What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5431208 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 5431208?

Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5431208?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5431208?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13616254-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5431208 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 5431208?

Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5431208?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5431208?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13616254-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

38 Sunshine Avenue, Karori, Wellington 6012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5431208 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5431208 — net $2,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: not entitled to give notice	$2,500.00	not entitled to give notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,528.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Oxygen.Co.Nz Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This order should be read in conjunction with my order made on 8 April 2026. In that order I found the landlord gave a notice to terminate the tenancy it was not entitled to give. This happened because the landlord ‘transitioned’ the tenants onto a periodic tenancy at the end of August 2025 and then gave a 90 day notice in January 2026. All other claims, including exemplary damages, were adjourned. The questions I have to decide include: • Was there a breach of the duty to replace the oven? • Was there a breach of the draught stopping standard? • Was there a retaliatory notice? • Should the tenants get exemplary damages?

Was there a breach of the duty to replace the oven?

The tenants have claimed they had to use an oven that was in need of replacement. They want compensation because there was a loss to them. When the tenants moved in they let the landlord know that the oven did not have any markings and the seal was loose. A temporary fix was made for the seal and the landlord found a manual which meant the tenants could use the oven. A new seal was ordered but never delivered because the part is obsolete. The tenants were never told about the part. In February 2026 the tenants asked for a rent reduction because the oven had not been working properly. At the hearing they said the oven took about 50% longer to heat up and cook things. The landlord arranged for an electrician to check the oven and I have a written statement that there were no safety concerns.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I note the tenants have already accepted $300 compensation for all issues to 25 August 2025, which means I can only consider a claim for compensation from 26 August. I find the landlord should have followed up with the tradesman because the tenants might have got a new oven had that happened. However, I cannot find any record of the tenants telling the landlord the oven was no longer functioning properly, and there were no safety issues around the temporary fix. I find the tenants have not proved there was a loss and the claim for compensation is dismissed.

Was there a breach of the draught stopping standard?

The tenants’ claim that the landlord 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) Regulations 2019 (HHS). They consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the draught stopping standard. The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises are free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, and which allow draughts to arise.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. The landlord arranged for draught stopping to be done not long after the tenants moved in. The tenants did contact the landlord after this with photos showing they were struggling to heat the lounge to 18 degrees over winter. The tenants had vey high power bills and I accept they were cold. They asked if the landlord would consider installing a second heatpump and double glazing, but the landlord said no. I cannot see anywhere that the tenants have asked for more draught stopping or explained that the house was cold because of draughts. I find the tenants have not proved the landlord knew about the draughts. The claim for breach of the HHS is dismissed.

Was there a retaliatory notice?

The tenants’ claim the 90 day notice given on 20 January 2026 was a retaliatory notice. This is because the notice was given 15 days after they questioned whether the insulation was sufficient to meet the HHS. For a notice to be declared retaliatory the tenant must prove that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) RTA.
The landlord submitted that the insulation query was not a consideration when the owner and the landlord discussed ending the tenancy. I was provided with supporting documents to show that, with the exception of the oven, the landlord completed all the maintenance brought to its attention during the tenancy.
I have read the documents provided. The tenants raised a number of maintenance issues after they were ‘transitioned onto a periodic tenancy’ and they were not given a 90 day notice. They questioned compliance with the HHS more than once and this did not lead to a 90 day notice. Given that all rent was being paid it seems unlikely the tenants were given notice because the landlord might be able to get a better rent. I am not persuaded the 90 day notice was a retaliatory notice and all claims relating to this are dismissed.

Should the tenants get exemplary damages?

In my previous order I determined that the tenants had a fixed term tenancy and the landlord was not entitled to give the 90 day notice. The tenants have claimed exemplary damages because the landlord breached its obligations under section 60AA RTA.
Under section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so. Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find the landlord 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) RTA.
The landlord said it truly believed it was acting within the law when it gave the 90 day notice. The property manager said both she and her managers thought the tenancy was periodic and therefore the 90 day notice was a valid option. However, I find the landlord should have taken more care to investigate the law when proposing to change the type of tenancy and followed up to check the tenants agreed. The tenants were in shock when they received the notice because they thought they had the security of a fixed term. The notice caused lots of disruption and stress and the costs of moving earlier than planned were significant. It is in tenants’ interests that landlords understand the law before making significant changes during a tenancy. There is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages when there is a breach of the RTA.
I allow $2,500 in exemplary damages, which is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar orders against the landlord. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
There are applications for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The tenants’ names are suppressed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords breach the RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5431208 — net $2,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: not entitled to give notice	$2,500.00	not entitled to give notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,528.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Oxygen.Co.Nz Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This order should be read in conjunction with my order made on 8 April 2026. In that order I found the landlord gave a notice to terminate the tenancy it was not entitled to give. This happened because the landlord ‘transitioned’ the tenants onto a periodic tenancy at the end of August 2025 and then gave a 90 day notice in January 2026. All other claims, including exemplary damages, were adjourned. The questions I have to decide include: • Was there a breach of the duty to replace the oven? • Was there a breach of the draught stopping standard? • Was there a retaliatory notice? • Should the tenants get exemplary damages?

Was there a breach of the duty to replace the oven?

The tenants have claimed they had to use an oven that was in need of replacement. They want compensation because there was a loss to them. When the tenants moved in they let the landlord know that the oven did not have any markings and the seal was loose. A temporary fix was made for the seal and the landlord found a manual which meant the tenants could use the oven. A new seal was ordered but never delivered because the part is obsolete. The tenants were never told about the part. In February 2026 the tenants asked for a rent reduction because the oven had not been working properly. At the hearing they said the oven took about 50% longer to heat up and cook things. The landlord arranged for an electrician to check the oven and I have a written statement that there were no safety concerns.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I note the tenants have already accepted $300 compensation for all issues to 25 August 2025, which means I can only consider a claim for compensation from 26 August. I find the landlord should have followed up with the tradesman because the tenants might have got a new oven had that happened. However, I cannot find any record of the tenants telling the landlord the oven was no longer functioning properly, and there were no safety issues around the temporary fix. I find the tenants have not proved there was a loss and the claim for compensation is dismissed.

Was there a breach of the draught stopping standard?

The tenants’ claim that the landlord 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) Regulations 2019 (HHS). They consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the draught stopping standard. The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises are free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, and which allow draughts to arise.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. The landlord arranged for draught stopping to be done not long after the tenants moved in. The tenants did contact the landlord after this with photos showing they were struggling to heat the lounge to 18 degrees over winter. The tenants had vey high power bills and I accept they were cold. They asked if the landlord would consider installing a second heatpump and double glazing, but the landlord said no. I cannot see anywhere that the tenants have asked for more draught stopping or explained that the house was cold because of draughts. I find the tenants have not proved the landlord knew about the draughts. The claim for breach of the HHS is dismissed.

Was there a retaliatory notice?

The tenants’ claim the 90 day notice given on 20 January 2026 was a retaliatory notice. This is because the notice was given 15 days after they questioned whether the insulation was sufficient to meet the HHS. For a notice to be declared retaliatory the tenant must prove that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) RTA.
The landlord submitted that the insulation query was not a consideration when the owner and the landlord discussed ending the tenancy. I was provided with supporting documents to show that, with the exception of the oven, the landlord completed all the maintenance brought to its attention during the tenancy.
I have read the documents provided. The tenants raised a number of maintenance issues after they were ‘transitioned onto a periodic tenancy’ and they were not given a 90 day notice. They questioned compliance with the HHS more than once and this did not lead to a 90 day notice. Given that all rent was being paid it seems unlikely the tenants were given notice because the landlord might be able to get a better rent. I am not persuaded the 90 day notice was a retaliatory notice and all claims relating to this are dismissed.

Should the tenants get exemplary damages?

In my previous order I determined that the tenants had a fixed term tenancy and the landlord was not entitled to give the 90 day notice. The tenants have claimed exemplary damages because the landlord breached its obligations under section 60AA RTA.
Under section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so. Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find the landlord 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) RTA.
The landlord said it truly believed it was acting within the law when it gave the 90 day notice. The property manager said both she and her managers thought the tenancy was periodic and therefore the 90 day notice was a valid option. However, I find the landlord should have taken more care to investigate the law when proposing to change the type of tenancy and followed up to check the tenants agreed. The tenants were in shock when they received the notice because they thought they had the security of a fixed term. The notice caused lots of disruption and stress and the costs of moving earlier than planned were significant. It is in tenants’ interests that landlords understand the law before making significant changes during a tenancy. There is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages when there is a breach of the RTA.
I allow $2,500 in exemplary damages, which is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar orders against the landlord. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
There are applications for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The tenants’ names are suppressed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords breach the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5431208 — Exemplary damages at 38 Sunshine Avenue, Karori, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5431208 — Exemplary damages at 38 Sunshine Avenue, Karori, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach of the duty to replace the oven?

Was there a breach of the draught stopping standard?

Was there a retaliatory notice?

Should the tenants get exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach of the duty to replace the oven?

Was there a breach of the draught stopping standard?

Was there a retaliatory notice?

Should the tenants get exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions