What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421771 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 5421771?

Compensation: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $6,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Refund: $4,500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421771?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421771?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13229880-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421771 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 5421771?

Compensation: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $6,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Refund: $4,500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421771?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421771?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13229880-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

22 Stottholm Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421771 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421771 — net $13,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 45	$6,000.00	Section 45
Compensation	$2,500.00	Compensation
Rent refund	$4,500.00	Rent refund
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$13,028.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$13,028.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421771 — net $13,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 45	$6,000.00	Section 45
Compensation	$2,500.00	Compensation
Rent refund	$4,500.00	Rent refund
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$13,028.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$13,028.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 22 Stottholm Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604 is reduced and now ends at 11.59pm, Monday 12 January 2026.
Scarlett Sze kai Hong must pay [The tenant/s] $13,028.00 immediately.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing held on 26 February 2026.
The landlord did not attend the hearing. On 5 February 2026 the landlord had requested that the hearing be by telephone rather than face to face but did not provide any evidence in support of that request. The hearing was set down for a whole day and therefore is not suitable as a telephone hearing.
In a letter to the Tribunal dated 16 February 2026 the landlord again requested a telephone hearing as she was unable to attend a face-to-face hearing due to work commitments. In that same letter she advised that the other owner of the premises could attend, but he did not.
The Tribunal did not direct a telephone hearing and therefore either the landlord or her agent should have attended the hearing in person. The hearing proceeded in her absence. Background
The tenancy commenced on 16 February 2023 and was for a fixed term due to end in February 2024.
In December 2023 the parties signed a further tenancy agreement which records the tenancy start date as 17 February 2024 and the fixed term ending on 17 February 2025.
On 22 December 2024 the parties signed a third tenancy agreement where the tenancy commenced on 18 February 2025 and was for a fixed term due to end 18 February 2027. Previous Tribunal order
A hearing was held in November 2024 but only the tenant attended. The tenant applied for compensation for fixed water charges and loss of amenity in the premises due to a leak.
The Tribunal order 1 awarded reimbursement for fixed water charges and compensation for loss of amenity. Tenant’s application
The tenant has applied for a claim relating to the Healthy Homes standards, to be released from the fixed term tenancy, for compensation and exemplary damages. Release from fixed term tenancy 1 TT4952013
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 18 February 2027.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There has been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. The living conditions at the premises are not safe and healthy for the tenant and her family to live in. This will be discussed further later in this order.
The tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced. The tenant has moved into a garage to live with her three children. She is unable to afford another tenancy because she has continued to pay rent for this tenancy.
The landlord did not attend the hearing, so I have no evidence of the landlord’s hardship if the term is reduced.
I find that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship.
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no evidence of the need for any compensation in favour of the landlord.
The tenant has made six rent payments since moving out of the premises totalling $4,500.00. As this order determines that the tenancy is reduced to end on 12 January 2026 the tenant is refunded the rent she has paid since that date.
While the tenant is no longer living in the premises much of her belongings remain there. Given the unsafe living conditions most of the belongings will be disposed of. The tenant will remove the belongings by Sunday 8 March 2026. Section 45
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has failed to maintain the premises and is in breach of the Healthy Homes standards. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety. Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
The tenant has filed a Healthy Homes Assessment report dated 25 February 2026 prepared by [Healthy homes assessor]. That report concludes that the premises do not comply with the Healthy Homes insulation standards, moisture ingress and drainage standard, and the draught stopping standard. In relation to the heating and ventilation standards, the heat pump and mechanical ventilation could not be tested because there was no power at the premises on the day of assessment.
The tenant advised the report writer that the heat pump did not work well but the extractor fans did work.
Compliance dates for the Healthy Homes Standards vary depending on the tenancy. For this tenancy the compliance date was 16 June 2023 (120 days after commencement).
The insulation standard requires that all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Existing ceiling insulation that was installed before 1 July 2016 must be at least 120mm thick. All existing insulation must still be in reasonable condition to meet the requirements. This means there should be no mould, dampness, damage or gaps.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The draught stopping standard requires that landlords must block any unreasonable gaps or holes, in walls, ceilings, windows, floors and doors, that cause noticeable draughts.
The landlord produced a Healthy Homes Certificate of Compliance dated 3 May 2021. This was current two years before this tenancy commenced.
A certificate of compliance from two years before the tenancy is not conclusive proof that the property meets the Healthy Homes standards at the start of the tenancy or in this case on the compliance date. The onus is on the landlord to prove compliance at the relevant date.
The tenant produced a report which confirms that at the date of hearing the premises are not compliant with the Healthy Homes standards. I am satisfied that the landlord is in breach of the Healthy Homes standards.
The tenant claims that the landlord’s failure to comply with the Healthy Homes standards has had a significant impact on the health of her (especially given that she is pregnant) and her three children (aged 17, 16 and 4 years). The tenant produced the following evidence in support of the impact of the living conditions on her family: a) A letter from the tenant’s Lead Maternity Carer (LMC) as the tenant is pregnant. That letter written when the tenant was 29 weeks pregnant states, “It is not medically appropriate for [The tenant/s] to remain in this housing, nor to bring a newborn baby into this environment...” b) An email from [Day care centre] dated 10 February 2026 which states “Across the observation period from September 2025 to present, [The tenant’s son] experienced repeated episodes of skin breakdown and physical discomfort while attending the centre. Periods of improved comfort and increased participation were observed when the family reported that he was staying away from the home environment.” c) A letter from [Children’s health service] dated 5 February 2026 stating, “the whanau are experiencing significant ongoing skin infections due to the presence of mould, rodent droppings, contamination of broken-down pink batt material and notable dampness...In my medical opinion, it is not safe for [The tenant’s son] and his whanau to continue living at this property.” d) Medical records showing that the tenant and her children all attended appointments with their doctor on many occasions from May 2025. e) A letter from [Doctor] dated 5 January 2026 which states, “This patient and her three boys have had issues with recurrent skin infections and possible scabies...the first presentation was in May 2025...It is my medical opinion that damp housing and contamination with rodent droppings and mould is the cause of this.” f) A letter from [Doctor] dated 19 February 2026 which states, “In my professional opinion, prolonged exposure to a damp mould-affected environment is highly likely to have contributed significantly to my patient’s recurrent skin infections and ongoing skin irritation. Damp indoor conditions and mould contamination are well-recognised risk factors for skin and other health conditions. There was also fibreglass from damp insulation. Since vacating the property on 12 January, there has been a marked and dramatic improvement in my patient’s and her children’s skin health.” g) Many photographs of body parts from all family members showing welts, rashes, inflamed, irritated and infected skin. h) A video taken on 13 July 2024 where a contractor is present to provide the landlord with a quote to fix the water ingress problem. The contractor says in the video that the issue is from the build up of external moisture which is a long-term issue. The contractor advised that putting gib over the problem is a cosmetic fix. The contractor did not carry out any work to address the water ingress and instead the landlord’s husband installed new gib and painted the mouldy brick wall.
The main issue contributing to the health problems for the tenant and her family seems to be the brick or block wall on the bottom storey of the home. Photographs produced by the tenant show that there is bubbling underneath the paintwork and mould spores growing on the paint.
Another issue is the ceiling above the hot water cupboard. A piece of board that looks like it was originally the backing of a framed picture has fallen from the hole in the ceiling and both insulation and rat droppings have fallen into the hot water cupboard. The tenant stores blankets and linen in this cupboard which has become contaminated by both the insulation and the rat droppings.
The tenant obtained an Inspection report prepared by [Inspector] on 9 February 2026. That report records that the wall at the side of the entrance has been painted over and is still damp and there is mould on the carpet in bedroom 1 and concludes that, “This house has been neglected as far as maintaining liveable standards are concerned. The mould on carpets and the moisture readings are above standard readings. This rented property is not a healthy home and needs a lot of attention to bring it up to reasonable standard.”
Of concern is a document titled “Extra clauses to this rental agreement” which was signed by the parties on 4 February 2023. There are clauses within that document which conflict with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Section 11 of the Act provides that any term of a tenancy agreement that is inconsistent with the Act is of no effect. The Act overrides any agreement to the contrary.
One clause states that the tenant must give at least 8 weeks’ notice before the end of the fixed term if they do not wish to continue with the tenancy at the end of the fixed term. That clause is inconsistent with section 60A(2) and (2A) of the Act.
Of relevance to this situation is the clause which states that the tenant is responsible and pay for repairs and maintenance for the property, furniture (if it is furnished) and all the white wares not due to natural wear and tear. That clause is inconsistent with the Act 2 which states that it is the landlord’s responsibility to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The Tribunal made an order 3 on 5 November 2024 which included an award of compensation for loss of amenity in respect of the bedroom downstairs when the tenant discovered the gib was soft and bulging due to water ingress. The tenant’s son could not sleep in the room from 17 June 2024 until 29 July 2024.
The landlord has been aware of the water ingress issue but has not taken any steps to address the problem other than to carry out cosmetic measures to disguise the problem by installing gib and painting the brick wall. The work carried out in July 2024 temporarily stopped the effects of the water ingress but the impact on the tenant and her family from May 2025 was significant.
I accept that the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises has impacted negatively on the tenant and her family in a situation where the landlord knew there was an issue but either mistakenly thought that the tenant was responsible for maintenance or thought that the cost to maintain outweighed the effect on the tenant.
Given the previous involvement of the Tribunal in relation to this issue I consider that a significant award for exemplary damages is warranted. I award $6000.00. Compensation
Due to the contamination of the premises from mould, lose insulation fibres and rat droppings the tenant will be replacing all soft furnishings including beds, bedding, sofa and items purchased for her baby due shortly.
The letter from the tenant’s doctor dated 19 February 2026 refers to the soft furnishings and states, “It is also important to note that soft furnishings within a damp and mould-affected home are likely to become contaminated with mould spores. Continued exposure to such items may perpetuate symptoms.” 2 Section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 3 [2024] NZTT 4952013
The tenant produced photographs of the items that she needs to replace.
I consider that an award of compensation of $2,500.00 is reasonable for the replacement of soft furnishings.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason the tenant’s name is suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421771 — Exemplary damages at 22 Stottholm Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421771 — Exemplary damages at 22 Stottholm Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions