Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5431297 — Healthy homes at 53 Gregg Street, Dannevirke, Dannevirke 4930, House
Decided 5 Aug 2026 · Published 5 Aug 2026 · Application 5431297
- Healthy homes
- Exemplary damages
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $6,028.00 immediately. This sum is made up as follows: a. Previous Order 7 July 2026$2,000.00 b. Exemplary damages: bond$500.00 c. Compensation: failure to maintain and HHS$3,324.00 d. Exemplary damages: failure to maintain and HHS$2,400.00 e. Filing fee reimbursement$28.00
- If the landlord has paid the amount of $2,000.00 payable to the tenant under the Tribunal’s previous Order, then the amount owing is $6,252.00 which is payable immediately.
Reasons
- The tenant has now supplied a Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) Certificate of Compliance dated 14 July 2026. As discussed at the hearing on 7 July 2026, this signifies that all the claims raised in the tenant’s application have now been addressed and the Tribunal can make its final order. The tenant’s claims
- The tenant’s application included claims for compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s: a. Failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. See section 19(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). b. Failure to maintain the guttering and the cooking facility and to remedy a rodent issue. See section 45(1)(b) RTA. c. Failure to comply with the HHS. See section 45(1)(bb) RTA. d. Unlawful entry into the premises by the landlord’s parents. See section 48 RTA. e. Breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by leaving his possessions at the premises. See section 38 RTA. Standard of proof and evidence
- In considering the claims, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that her claim is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
- In deciding each claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
- While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
- By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
- It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
- The Tribunal must have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
- It is intended that this order be as concise as possible to convey the essential facts, the law and the Tribunal’s reasons for its decisions. Failure to lodge the bond
- The landlord accepted that having received the bond at the start of the tenancy, he did not lodge it with the Bond Centre until some five months later in January 2026.
- A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- By not lodging the bond within the prescribed period, the landlord has 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.
- A landlord is in business and is deemed to know the law. Failure to perform an obligation under the RTA is considered intentional. There is a public interest in ensuring that landlord’s do not breach their obligation to pay bonds to the Bond Centre.
- While there was no loss to the tenant and the bond was paid once the landlord was made aware of his obligation, it is appropriate to award the tenant the sum of $500.00 in exemplary damages being one third of the maximum available. Failure to maintain
- The tenant claimed that the landlord had failed to adequately repair the stove top and oven. She gave evidence that she complained to the landlord on 8 January 2026 that the elements were not regulating properly and the oven was not heating. In the absence of a functioning cooking facility, she used a hot plate.
- At the first hearing on 21 April 2026, the landlord advised that his electrician reported that the elements functioned but did not regulate properly and needed replacement. He provided evidence that his electrician confirmed that the oven functioned properly.
- At the second hearing on 27 May 2026 the landlord confirmed that three elements had been replaced with the last one being installed on 20 May 2026. This means that the tenant was without a fully functioning stove top for a period of five months. This is not a reasonable period for such a straightforward repair to have been completed.
- The tenant had also complained in January 2026 that the guttering system was not effective and that rainwater spilled over onto the ground and pooled. The landlord came to the premises and cleaned out the gutters. He acknowledged at the first hearing that the angles of the guttering were not right and that they had sagged so that the water was not draining into the downpipes.
- The tenant also complained during the hearing on 27 May 2026 that there was an issue with mice in the property and, in particular, in the heat pump. She claimed that the mice faeces had damaged her bedding and other items but did not produce any evidence in support of this claim.
- The landlord confirmed that a contractor had attended the property on 26 May 2026 to lay bait and had advised that the issue was to be expected as the days became cooler and mice tended to come inside and make their presence felt. The landlord also confirmed that he had arranged with a residential cleaner to come to the property to clean it and the air conditioner for the tenant.
- The landlord’s obligation under section 45(1)(b) RTA is to investigate and repair any defect brought to their attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what that timeframe is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right whatever the problem might be.
- In Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV 2009- 085-001431, 24 February 2010 the Court stated: “I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair the defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”.
- The Tribunal accepts that the rodent issue was resolved in a reasonable timeframe. The presence of mice is not conclusive evidence of a failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The landlord took the appropriate action to address the tenant’s concerns and also took the additional step of having the premises cleaned. As the tenant has not produced any further evidence as required in paragraph 6 of the Tribunal’s Order of 27 May 2026, her claim is dismissed.
- The landlord explained that the delays were caused by his inability to get suitable contractors to attend to the work because of a shortage of contractors in this vicinity. This may explain the delay, but it does not excuse it as the tenant has had to put up with a faulty stove top and leaking guttering for many months.
- The Tribunal has therefore determined that the landlord has committed an unlawful act in not having the stove top and the guttering repaired within a reasonable time.
- Breaching the obligation to maintain is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) RTA.
- A consideration of appropriate compensation and exemplary damages is made together with the tenant’s claim for breaching the HHS below. Breaches of the HHS
- The landlord acknowledged at the first hearing that he had not obtained a HHS report and he did not know whether the property complied. He obtained a report on 22 April 2026 that confirmed: a. The ceiling insulation was insufficient and required topping up. The HHS Certificate of Compliance confirmed that the required work was completed on 2 July 2026. b. There was no operational extractor fan in the kitchen. The HHS Certificate of Compliance confirmed that the required work was completed on 29 May 2026. c. There were the following draught stopping issues: i. Latch issues with a lounge window, bedroom 1 window and the laundry window. ii. The door between bedroom 3 and the garage. iii. The kitchen door to the exterior. d. The HHS Certificate of Compliance confirmed that the required work was completed on 2 July 2026. e. The gutters required adjustment due to insufficient fall, mainly on the driveway side. The HHS Certificate of Compliance confirmed that the required work was completed on 2 July 2026.
- The landlord’s contractor certified that the property complied with the HHS on 14 July 2026.
- All private rentals had to comply with the HHS by 1 July 2025. The landlord has committed an unlawful act by not complying with the HHS until that date.
- The tenant gave evidence that the house was cold and damp and hard to heat. Without providing any evidence, she claimed that her power bills were very high.
- The landlord responded by giving her compensation of $1,120.00 and a rent reduction of $80.00 per week from the rent of $530.00. Despite requesting evidence of these payments in paragraph 10 of the Tribunal’s Order of 27 May 2026, [The party] was provided by the landlord. The tenant agreed that the lump sum was paid to her and that the rent had been reduced.
- From the limited evidence, it appears that the landlord has compensated the tenant as follows: a. Lump sum payment $1,120.00. b. Rent reduction from April 2026 to 20 July 2026: 16 weeks @ $80.00 = $1,280.00.
- The Tribunal can reasonably conclude that the tenant has been paid compensation of $2,400.00.
- The tenant is under an obligation to notify the landlord of any repair required. See section 40(1)(d) RTA. As noted, the landlord must carry out the repairs within a reasonable time. The tenant is entitled to compensation for the lack of amenity during any unreasonable period of time that it takes for the repairs to be completed.
- It is the landlord’s statutory obligation to comply with the HHS. The tenant has no obligation to notify the landlord of noncompliance. The tenant is therefore entitled to compensation for the period from the start of the tenancy until the HHS Certificate of Compliance was issued on 14 July 2026.
- On the evidence before the Tribunal, it concludes that fair compensation to the tenant is: a. Lack of a fully functioning stove top from 13 January to 20 May 2026 (18 weeks) at 10% of weekly rent of $530.00 = $954.00. This allows one week as a reasonable time to expect the repair to have been completed. b. Failure to comply with the HHS in relation to guttering, ventilation in the kitchen and draught stopping from the start of the tenancy on 30 August 2025 to 14 July 2026 (45 weeks) at 20% of weekly rent of $530.00 = $4,770.00.
- The 10% compensation for the lack of a functioning stove top is to reflect the inconvenience of not having the use of an essential facility required under Regulation 7 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947.
- The 20% compensation for the failure to comply with the HHS is in compensation for the tenant enduring colder, damper and more draughty conditions than she was entitled to under the HHS. It reflects the reasonable assumption that during the autumn and winter months at least, the tenant will have incurred higher power costs than she would have but for the landlord’s failure to comply with his HHS obligations.
- After deduction of the compensation paid by the landlord of $2,400.00, there remains a sum of $3,324.00 payable by the landlord in compensation for his failure to maintain the premises and comply with the HHS.
- Calculation of compensation in cases such as this is not a fine art. The calculations made reflect a fair assessment required to determine the tenant’s claim on the substantial merits and justice of her case.
- It remains to consider the amount of exemplary damages to be paid by the landlord for his breaches of section 45 RTA.
- The landlord’s breaches of the HHS were intentional as he chose to ignore his statutory obligations. The delay in repairing the stove top was not intentional as he struggled to get a contractor to complete the necessary work. The landlord’s failure to have the guttering repaired was intentional in relation to compliance with the HHS. It is not necessary to consider whether it was intentional in relation to the failure to maintain. The effect of these failures on the tenant and the public interest in deterrence of landlord’s not complying is the Tribunal’s primary focus in determining the amount of exemplary damages in this case.
- The Tribunal may award exemplary damages for each breach. However, it is appropriate in this case to award one sum of $2,400.00 being one third of the maximum for these breaches. This also reflects the fact that this is the first time the landlord has come before the Tribunal and to acknowledge his efforts to achieve compliance once he was aware if his obligations. Unlawful entry
- The tenant claimed that the landlord’s parents came to the property on 6 January 2026 as the landlord’s agents without giving the required notice.
- She agreed that they had come in response to the tenant’s request for repairs and that she agreed to them entering the premises.
- The landlord and his agents are permitted to come onto the premises for good reason without giving notice. They may then only enter the property with the tenant’s consent.
- As the tenant granted consent, the landlord has not unlawfully entered the property and the tenant’s claim must be dismissed. Breach of quiet enjoyment
- The tenant claimed and the landlord accepted that the landlord left at the premises four chairs, garden tools, a kitchen table and some paint. These were removed by the landlord as required by the Tribunal’s Order of 21 April 2026.
- The tenant is entitled to the vacant possession of the premises. The landlord’s leaving these items behind is a breach of the tenant’s entitlement to quiet enjoyment. However, the breach is relatively minor and the landlord took action when required. The Tribunal has determined that the tenant is adequately compensated for the inconvenience in the awards of compensation already made in this Order. Filing fee and suppression
- Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim the Tribunal must reimburse the filing fee and grant her request for suppression.