and the bond was lodged by the landlord on 24 June 2019. The landlord in 2019 is recorded as Alatett NZ Ltd.
The tenants report that some time in 2021-2022, they were visited at the property by four brothers who stated that they were the new owners of the property. They gave the tenants a piece of paper and asked them to make rent payments to Gill Corporation Ltd. The bank account number for the company was also written on the piece of paper. The tenants stated that were not sure who their landlord was from that date.
Counsel for the tenants has submitted that it is reasonable for all brothers and the company to be named as the respondents in this claim, in view of the landlord’s failure to specifically identify the landlord to the tenants. Ms Drew believes any order made by the Tribunal can then be sorted out between the brothers and the director of Gill Corporation Limited. Mandeep Singh is currently the only director of that company.
It is always important to have the correct party or parties named in any order made by the Tribunal. It is not good practice to cast a wide net and hope to catch the correct party to the contract while also ordering other parties to be liable for a debt they have no legal responsibility for. Therefore I have been cautious before holding all the named parties to be in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Tenancy Agreement. However I have decided that it is reasonable to do so because: a. It is quite possible for all the named parties to be the landlords. There are often many people who are ‘the landlord’ in any tenancy. b. The fact that there was payment to a company bank account does not mean that the company must be the landlord. Where money is paid is not necessarily an indication of a party to a contract. c. The named respondents have not disputed that they are respondents. They were served with notice of the tenants’ application on 2 March 2026. None of the respondents corresponded with Tenancy Services requesting that they be removed from the application. None of the respondents appeared at the hearing to request that they be removed from the proceedings. d. All the named brothers appeared at the time the tenants were informed that ownership of the property had changed. The tenants believed that they were all to be the new ‘landlord’ for their tenancy.
For these reasons I am satisfied that it is reasonable for all the named respondents to be included in this Tribunal order.

Did the landlord breach Healthy Homes Standards?

When did HHS apply in this tenancy?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage, and ventilation standards.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The tenancy began in June 2019. HHS did not apply when the tenancy began. The evidence suggests that the tenancy was periodic, at least from June 2020. There was no new or renewed tenancy after 2019 that I have been made aware of.
Counsel for the tenants submitted that a change of landlord in 2020-2021 was a change of tenancy for the purposes of the HHS.
The HHS compliance deadlines and obligations are based on the tenancy itself, not on who the landlord is. If the property is sold and a new landlord takes over, the tenancy continues on the same terms and the compliance date for HHS does not reset. The new landlord steps into the shoes of the previous landlord and inherits all existing obligations, including any HHS compliance requirements and deadlines.
Therefore the date for compliance with HHS for this tenancy was 1 July 2025.

Did the premises comply with HHS on 1 July 2025?

The applicants provided photographs showing the condition of the premises in July 2025. It is clear that the premises did not comply with HHS standards regarding draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage, and ventilation. The premises was in poor condition. The living room ceiling had partly collapse from water leaking onto it, there were gaps in windows, gutters were overflowing, and extractor fans were not compliant. The landlord was made aware of the problems with the property on many occasions and should also have been aware of the requirements for the property to meet HHS by 1 July 2025.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. I find Gill Corporation Limited, Mandeep Singh, Sandeep Singh, Jatinder Singh and Gill Singh committed an unlawful act.
I will deal with the claim for exemplary damages under section 45 after addressing the issue of maintenance by the landlord.

Did the landlord maintain the premises?

It is clear from what has already been written above that the landlord failed to maintain the premises. A landlord has an obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair under Section 45(1)(b) of the RTA.
In March 2024 the roof began to leak. Despite many promises by the landlord after that date, the roof was not repaired by the time the tenancy ended in November 2025. What began as a leak became a partially collapsed ceiling in the lounge in June 2025. There was dampness in the premises for about a year and eight months resulting from that leak. There were also draughts and ventilation issues at the property. In October 2024 the tenants sought the assistance of Te Whatu Ora regarding the maintenance issues at the property. Te Whatu Ora emailed Gill Singh on 30 October 2024. There were further phone calls to the landlords with the tenants leaving voicemails however no replies were received from the landlord. The tenants stated that contractors were sent to inspect the property however no work was carried out.
The tenants have sought compensation and exemplary damages for the unlawful act of failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable condition.
It is clear that the tenants are entitled to compensation for the compromised living conditions they experienced while tenanting the premises. Counsel has requested that compensation be ordered “from the beginning of the tenancy until this point”.
When that request was raised by counsel in the hearing I referred counsel to section 49 RTA for comment. That section provides that where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the RTA the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach. I suggested to counsel that there was an onus on the tenants to take reasonable steps to keep the amount of time they experienced conditions to a minimum and therefore the compensation to be paid to a minimum. Counsel did not have the same view.
My opinion is that reasonable steps included making an application to the Tribunal in 2024 rather than December 2025. That was the date this application was lodged. In 2024 the Tribunal could have ordered the landlord to carry out work to remedy the defects and provide the tenants with healthy premises that did not require compensation be paid by the landlord. The tenants have experienced unsatisfactory living conditions for far longer than was necessary. For example, the leak that began in March 2024 should not have become a collapsed ceiling in June 2025 if the tenants had applied to the Tribunal in 2024. A Tribunal order against the landlord in 2024 could have avoided that increased inconvenience.
My conclusion is that compensation ordered should reflect the time where the tenants’ inconvenience could have come to an end by taking reasonable steps to mitigate loss. I accept that in 2024 (and 2025) the landlord made promises to repair the problems at the property. The tenants took a reasonable step by involving Te Whatu Ora in October 2024. When these steps failed the tenants needed to apply to the Tribunal to bring the problem to an end.
Taking into account (i) that the landlord’s promises to act prolonged the problem for the tenants and (ii) the time necessary for Te Whatu Ora to attempt to get the landlord to remedy defects and (iii) the time it would take to have a case heard in the Tribunal, I have allowed compensation for a period of 40 weeks at $150.00 per week amounting to $6000.00 for all maintenance issues that were neglected by the landlord.

Should exemplary damages be ordered and if so, how much?

Breaching any of the obligations set out in section 45, without a reasonable excuse 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.
The applicants have applied for exemplary damages for the unlawful act of failing to maintain the premises and meet HHS obligations.
Section 45(1A) provides that the failure by the landlord to comply with any of paragraphs (a) to (ca) of subsection (1) is declared to be an unlawful act. These paragraphs include both HHS and maintenance obligations. Therefore any exemplary damages order for those breaches has a combined maximum of $7,200.00. This is confirmed by the decision of Judge MS Williams in MBIE v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583. The correct approach regarding exemplary damages is a global approach, meaning one order to a single maximum irrespective of the number of breaches of a section. Separate exemplary damages orders are not to be made where the unlawful acts include both maintenance and HHS. Exemplary damages regarding the unlawful act of failing to maintain the premises.
There is another issue regarding the applicants’ request for exemplary damages for the maintenance breach. Section 109(2) provides that: A landlord or a tenant may not apply under subsection (1) later than— (a) 12 months after the termination of the tenancy in the case of— `(i) an unlawful act to which section 19(2) refers; or (ii) a failure to keep records in respect of bonds that is an unlawful act to which section 30(2) refers; or (b) 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act in the case of any other unlawful act.
In the hearing I raised with counsel that I would have to take this section into account when considering the request for exemplary damages regarding the failure to maintain the premises. Ms Drew’s view was that the 12 month limitation should not apply. Her submission was that because the roof maintenance failure was ongoing and became worse, the date of commission should move with ongoing failure to maintain. For example, when the leaking roof collapsed because it was not repaired, that would restart the date of commission regarding the failure to maintain. Counsel submitted that different maintenance issues would be result in a different date of commission of an unlawful act.
In considering whether the 12 month limitation applies in this case, attention must be paid to the wording of the section. What does the ‘date of commission’ refer to? ‘The date of commission’ refers to when the unlawful act first occurred. The failure to maintain is a continuing unlawful act for as long as the landlord fails to remedy the problem. However, for the purposes of exemplary damages, the 12- month limitation period under section 109(2) RTA runs from the date the landlord first failed to act within a reasonable time after being notified.
Therefore regarding the roof leak that eventually became a partially collapsed ceiling, the date of commencement of the unlawful act is the date when the roof should have been repaired. The tenants’ evidence is that they advised the landlord when the leak through the lounge ceiling happened in March 2024. The unlawful act commences on the date when the landlord should have had the roof repaired. It would be reasonable for the leak to be repaired by April 2024 and therefore that is the date of the commencement of the unlawful act regarding roof maintenance. The applicants applied to the Tribunal on 16 December 2025. That is more than 12 months after the commencement date of the unlawful act to maintain the roof.
The tenants’ application refers to other maintenance issues apart from the roof leak. The evidence provided shows that on 23 October 2024 Te Whatu Ora wrote to the landlord setting out all the maintenance issues referred to in the tenants’ application. The landlord failed to address those maintenance issues. A landlord could have arranged for contractors to address those issues by mid November 2024. I have therefore determined that the date of commencement of the unlawful acts of regarding all other maintenance issues would be some time in November 2024. The applicants application to the Tribunal on 16 December 2025 is more than 12 months after the commencement date of those unlawful acts.
The RTA does not give me jurisdiction to order exemplary damages in this case for the unlawful acts of failing to maintain because the application was more than 12 months after the date of the commission of all maintenance matters. Therefore regarding the claim for exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of maintenance obligations, no order for exemplary damages may be made.
Counsel suggested that the landlords’ flagrant breaches of their maintenance obligations should not be rewarded with the avoidance of exemplary damages orders. However the 12 month limit has been statutorily imposed for several reasons. a. It provides certainty for both landlords and tenants, so they are not exposed to exemplary damages claims for an indefinite period. b. It encourages parties to address and resolve issues in a timely manner, which aligns with the overall objective of the RTA to promote quick and efficient dispute resolution. c. The limit helps ensure that evidence is still available and reliable when a claim is made, as memories fade and documents may be lost over time. d. It balances the interests of both parties by not allowing old claims to be resurrected long after the event, which could be unfair to the party accused of the unlawful act.
This approach is consistent with limitation periods in other areas of law which are designed to promote justice by requiring claims to be made within a reasonable period after the relevant event. I accept that the landlord’s neglect of the property was serious and ongoing however that does not change the statutory requirement that exemplary damages claims must be within 12 months of their commission. Exemplary damages regarding the unlawful act of failing to meet HHS obligations.
In paragraphs 17-19 above I determined that the landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to meet HHS by 1 July 2025. The date of commission of the unlawful act was 1 July 2025.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA. a. I have determined that the unlawful act was intentional because the landlord was repeatedly made aware of work that needed to be done to meet HHS but ignored the obligation. The landlord must have turned their mind to the obligation because of the amount of correspondence the landlord received regarding HHS compliance work needed. The failure to then carry out that work shows an intention to ignore the responsibility. b. The effect of the unlawful act was that the tenants were living in an unhealthy environment, including having to close off the living area. They were subject to the inconvenience and additional cost of heating their home. There was more moisture in the house because of the ventilation defects. It is well known that poor ventilation can cause mould and health issues for occupants. c. The landlords benefitted by not having the expense of carrying out the work necessary to make the premises compliant. d. It is in the public interest that tenancies meet HHS so individuals and families can be confident that their tenancy is in a healthy home.
I have taken into account the nature and extent of the unlawful act regarding HHS. I accept that there is no other evidence that the landlords have been fined for similar HHS breaches. I have ordered exemplary damages of $5,400.00, being three quarters of the maximum. The maximum is applied in the most serious cases and for recidivist offenders. Notice to the tenants of premises put on the market.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 47 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Under section 47, a landlord must give written notice to the tenants, immediately if the premises are placed on the market.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1800.00 See section 47(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not give notice to the tenants of an intention to sell except by a ‘For Sale’ sign. The first the tenants knew about the sale of the property was when they arrived home one day in June/July 2025 and noticed a ‘For Sale’ sign on the property. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
I have considered whether it would be just to order exemplary damages for this unlawful act. An order for exemplary damages requires the Tribunal to find that the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally. Intentional conduct means the landlord has turned their mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it, rather than simply being negligent or careless. As discussed in Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust NZDC 17667, negligence does not equate to intention.
I find there is insufficient evidence to prove that the landlord intentionally committed this unlawful act and therefore decline to order exemplary damages.

Did the landlord breach requirements regarding the Tenancy Agreement?

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord did not provide a tenancy agreement including the landlord’s name and contact details. Secondly the applicants have claimed that the landlord failed to provide a Healthy Homes Standards compliance statement or insulation statement. The claims are made under sections 13A(1) and 13A(1CA) and 13A(1A).
There appears to be some confusion in the claim. A tenancy agreement was to be provided by the original landlord in 2019. When there was a change of landlord there was no requirement to provide a new tenancy agreement or compliance statements. The confusion appears to be that the applicants believe that the change of landlord was a new tenancy and therefore section 13A would apply. Section 13A does not apply in this case.
The section that could apply in this case is section 15; ‘Notification of successor to landlord or tenant’. However the applicants have not made a claim under section 15(2) RTA. Filing fee
Because the tenants been successful with the claim the filing fee of $28.00 is ordered to be paid by the landlord. Suppression
The tenants have applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim and therefore name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5415109 — Healthy homes

Tenancy Tribunal case 5415109 — Healthy homes

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach Healthy Homes Standards?

When did HHS apply in this tenancy?

Did the premises comply with HHS on 1 July 2025?

Did the landlord maintain the premises?

Should exemplary damages be ordered and if so, how much?

Did the landlord breach requirements regarding the Tenancy Agreement?

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach Healthy Homes Standards?

When did HHS apply in this tenancy?

Did the premises comply with HHS on 1 July 2025?

Did the landlord maintain the premises?

Should exemplary damages be ordered and if so, how much?

Did the landlord breach requirements regarding the Tenancy Agreement?