What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5436749 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 5436749?

Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436749?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13285598-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5436749 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 5436749?

Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436749?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13285598-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

21G Awamutu Grove, Waiwhetu, Lower Hutt 5010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5436749 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5436749 — net $3,628.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$3,600.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,628.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,628.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5436749 — net $3,628.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$3,600.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,628.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,628.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $3,628.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

BY CONSENT - The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises: a. Rodent control and this work must be completed by Tuesday 17 March 2026. b. Repairing or replacing the front door so there are no unreasonable gaps or holes that allow draughts to arise and this work must be done by Friday 20 March 2026. c. Repairing or replacing the kitchen cabinets so they are functional and hygienic and free from holes that would allow rodents to enter and this work must be done by Friday 20 March 2026. d. Check and repair the windows and replace any that are too old to repair and make sure the house is free from unreasonable gaps or holes that allow draughts to arise and this work must be done by Friday 20 March 2026. e. Check the drainage outside the front door is working properly and meets the Healthy Homes Standards and this work must be done by Friday 20 March 2026.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tribunal had the assistance of an interpreter. The landlord was represented by Ms Smith. The neighbours and the suitability of the house
The tenant said the house is not fit for her purposes. She is in a complex which has other Kainga Ora tenants. The tenant said she advised her tenancy manager and made phone calls about the unsuitability of the neighbours and the dogs. She said it was inappropriate for her children to see the neighbours drunk and fighting. She also said the house is overcrowded and the bathroom, which is a wet area, is not suitable for children.
The landlord said it was unaware the tenant was not happy with the neighbourhood. No 14 day notices have been served. As well she said the issue of overcrowding and suitability was an issue for MSD, which is in charge of housing allocation.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I find she does not have enough evidence to prove the neighbours have breached her quiet enjoyment, or that the landlord knew about her concerns. This claim is dismissed.
As I said at the hearing I have no jurisdiction to decide if the housing allocation process was fair. This claim was not taken any further. The maintenance
The tenant claims that the landlord has not maintained the kitchen, the windows, or the front door. She said the house is cold and mouldy and hard to keep warm. There are rats in the house. She wants the landlord to check the drainage at the front door because it floods whenever it rains and may be mixing with the waste water. At the hearing she also said the bathroom was not suitable for her and her young children. The tenant wants the problems fixed.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements. Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) RTA.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. The tenant has proved the windows, the front door, the kitchen cabinets, and the area by the front door that floods when it rains all need maintenance. It seems likely to me the house is draughty. I am also persuaded there are rats. The landlord has agreed to work orders and the time frames so all of these issues can be fixed.
The tenant also claims the landlord is in breach of the obligations under section 45 of the RTA to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair. This is the tenant’s claim to prove. The landlord had the better evidence about repairs. The spread sheet shows the landlord has attended when notified and carried out maintenance. The claim there has been a breach of section 45 RTA is dismissed. Healthy homes standards
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
The tenant was concerned at the lack of insulation. There is no insulation or ground moisture barrier at the house. The landlord submitted the house is too low to the ground and has a skillion ceiling, meaning the insulation and the barrier these cannot be installed. I have seen the photos and it seems likely to me there is an HHS exemption for this house.
The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard. The compliance date for this tenancy was 1 July 2024.
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. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and schedule 1A RTA.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. She said the front door is twisted and the windows all leak cold air because the joinery is old and the window frames are rotten. I have not seen any photos of the windows, but the landlord’s spreadsheet showing all the maintenance carried out at the house during this tenancy shows that the tenant asked for maintenance in May 2025, just days after she moved in because the house was cold and draughty. Significant work was done. In August 2025 there was more maintenance on the windows, including replacing latches, fixing frames and attempting to make the windows draught proof. The tenant said the front door and windows are very draughty again, meaning the house is impossible to heat and always cold. She said she has talked to the tenancy manager about this.
The landlord said it had complied with its maintenance obligations. There was nothing on the file to show the tenant advised that the maintenance done in Augst had not resolved the draughts. The landlord could not provide a copy of the HHS statement which is meant to be attached to the tenancy agreement and given to the tenant before the start of the tenancy. The landlord also said there are plenty of heaters and the heat pump provides more heat that the HHS requires for that space.
It seems most likely to me the house did not meet the HHS requirements for draught stopping at the start of the tenancy. The first major repairs to the windows were within days of the tenancy starting, so I cannot see how a house certified as having no draughts at the start of the tenancy could become so draughty within a week. The fact there were similar repairs three months later suggests the windows are old and past fixing. I am also persuaded that the tenant talked to the tenancy manager about the draughts since the August repair.
I find exemplary damages can be ordered where the landlord has had notice there is a claim for an HHS breach and knows the usual penalty is exemplary damages. Not meeting the HHS is 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord is experienced and knows the law. I find it acted intentionally. The effect for the tenant has been a struggle to keep the house warm when cold air comes in through windows and the front door. I accept the tenant would have spent more than was necessary on heating. One child has asthma and had to go to ED during the last winter. The tenant is really worried about spending another winter in the house. It is in tenants interests that houses can be warm and healthy and there is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages to encourage compliance.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $3,600. This is mid scale because I know there have been similar orders made against the landlord, and not providing an HHS statement with the tenancy agreement is also an unlawful act. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because she is the most successful party. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436749 — Exemplary damages at 21G Awamutu Grove, Waiwhetu, Lower Hutt 5010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436749 — Exemplary damages at 21G Awamutu Grove, Waiwhetu, Lower Hutt 5010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions