What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438145 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 5438145?

Compensation: $1,404.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438145?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438145?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13593524-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438145 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 5438145?

Compensation: $1,404.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438145?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438145?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13593524-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

79 Clyde Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5438145 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5438145 — net $1,582.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation by way of rent reduction	$1,404.00	Compensation by way of rent reduction
Exemplary damages for breach of section 29	$150.00	Exemplary damages for breach of section 29
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,582.00
Bond	$3,240.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,582.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application by Michael Kinraid for rent arrears is withdrawn.
Michael Kinraid must pay [The tenant/s] $1,582.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,240.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the tenant by telephone.
On 4/2/2026 the tenant filed an application for refund of the $3,240.00 bond and exemplary damages and compensation for the failure to supply a receipt when cash was paid for rent and failure to maintain the premises.
In response on 23/3/2026 the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears of $3,240.00.
At the hearing the landlord confirmed that the tenant had paid rent of $3,240.00 on 23/3/2026, which the tenant disputed, and as no rent was owing the application for arrears was withdrawn.
An Order for refund of the bond to the tenant has been made.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 1/1/2025 to 31/12/2025 at $1,080.00 rent a week.

Did the landlord fail to provide a receipt for rent paid in cash?

The tenant claims the landlord failed to provide a receipt for the three weeks rent paid in cash on 10/12/2025.
The landlord did not dispute that no receipt was issued and submitted that he used the cash to purchase a heat pump.
A landlord must give a written receipt immediately for any rent paid by cash. See section 29(1) and (2)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 29(5) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no dispute that the tenant paid the landlord cash of $3,240.00 or that he failed to provide a receipt for the payment.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

Did the landlord comply with his obligations?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached his obligations by failing to repair the hole in the roof and the heat pump or stopping draughts from windows.
The tenant submitted that there had been a hole in the ceiling of one bedroom since the beginning of the tenancy which let in water from a leak in the roof.
The landlord had been advised of this issue on 16/2/2025 but took until 10/8/2025 to resolve the problem.
In addition, the tenant suggested that the heat pump had not worked properly during the whole tenancy but was not replaced until the end of the term.
In support of the claim the tenant provided text communication between the parties and photographs of the bedroom ceiling hole and condensation dated 15/2/ and the end of July 2025 respectively.
While confirming that he knew about the leaking roof from February 16 the landlord explained the steps he had undertaken to fix the problem, which had not been finally resolved until July 2025.
The landlord confirmed that he first became aware of the problems with the heat pump in June but did not purchase a replacement until after the cash payment from the tenant on 10/12/2025.
In addition, the landlord submitted that mould had been cleaned from the bedroom, windows sealed and washing machine repairs initiated in August 2025.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Section 45(1)(bb) requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s]
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 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.
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(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. 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. ii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
As the tenancy began on 1/1/2025 the compliance date would have been 30 April 2025.
The evidence is clear that the moisture ingress through the roof into one bedroom and draught stopping of windows were not remedied until mid-August 2025, three and a half months after the end of the Healthy Homes Compliance standards date.
Further I am persuaded that the heat pump did not work properly through out most of the tenancy.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

Should exemplary damages and or compensation be awarded?

As I have found the landlord committed unlawful acts by failing to provide a receipt for a cash payment and failing to provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair or comply with Healthy Homes Standards I must consider the issue of exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
An award of exemplary damages is made at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved the other party has committed unlawful acts, as is the case here.
Before the Tribunal can award exemplary damages, it needs to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3), the first of which is intent.
The District Court has said the requirement of intention is not about whether the party was aware they were breaching the Act. Rather, it is about whether they acted intentionally i.e. whether they intended to do whatever it was they did or did not do, (Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00 DC Auckland, 1/5/2001).
The District Court has generally rejected a landlord pleading confusion, lack of knowledge, or ignorance of the law, see TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.
I consider the evidence supports that the landlord acted intentionally in failing to provide a receipt for the cash payment due to his explanation about financial obligations.
While the effect on both parties was minimal, it is in the public interest that a landlord complies with the obligations in the legislation.
In such circumstances I have awarded exemplary damages, but at the lower end of the scale and have set these at $150.00.
The evidence about whether the landlord acted intentionally in failing to maintain the premises or comply with healthy homes standards is less clear.
I am persuaded, just, by the submissions of the landlord that he undertook work on the roof when he became aware of the problem, albeit that it took some months to fix as did the heat pump and draught stopping.
Due to the lack of intent exemplary damages are therefore not available to the tenant for the breach of section 45(1)(b)&(bb).
However, I consider it is appropriate to award compensation because the actions of the landlord led to one tenant in particular suffering significant condensation problems during the tenancy as well of lack of a reliable heat source and draught issues.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
The Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to the strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
I have awarded compensation of $1,404.00 based on the tenant’s calculation of 5% of the weekly rent of $1,080.00.
As the tenant has succeeded with the application, I have awarded the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the tenant pursuant to section 95A because they were successful in the proceedings.
No suppression is available to the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5438145 — net $1,582.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation by way of rent reduction	$1,404.00	Compensation by way of rent reduction
Exemplary damages for breach of section 29	$150.00	Exemplary damages for breach of section 29
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,582.00
Bond	$3,240.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,582.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application by Michael Kinraid for rent arrears is withdrawn.
Michael Kinraid must pay [The tenant/s] $1,582.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,240.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the tenant by telephone.
On 4/2/2026 the tenant filed an application for refund of the $3,240.00 bond and exemplary damages and compensation for the failure to supply a receipt when cash was paid for rent and failure to maintain the premises.
In response on 23/3/2026 the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears of $3,240.00.
At the hearing the landlord confirmed that the tenant had paid rent of $3,240.00 on 23/3/2026, which the tenant disputed, and as no rent was owing the application for arrears was withdrawn.
An Order for refund of the bond to the tenant has been made.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 1/1/2025 to 31/12/2025 at $1,080.00 rent a week.

Did the landlord fail to provide a receipt for rent paid in cash?

The tenant claims the landlord failed to provide a receipt for the three weeks rent paid in cash on 10/12/2025.
The landlord did not dispute that no receipt was issued and submitted that he used the cash to purchase a heat pump.
A landlord must give a written receipt immediately for any rent paid by cash. See section 29(1) and (2)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 29(5) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no dispute that the tenant paid the landlord cash of $3,240.00 or that he failed to provide a receipt for the payment.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

Did the landlord comply with his obligations?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached his obligations by failing to repair the hole in the roof and the heat pump or stopping draughts from windows.
The tenant submitted that there had been a hole in the ceiling of one bedroom since the beginning of the tenancy which let in water from a leak in the roof.
The landlord had been advised of this issue on 16/2/2025 but took until 10/8/2025 to resolve the problem.
In addition, the tenant suggested that the heat pump had not worked properly during the whole tenancy but was not replaced until the end of the term.
In support of the claim the tenant provided text communication between the parties and photographs of the bedroom ceiling hole and condensation dated 15/2/ and the end of July 2025 respectively.
While confirming that he knew about the leaking roof from February 16 the landlord explained the steps he had undertaken to fix the problem, which had not been finally resolved until July 2025.
The landlord confirmed that he first became aware of the problems with the heat pump in June but did not purchase a replacement until after the cash payment from the tenant on 10/12/2025.
In addition, the landlord submitted that mould had been cleaned from the bedroom, windows sealed and washing machine repairs initiated in August 2025.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Section 45(1)(bb) requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s]
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 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.
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(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. 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. ii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
As the tenancy began on 1/1/2025 the compliance date would have been 30 April 2025.
The evidence is clear that the moisture ingress through the roof into one bedroom and draught stopping of windows were not remedied until mid-August 2025, three and a half months after the end of the Healthy Homes Compliance standards date.
Further I am persuaded that the heat pump did not work properly through out most of the tenancy.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

Should exemplary damages and or compensation be awarded?

As I have found the landlord committed unlawful acts by failing to provide a receipt for a cash payment and failing to provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair or comply with Healthy Homes Standards I must consider the issue of exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
An award of exemplary damages is made at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved the other party has committed unlawful acts, as is the case here.
Before the Tribunal can award exemplary damages, it needs to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3), the first of which is intent.
The District Court has said the requirement of intention is not about whether the party was aware they were breaching the Act. Rather, it is about whether they acted intentionally i.e. whether they intended to do whatever it was they did or did not do, (Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00 DC Auckland, 1/5/2001).
The District Court has generally rejected a landlord pleading confusion, lack of knowledge, or ignorance of the law, see TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.
I consider the evidence supports that the landlord acted intentionally in failing to provide a receipt for the cash payment due to his explanation about financial obligations.
While the effect on both parties was minimal, it is in the public interest that a landlord complies with the obligations in the legislation.
In such circumstances I have awarded exemplary damages, but at the lower end of the scale and have set these at $150.00.
The evidence about whether the landlord acted intentionally in failing to maintain the premises or comply with healthy homes standards is less clear.
I am persuaded, just, by the submissions of the landlord that he undertook work on the roof when he became aware of the problem, albeit that it took some months to fix as did the heat pump and draught stopping.
Due to the lack of intent exemplary damages are therefore not available to the tenant for the breach of section 45(1)(b)&(bb).
However, I consider it is appropriate to award compensation because the actions of the landlord led to one tenant in particular suffering significant condensation problems during the tenancy as well of lack of a reliable heat source and draught issues.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
The Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to the strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
I have awarded compensation of $1,404.00 based on the tenant’s calculation of 5% of the weekly rent of $1,080.00.
As the tenant has succeeded with the application, I have awarded the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the tenant pursuant to section 95A because they were successful in the proceedings.
No suppression is available to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438145 — Exemplary damages at 79 Clyde Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438145 — Exemplary damages at 79 Clyde Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to provide a receipt for rent paid in cash?

Did the landlord comply with his obligations?

Should exemplary damages and or compensation be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to provide a receipt for rent paid in cash?

Did the landlord comply with his obligations?

Should exemplary damages and or compensation be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions