What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5436535 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 5436535?

Compensation: Breach of Healthy Home…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Breaches of quiet enjo…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436535?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436535?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13843348-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5436535 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 5436535?

Compensation: Breach of Healthy Home…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Breaches of quiet enjo…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436535?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436535?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13843348-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

1 Menlo Terrace, Mount Pleasant, Christchurch 8081 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5436535 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5436535 — net $1,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach of Healthy Homes Standards insulation	$1,000.00	Breach of Healthy Homes Standards insulation
Compensation: Breaches of quiet enjoyment	$500.00	Breaches of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,528.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5436535 — net $1,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach of Healthy Homes Standards insulation	$1,000.00	Breach of Healthy Homes Standards insulation
Compensation: Breaches of quiet enjoyment	$500.00	Breaches of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,528.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The applications for compensation for moving costs, compensation for the purchase of garden tools, compensation and or exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain and repair the premises, exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond, and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 13 May 2026. I heard the tenant’s application in full. Just before the hearing ended the landlord arrived. He produced written submissions.
The landlord confirmed that he did not wish to speak to his submissions, he simply relied on what he had written.
I had earlier held a directions conference with the parties on 20 March 2026. I set out the issues raised in the tenant’s application, and I directed that each party file written submissions before the hearing. The landlord did not comply with that direction, so I adjourned the hearing to allow the tenant to provide a written response to the landlord’s submissions presented at the hearing.
The tenant provided his reply submissions as directed by 27 May 2026 and confirmed that he had completed his response. The hearing therefore ended on 27 May 2026.
I confirm that I have considered all the evidence and submissions placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to them. Background
The premises were in a house adjoined to another house where the landlord resides. However, the tenancy premises were entirely separate and, the tenant states, on a separate title. Initially a fixed term tenancy it became a periodic tenancy after the first year. There is no dispute that the premises were residential premises, and that the tenancy falls within the scope of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenancy started on 25 February 2024 and ended on 4 or 12 January 2026 (the stated dates vary). The tenant gave 2 weeks’ notice to terminate the tenancy but remained in the premises after that since he required more time to vacate.
The tenant paid the landlord a bond by instalments, $1,800.00 in total. The bond has since been applied to rent arrears and there is no bond refund issue.
The tenancy agreement provided that the tenant was responsible for maintaining the lawns and gardens and for the removal of garden waste 1 . 1 See clause 20 Tenancy Agreement dated 25 February 2024
During the tenancy the relationship between the parties became strained to a point where the tenant felt he needed to leave. Among the issues that arose was the tenor of some of the landlord’s correspondence.
Soon after the tenancy ended the tenant lodged his application.
Following the directions conference on 20 March 2026, I set out the issues raised by the tenant in my order and made directions for the parties to file their submissions before the scheduled hearing.
The tenant complied with the direction to file submissions. His submissions are comprehensive but are accompanied by a summary.
The landlord did not comply with the directions. He produced his written submissions at the hearing. I record again that when invited to speak to his submissions, the landlord chose not to.
The tenant has responded to the landlord’s submissions as is his right as the applicant party. The tenant’s application
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for alleged breaches by the landlord of his statutory responsibilities, some of which amount to unlawful acts. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment (in some cases amounting to harassment)? •Did the landlord fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)? •Did the tenant lose enjoyment of the tenancy through a diminished view? •Did the landlord fail to maintain and repair the premises? •Should the landlord reimburse the tenant’s moving costs? •Should the landlord reimburse the cost of gardening equipment? •Should the tenant be reimbursed increased power costs? •Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond? •Should the landlord be ordered to pay compensation and/or exemplary damages? Relevant legal considerations Statutory provisions
Section 19 RTA sets out a landlord’s duties on receipt of the bond.
Section 38 RTA provides that a tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord and that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the HHS. Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust 2 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
In Birch, the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: 2 [2020] NZDC 17667 Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Discussion Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment (in some cases amounting to harassment)?
Harassment is a serious or sustained breach of quiet enjoyment. It is behaviour that causes the affected party worry and distress usually on a repeated basis.
The tenant has referred to the landlord’s conditional and threatening language in his written communications, his course of conduct over time, and his knowledge of the tenant’s vulnerability when he made those comments.
Examples include comments such as ‘It doesn’t pay to antagonise me’, ‘tell me why you deserve to remain?’ and implied threats referencing the Ministry of Social Development and Inland Revenue.
Later in this decision (when I consider exemplary damages) I will comment on the Tribunal’s observations of the landlord’s language and attitudes.
Having considered the communications the landlord sent to the tenant produced in evidence, I do not conclude that they reached a threshold to be considered harassment. However, I am satisfied that they breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment: they interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the use of the premises.

Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS?

The landlord admits that he failed to comply with the HHS because there was no underfloor insulation, this is despite the tenancy agreement stating that the premises were HHS compliant. While the agreement might have been prepared by an agent, the landlord is responsible for the actions of his agent.
Despite accepting that the premises did not meet the HHS insulation standard, the landlord in his written submissions has diminished the tenant’s claim stating that ‘it had no effect on him anyway’.
Parliament enacted the HHS to ensure that rental premises are warm and dry. That the landlord (he says, relying on advice) thought insulation unnecessary is irrelevant.
I find that the landlord breached the HHS insulation standard. A failure to comply with the HHS is an unlawful act.

Did the tenant lose enjoyment of the tenancy through a diminished view?

The tenant has sought compensation of $4,000.00 for his view being restricted due to high growing vegetation which he claims was a lack of amenity.
The tenancy agreement provided that the tenant was to keep the gardens tidy and ‘pull obvious weeds’. Landlords are responsible for the maintenance of trees and shrubs.
The tenancy agreement was not conditional on a view being maintained. The tenant refers to correspondence acknowledging a premium for the view, but it was not a contractual term.
The tenant had the option of applying to the Tribunal for a work order during the tenancy if he considered the landlord was in breach. He did not do so.
I am not persuaded to award compensation for a loss of amenity for a restricted view. The tenant has not proved any compensable breach by the landlord. I dismiss this part of the application.

Did the landlord fail to maintain and repair the premises?

The tenant’s claims concern toilet blockages and vermin infestation. For a period of 3-4 days the toilet over-flowed (around September 2025) and the tenant had to repair it using a plunger and a ‘snake’ which he purchased at a cost of about $80.00.
The vermin were a known issue, referred to in the notes the landlord provided to the tenant at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant said after a handyman put poison in the ceiling, the kitchen and living room were ‘full of flies’ about 2 weeks later.
The premises were located on a hill suburb with bush around. The management of vermin is not a landlord maintenance responsibility. The landlord states that he was never made aware of the problem.
That a contractor put baits in the ceiling resulting in flies coming into the living areas is not a landlord breach. It is an issue that simply needs to be managed. Without a proven landlord breach, the Tribunal cannot award compensation.
The toilet overflow issue was a recurring matter. That is a landlord maintenance issue. However, the landlord states that he was never advised about the toilet over-flowing. The tenant states that it was a known issue referred to in the notes the landlord gave him at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant should have alerted the landlord to the problem, so the landlord had the opportunity to find the cause and address it. Tree roots are frequently the cause. That such a problem arises is not a breach of a landlord’s statutory responsibility, it is the landlord’s response that matters. As the landlord rightly asks, how could he be responsible for something he was not aware of? The tenant has not proved a compensable breach by the landlord. I dismiss this claim. Should the landlord reimburse the tenant’s moving costs?
The tenant terminated the tenancy on notice. He did not give the required period of notice, but then remained in the tenancy beyond the date stated in the notice because he was unable to complete his move.
That a tenancy ends because the parties do not get along, or because the landlord/tenant relationship has broken down, does not justify an award of compensation for moving costs.
Compensation follows a breach, in this case by the landlord. He did not terminate the tenancy unlawfully (or at all). Had he done so the Tribunal might consider compensation since it would follow a breach of the landlord’s statutory responsibilities when terminating a tenancy. But that did not happen.
Further, regardless of when the tenant vacated, he would have incurred moving costs. In that sense he suffered no additional compensable loss. I dismiss this claim.

Should the landlord reimburse the cost of gardening equipment?

The tenant seeks reimbursement of the cost of purchasing garden equipment - $180.00. The tenancy agreement provided that the tenant was responsible for the upkeep of the gardens. In separate notes the landlord said he was allowed ‘to plant whatever’. The notes also state that the landlord had garden tools the tenant was welcome to use.
The tenant had the option of taking the tools with him with him when he vacated the tenancy; they belonged to him. There is no compensable breach by the landlord. I dismiss this claim.

Should the tenant be reimbursed increased power costs?

The tenant claims additional power costs of $500.00 because he was not permitted to dry clothes inside the premises, and he was required to ventilate them. Those are not unusual conditions in a tenancy. The lack of ventilation and the drying of clothes inside can rapidly result in the build-up of mould. The Tribunal often deals with landlord claims for compensation as a result.
Further, the claim for increased electricity costs can only be a ‘best guess’. The Tribunal cannot award compensation on that basis. The tenant has not proved a compensable breach by the landlord resulting in increased electricity costs. I dismiss this claim.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

The tenant paid the bond in instalments (12 payments). The landlord never lodged the bond with the Bond Centre. The failure to lodge the bond is an unlawful act.
A landlord holds bond monies in trust until they are lodged with the Bond Centre. A landlord is taken to know the statutory requirement to lodge a bond within 23 working days after the payment is made 3 . A failure to do so often has an effect on the tenant, is against the tenant’s interests. It is always against the public interest. Should the landlord be ordered to pay compensation and/or exemplary damages?
First, I will address exemplary damages. The landlord failed to lodge the bond. He has explained why. He said that he attempted to help the tenant by accepting payment on an instalment basis, asked him how much he could afford, and accepted $150.00 per week. Then, he simply forgot to lodge the bond. It has since been applied to rent arrears.
That the Tribunal can award exemplary damages does not mean that it always should. In this case I do not find that the landlord acted with intent – he did not 3 See section 19(1)(b) RTA ‘turn his mind to the unlawful act and deliberately set about to commit it’ as is required to establish intent. 4 Nor was there any obvious effect on the tenant. His bond was used for rent.
I make no award of exemplary damages for this unlawful act in this case.
The failure to comply with the HHS is also a defined unlawful act. The landlord’s breach of the HHS related to the lack of underfloor insulation. The tenant’s evidence establishes that the underfloor area was accessible and could have (should have) been insulated.
For the same reasons I have declined to award exemplary damages for the non-lodgement of the bond, I decline to do so for the failure to ensure compliance with the HHS as it concerns the underfloor insulation.
The Tribunal’s assessment of the landlord is that he is an unusual character. He states that he is nearly 80 years of age. He has decided not to rent these premises again but to keep them in case he requires a ‘live-in’ nurse.
I will not record some parts of the landlord’s written submissions other than to note that his comments about the tenant and his children are simply offensive. I do not find them offensive in a calculated and cruel manner, rather, they represent the views of a man of his age out-of-step with modern sensitivities. Viewed objectively, this was a clash between people of different generations, with different values, and different tolerances.
Earlier, I noted that exemplary damages are punitive and have a deterrent element. They are the civil equivalent of a fine. I do not consider that the unlawful acts the landlord committed should attract a fine. Nor do they require deterrence given his decision to no longer rent the premises. He should know that the Tribunal has exercised some leniency, taking account of his age and his stated opinions that belong in another era.
That lenient approach has led the Tribunal to conclude that while he acted negligently, he did not act with intent. Negligence is not sufficient to meet the threshold for awarding exemplary damages. Were the same tenancy premises to come before the Tribunal in the future and with the same unlawful acts identified, the landlord could expect not only an award of exemplary damages against him, but an award at the upper end of the statutory maxima.
For these reasons, I dismiss the tenant’s application for exemplary damages.
Now, I will address compensation. Even though I have dismissed the tenant’s claims for exemplary damages, the Tribunal can still award compensation for those proven breaches. That is because compensation recognises loss and 4 See Birch v Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust attempts to remedy a proven breach by awarding the actual loss or the less tangible loss, such as the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
I have found proved the tenant’s allegation that the landlord interfered with his quiet enjoyment of the tenancy through his many inappropriate communications some of which contained implied threats of what he might do.
For the landlord’s breaches of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the tenancy I award the tenant compensation of $500.00.
For the landlord’s failure to ensure compliance with the HHS, I award the tenant compensation of $1,000.00. Result
The landlord will pay the tenant $1,528.00 comprising compensation of $1,500.00, and reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenant sought, and is entitled to, a name suppression order as the application is partly successful. The landlord did not specifically address name suppression in his written submissions. I have also granted him name suppression since his defence to many of the tenant’s claims is successful 5 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436535 — Healthy homes at 1 Menlo Terrace, Mount Pleasant, Christchurch 8081

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436535 — Healthy homes at 1 Menlo Terrace, Mount Pleasant, Christchurch 8081

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS?

Did the tenant lose enjoyment of the tenancy through a diminished view?

Did the landlord fail to maintain and repair the premises?

Should the landlord reimburse the cost of gardening equipment?

Should the tenant be reimbursed increased power costs?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS?

Did the tenant lose enjoyment of the tenancy through a diminished view?

Did the landlord fail to maintain and repair the premises?

Should the landlord reimburse the cost of gardening equipment?

Should the tenant be reimbursed increased power costs?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions