What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5429050 about?

The tribunal order states: Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent for Raymond Ng must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5429050?

Rent refund: unlawful residential pr…: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5429050?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5429050?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13837502-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5429050 about?

The tribunal order states: Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent for Raymond Ng must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5429050?

Rent refund: unlawful residential pr…: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5429050?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5429050?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13837502-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

131 Ireland Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5429050 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5429050 — net $1,200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent refund: unlawful residential premises	$1,200.00	Rent refund: unlawful residential premises
Net award	$1,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,200.00

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord’s representatives attended along with the owner/landlord.

The tenant entered into a residential tenancy agreement with the landlord for a tenancy that began on 1 June 2024 and ended on 8 March 2025, a period of 9 months. The premises has 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms and garage. The rent is $850.00 per week and a bond of $3,400.00 was paid. The bond has since been refunded.

A report from Guardian Housing Services dated 16 August 2018 (provided by the owner) indicates that the dwelling was originally constructed around 1940, with more recent additions and alterations. This additional work was the subject of building consent approvals in 1993.

The tenant has provided evidence that on 9 August 2005, Auckland City Council wrote to a previous owner advising that the property did not meet the requirements for a Code Compliance Certificate. Later, a Notice to Fix was issued.

During the tenancy there was a leak in the laundry, which the tenant reported in October 2024. A plumber and electrician attended, and the landlord arranged for installation of a laundry overflow pipe. The tenant’s application

The tenant has filed an application claiming breaches of landlord obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). He seeks compensation and exemplary damages. He claims as follows: a. The premises does not have a Code Compliance Certificate (CCC) and is therefore unlawful. b. The premises does not meet the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) c. Unlawful entry by the landlord (owner).

The tenant seeks a full refund of the rent paid ($34,121.43), exemplary damages for unlawful entry ($1,500.00), and compensation of $7,200.00 for the landlord failing to provide a healthy home and supplying false documentation. The tenant also asks whether the landlord has disclosed to its insurer that the premises does not have a CCC. The tenant also seeks compensation for the landlord objecting to his adjournment request. The tenant’s claims are considered below.

At the hearing, the parties provided photographic, documentary and oral evidence, along with their submissions. The hearing was adjourned part-heard so the photographic evidence could be clarified. General legal principles

In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”

The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.

Exemplary damages are penalties and can only be awarded for an unlawful act, as set out in various sections of the RTA and as listed in Schedule 1A of the Act. As explained by the Court of Appeal in Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732, they are different from compensation, and are designed to punish and deter, more like a fine. Where one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act, before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA.

Is the premises an unlawful residential premises?

The tenant states that the premises is unlawful since it does not have a Code Compliance Certificate (CCC). He claims it was not built to New Zealand standards, with cladding being installed directly to timber framing, and incorrect metal fittings being used. There were issues with drainage, a high possibility of moisture and fungi spore germinating in the wall framing. He states changes were made between the approved building consent and what has been built, noting the consent specifies the use of another cladding system. He further claims the cladding has been installed without council inspections, and the installation of approved flashings and building wrap cannot be established. He questions how the property can be passed as a healthy home.

At the hearing, the tenant stated that when the house was sold, it did not have a CCC. He had asked the real estate agent who had sold the property. This agent thought the necessary work would be done by the purchaser. That was the reason it was sold for a minimal price. There was publicly available evidence that the property does not have a CCC. He referred to the external cladding, issues with moisture, drainage and ventilation. The remedy was to get an architect involved and remove the cladding. He felt the home was damp and expensive to heat.

In response, the landlord states that since November 2018, there had been three tenancies and during this period, no issues had been raised, and there had been no reported issues of mould. The current owner was different to the previous owner (in 2005). They did not have access to the property file. They were satisfied that the property was safe and sanitary and in 2018, the property had been checked by a building professional. A copy of this report was provided. A moisture test was arranged, and this report was also produced. The landlord also refers to the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) report. There was seldom any maintenance issues reported. While the moisture reading in the downstairs area was slightly elevated, it was well within an acceptable range.

The owner states that he purchased the house in April 2024 and was aware that it did not have a CCC, due to the cladding. The current property manager had been looking after it since 2018. In 2005, the previous owner had lived in it, and the previous tenants had not raised any issues. He found the house to be very dry. He had a background in building and while he had not obtained a builder’s report, a building inspector found that the exterior cladding was not Harditex or monolithic cladding, but was Titan board. He tested it himself and was confident that there would be no issues with it. This was confirmed by the builder, and the moisture report from Homewise. He was perplexed as to how information regarding the CCC in 2005 related to the current evidence.

In reply, the tenant states that as there was no CCC, the house was illegal. This was reflected in the purchase price. He questioned the findings in the reports submitted by the owner, noting the fact that the property was safe and sanitary meant nothing. Legal framework

Section 36 of the RTA states that the landlord “shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes.”

Under s 45(1)(c) of the RTA a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety under any enactment as far as they apply to the premises. Section 45(1)(c) requires consideration of whether the landlord has complied with the Building Act 2004.

Section 78A of the RTA sets out the range of orders the Tribunal may make concerning unlawful residential premises.

“Unlawful residential premises” is defined in section 78A(2) as: residential premises that are used for occupation for a person as a place of residence but— (a) that cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes by that person (whether generally or whether for the particular residential purposes for which that person is granted occupation); and (b) where the landlord’s failure to comply with the landlord’s obligations under section 36 or 45(1)(c), or section 66H(2)(c) or 66I(1)(c), as relevant, has caused the occupation by that person to be unlawful or has contributed to that unlawful occupation.

Where the Tribunal finds the premises are unlawful residential premises under section 78A(4) of the RTA, it may order the landlord to (i) repay the tenant all the rent they paid; or (ii) a lesser amount of rent repayment that it finds fair having regard to the special circumstances of the case, including the nature of the premises.

Section 78A(3) provides: (3) Despite anything to the contrary elsewhere in this Act,— (a) unless the Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the special circumstances of the matter, including the nature of the premises, it would be unjust not to make the order, the Tribunal must not order the tenant to pay to the landlord— (i) any sum found to be owing by way of rent in arrear; or (ii) any other sum by way of damages or compensation: (b) if the landlord has applied for termination on the ground of rent in arrear, the Tribunal may, but is not required to, make the order terminating the tenancy.

A series of decisions in the District Court by Judge Clark provide guidance on the approach to section 78A of the RTA. These cases include Chen v Kumar [2022] NZDC, Kemp v Elliott [2022] NZDC 17792, Presland and Co Trustee Co v Makele [2022] NZDC 21087, and Harding v Caroto [2023] NZDC 5981.

The starting point is to consider whether section 78(2)(a) and (b) of the RTA were satisfied. These provisions require the Tribunal to be satisfied that the premises “cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes” and that the landlord’s failure to comply with either section 36 or section 45(1)(c), has caused the occupation to be unlawful or has contributed to that unlawful occupation.

In terms of special circumstances in section 78A(4), these do not need to be out of the ordinary, or require any “special” facts, but rather, an assessment of where the interests of justice lie in all the circumstances. In Chen v Kumar, Judge Clark considered the evidence about the tenant’s desire to stay at the premises and his motivations for filing a Tribunal claim to be “highly relevant” to whether “special circumstances” existed. The Court also discouraged a percentage based approach to assessing the amount of rent to be refunded in light of the special circumstances.

The High Court in While v Moffitt & West [2026] NZHC 490 upheld the Tribunal’s and District Court’s approach on the refund of rent for unlawful residential premises. It noted that the lack of consent was a technical breach which did not hamper the tenant’s enjoyment of the premises for over 3 years. A global award (of $4,000.00) was made to take into account the benefit of utility from occupation of the premises, and the fact that no serious consequences were suffered because the premises were safe and sanitary.

In the decision of Tang & Yang v Unesi [2026] NZDC 6212 Judge Clark stated: [53] As I have noted in the authorities set out above, the purpose of s 78A is to prevent landlords from offering premises which fail to meet the statutory and regulatory thresholds of safe and sanitary housing. However, a balance needs to be applied between premises which are generally safe and sanitary but are nonetheless unlawful because of a technical or relatively minor breach, and the tenant receiving the benefit and utility of those premises. Each case will need to be determined on its own merits because clearly there will be many instances where premises will be unlawful because they are not safe and sanitary and not habitable. These premises are do not fall within this definition. Analysis

The tenant’s evidence shows that, in 2005, Auckland City Council issued the previous owner with a Notice to Fix, requiring that the owner undertake work in order to meet the requirements of the Building Code. The Notice to Fix was issued on 9 September 2005. Concerns were raised regarding the cladding, and items not being installed in accordance with the approved consent, drainage and ventilation. The notice set out the work needed to remedy the contravention/ non- compliance. It is unclear what happened in the intervening period, including what measures, if any, were taken by the previous owner to address the concerns raised by Auckland Council.

The evidence also shows that, at the time of purchase in April 2024, the owner/landlord was aware that the premises did not have a Code Compliance Certificate. The owner has confirmed this in his oral evidence at the hearing. The tenant has provided a copy of the real estate agent’s advertising, which notes (at the time of sale), that work may be required for the property to meet consent requirements.

However, the landlord has provided other evidence which, it is submitted, shows that the premises is safe and sanitary, and dry. The Guardian Housing Services report dated 16 August 2018 (the Guardian report) advises on whether the building is safe and sanitary in terms of sections 121 and 123 of the Building Act 2004. The report is clear that it is not a weathertightness assessment, and is not intended to address compliance with the current Building Code requirements. So, the limitations of this report are clearly noted.

The Guardian report is completed by a licenced building practitioner, who concludes that the dwelling, in its current condition, falls within the scope of being safe and sanitary, and satisfies all the requirements to be considered a functional habitable building. Therefore, I find this to be persuasive evidence that the premises can be considered safe and sanitary in terms of sections 121 and 123 of the Building Act 2004.

There is also the Homewise Property Inspections report (the Homewise report) dated 19 March 2025. This report followed moisture testing at the property to identify and document any moisture concentrations that may be present within it. The moisture readings were documented. Overall, the moisture readings at the various locations were generally within the dry range of moisture, in accordance with the range shown in the report. There were some readings that were above this at the ground floor, where the garage is located. The top and middle floor all had readings within the “dry range” of moisture.

In this case, it is accepted that the council’s Notice to Fix was issued in 2005, and was issued to a previous owner. It is also possible that some work was done in the intervening period. However, it was clear to the current owner that, in April 2024, the premises did not have a current Code Compliance Certificate. The owner has not provided evidence to show that work was done to address this aspect of the compliance requirements.

It is accepted that the current owner has shown that the premises was safe and sanitary in 2018, and more recent moisture testing shows that it was a dry home. However, despite the premises being safe and sanitary, the legal right to occupy for residential purposes depends on compliance with all legal requirements, including building consents and CCCs. Therefore, it may still be considered an unlawful residential premises for the purposes of the RTA.

This was the approach by the Tribunal, and as confirmed by the High Court, in While v Moffitt & West [2026] NZHC 490. In that case, the Tribunal awarded compensation for an unlawful premises that were otherwise habitable and provided utility. In Tang & Yang v Unesi [2026] NZDC 6212 the District Court considered the approach to compensation for unlawful premises, and confirmed that the absence of a CCC can make the premises unlawful, even if it is safe and sanitary, and provide utility.

In this case, the premises were used for residential occupation. The evidence establishes that the premises does not have a Code Compliance Certificate, which is a requirement under the Building Act 2004. While the premises was assessed to be safe and sanitary, and the evidence shows that it is otherwise suitable for habitation, the absence of a CCC means that the premises cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes.

Accordingly, I find that the premises are unlawful residential premises under section 78A of the RTA.

In terms of the appropriate remedy, the following may be noted. This tenancy was of short duration, lasting 9 months. The weekly rent was $850.00. The tenant’s evidence is that he paid the landlord a total of $34,21.43 in rent. Throughout the tenancy it remained in a liveable condition, with the premises being safe and sanitary. The tenant has received the benefit and utility of these premises.

During the tenancy, there was a plumbing issue, which was resolved by the landlord. The evidence does not show there was any systemic problem with the house, and there is little or no evidence that the premises was not suitable for occupation by a tenant in terms of its comfort and utility. The landlord has provided evidence of the premises being previously tenanted with no issues being raised about its suitability for habitation. In this regard, I find the facts to be similar to those in Tang & Yang v Unesi (above).

Taking all these factors into account, I consider $1,200.00 to be an appropriate rent refund in this case for the premises being an unlawful residential premises.

The tenant also claims exemplary damages. For this to be awarded, the test for exemplary damages must be met. This is set out in section 109(3) of the RTA, and requires, as a precondition, that the person against whom the order is sought committed the unlawful act intentionally. An intentional act is a deliberate act, not a negligent or careless oversight, or incompetence. In this case, I find that the required intent for exemplary damages is not met, so there is no separate award for exemplary damages. Healthy Homes Standards

The tenant claims the landlord has failed to provide a healthy home and has supplied false documentation. He has provided a copy of the HHS report completed in August 2020 showing that the property failed the HHS inspection. He states that the home cannot be healthy when it does not have a CCC. This is because the CCC was an integral part of the process and essential for the property to be rented. The tenant claims there is moisture in the windows, mould, and there were issues with the plumbing. He believes the plumbing is non- compliant. He accepts that these issues were not raised with the landlord at the time. He refers to his photographic evidence. He also said he became ill in the house, found it cold and difficult to heat, and was hospitalised for two nights.

The landlord’s evidence in response includes an HHS report completed by Oncore dated 14 May 2024, showing that the insulation is fully compliant. In response to the tenant’s photographic evidence, the landlord states this does not show mould but residue from the wallpaper coming off, and there are no photographs showing water running down the windows. The landlord refers to a text from the tenant thanking the landlord on 20 August 2024.

The landlord states the HHS report was completed in 2020, and three categories did not meet the standard. These were then addressed. The heating standard was met well before the tenancy started, around 2023. Photographs of the heat pump were provided. The insulation was checked, and ducting for the kitchen extractor fan was installed in August/September 2024. The landlord notes that the CCC is separate from the HHS. The landlord’s evidence is that the house complied within the timeframe, by 1 June 2024, and refers to the inspection in November 2024.

In terms of the plumbing issue, the owner states that the tenant’s son had put the drain from the washing machine into the overflow pipe, when it should have gone into the waste pipe. This resulted in the short-circuiting of the electrics. He then arranged for this to be addressed. Legal framework

There are two main aspects to the tenant’s claims under the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). One concerns the HHS information. The tenant claims the HHS information is incorrect. The second relates to failures to comply with the HHS.

Section 13A of the RTA sets out the landlord’s disclosure obligations to tenants regarding the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).

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. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.

The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular, the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.

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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS. The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

The landlord has obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.

From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition. Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.

There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.

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 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A of the RTA. Analysis

In terms of the HHS information, it must be noted that the HHS is different to requirements as to building, health and safety. Establishing that the premises is an unlawful residential premises does not therefore mean the HHS is also not met, or that the landlord has been providing incorrect information to the tenant.

In this case, I find the tenant has not established, with sufficient evidence, that the landlord has failed to meet the HHS. While the HHS report of August 2020 showed some areas were not compliant at the time (heating, insulation, ventilation), the landlord has provided evidence to show that these issues have since been addressed. There is evidence of installation of the heat pump, which the landlord notes was installed before the start of this tenancy (in 2023). The Oncore report of May 2024 confirms that the insulation is fully compliant. There is also evidence of external ventilation for the extractor fans.

As noted by the Tribunal in Tenants v Client First Limited [2026] NZTT 5357563, the Healthy Homes Standards set specific rules for heating, ventilation, insulation, moisture and drainage and draught stopping. The intention of the HHS is to improve rental housing quality. But it does not guarantee that rental housing will be free of all problems that may impact on the health of the occupants.

Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Mould

On the issue of mould, as noted by the Tribunal in Semmens v Wadman, 1 mould is commonly present throughout all residential dwellings in New Zealand to some degree. In Auckland, many houses produce mould, particularly in view of the levels of humidity in this region. Such mould can usually be addressed by wiping with an appropriate cleaner. Where a property has an inherent problem or a leak causing mould, then the landlord will have a responsibility to remedy the fault. As noted by the Tribunal in Hullia v Tran & Vu 2 the premises must be able to be used and lived in, in the normal way, without excessive mould developing. If this cannot be done, then the problem of mould falls on the landlord to remedy under their obligations to maintain the property.

The presence of mould in a property can be caused by the state of the premises or a lack of ventilation. The fact that some mould was in the house is not enough to show that it was not in a reasonable state of repair, and the opinion of unqualified persons is often not persuasive: Repia v Walsh Trust. 3

In this case, the tenant’s photographic evidence is noted. However, as the cases referred to above have observed, the presence of mould, in itself, is insufficient to establish a breach on the part of the landlord. The landlord has provided evidence of moisture testing conducted by an independent company, Homewise. This report indicates the house is, on the whole, dry, with limited areas in the garage found to be damp. While noting the tenant reported having medical issues related to the condition of the house, this evidence has not been provided and therefore, it is difficult to make a link between his medical condition and issues relating to the premises.

Overall, I find that the tenant has been unable to establish, with sufficient evidence, that there were defects in the premises which have caused mould to develop. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. 1 [2022] NZTT Manukau 310605 2 [2018] NZTT Manukau 4138867 3 DC Waitakere, CIV-2011-090-00056, 27 April 2011 Unlawful entry

The tenant states the owner unlawfully entered the premises by opening the garage door, and entered the house through the laundry. He claims no notice was given. The tenant refers to a photograph, which he states was taken by his son on 12 November 2024.

The owner/landlord believes this photo was taken on 19 October 2024, being the day he entered to address the plumbing/electrical issue in the laundry, with the plumber and electrician. He states permission was given on 17 October 2024. There was entry due to an urgent callout, involving the switchboard and water pipe in the laundry, which he responded to promptly. This was appreciated by the tenant.

The parties provided further evidence after the hearing. The tenant’s evidence included statutory declarations from his son, and photographs. The landlord’s evidence included further photographic evidence, a written statement from the electrician, and the owner explaining the reason for entry to the premises. Legal framework and analysis

Under section 48 of the RTA, a landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, and repairs and maintenance. 4 Where the purpose of entry is to carry out necessary repairs or maintenance, section 48(2)(d) states that entry may be between 8am and 7pm, after giving the tenant notice of the intended entry, and the reason for, it at least 24 hours before the intended entry.

If a landlord enters the premises in contravention of section 48, this is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 5

Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find this claim has not been established, to the required standard. This is because the tenant’s evidence has been conflicting. The statutory declaration provides two different claimed entry dates of 21 November 2024 and 12 November 2024. Therefore, the date of the photograph provided by the tenant has not been clearly established. The landlord has also provided contrary evidence showing entry for repairs undertaken in October 2024, with the required permission being provided prior to entry.

Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. 4 See section 48(1) and (2) of the RTA 5 See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A of the RTA Other claims

The tenant asks whether the owner’s insurance has been advised about the property not having a CCC. I agree with the landlord that this is a matter for the owner/landlord to address with the insurer, rather than the Tribunal.

In terms of the adjournment request, while the landlord did object to the adjournment, the Tribunal was prepared to grant the tenant’s request, but there were some delays in obtaining information for the purpose of re-scheduling. However, in the interim, the tenant advised that he had changed his travel plans and was attending in person. So, the hearing proceeded as scheduled. It is unfortunate that this has occurred, but the tenant cannot expect to be compensated by the landlord for disruption to travel plans arising from an adjournment request. Filing fee and name suppression

As the tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Neither party has sought name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5429050 — net $1,200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent refund: unlawful residential premises	$1,200.00	Rent refund: unlawful residential premises
Net award	$1,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,200.00

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord’s representatives attended along with the owner/landlord.

Is the premises an unlawful residential premises?

Section 78A of the RTA sets out the range of orders the Tribunal may make concerning unlawful residential premises.

Accordingly, I find that the premises are unlawful residential premises under section 78A of the RTA.

Taking all these factors into account, I consider $1,200.00 to be an appropriate rent refund in this case for the premises being an unlawful residential premises.

Section 13A of the RTA sets out the landlord’s disclosure obligations to tenants regarding the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).

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 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A of the RTA. Analysis

Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Mould

If a landlord enters the premises in contravention of section 48, this is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 5

Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. 4 See section 48(1) and (2) of the RTA 5 See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A of the RTA Other claims

As the tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Neither party has sought name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5429050 — Tenancy dispute at 131 Ireland Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5429050 — Tenancy dispute at 131 Ireland Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the premises an unlawful residential premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the premises an unlawful residential premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions