Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5438151 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 3 Jul 2026 · Published 3 Jul 2026 · Application 5438151
- Exemplary damages
- Healthy homes
- Leaks
- Mould & damp
- State of repair
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 tenants’ names and identifying details.
- Property Brokers Canterbury Limited and Wolff Farms Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,028.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The tenants’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
Reasons
- All parties attended the hearing which was conducted by video conference.
- The tenants claim compensation and exemplary damages for breach of the landlords’ obligations relating mainly to the condition of the premises.
- On 6 March 2026 the Tribunal issued a directions order striking out two of the tenants’ claims. This order determines their remaining claims.
- I will refer to the respondents together as the landlords and identify them individually as the owner and the agent where necessary. Background
- This tenancy began in August 2023 and ended in June 2025.
- The premises are a house on a rural block that was purchased by the landlord shortly before the tenancy began. This was the first tenancy of the premises under the landlord and the landlord’s first experience of being a residential landlord.
- The landlord appointed the agent to manage the tenancy and obtained a Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) Report which found the premises to be fully compliant with the Standards.
- The agents were the tenants first point of contact but the landlord’s principal, Mr Wolff, attended at the premises from time to time to assess their condition, sometimes carried out minor work and arranged contractors to carry out other work.
- From May 2024 the tenants raised issues with the agent concerning the condition of the premises and they were communicated to the landlord. The tenants say that the landlord failed to deal with some of these issues properly, in a timely manner or at all.
- The landlord and the agent deny that they have failed to comply with their obligations and that they should be liable to pay compensation or exemplary damages. Relevant Law
- Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, and comply with HHS.
- The HHS 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 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.
- Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
- 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.
- Landlords must not interfere with a tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. Claims Lighting
- A set of three lights in the kitchen began to fail in May 2024 and the tenants reported the situation to the agent. On 7 July the tenants messaged the agent and said that they were down to one working light. They said in evidence that they had stopped using the lights in August because they regarded the lights as a safety hazard.
- The landlord replaced the lights in February 2025.
- The tenants said that they used a camping light hung from the extractor fan for light. They recharged it overnight. They did not use a table lamp on the kitchen bench because of safety concerns.
- There was light from the adjacent dining area, but they said the loss of the main kitchen lights caused them inconvenience and loss of amenity. They seek a 10% rent rebate for the time they were affected by the loss of the lights plus $1,200 compensation.
- The landlords say that whilst the tenants reported the light failure to them, they did not make it clear that they were not using the lights and, when they did, the lights were quickly replaced. They point to the tenant’s message referring to one working light as evidence that they still had some light.
- A point that the landlords made in relation to the tenants’ claims generally is that often they did not ask the landlords to take any action when they reported a problem. They said that there is a difference between notifying a landlord of a problem and explicitly asking the landlord to do something about it. A landlord is entitled to note a report but is not, or at least is not necessarily, obliged to take any action without a request to do so.
- I agree that there will be times when a landlord can receive a report of a problem and not take any action without being in breach of their obligations. But whether the landlord is required to act is always going to be a question of fact and degree.
- To take an extreme example, if a tenant reports a hole in the roof allowing water to enter the premises, the landlord will have an obligation to act quickly to repair the hole. It is not necessary for the tenant to ask for the hole to be fixed before the landlord comes under an obligation to fix it. The need for the repair (urgently in this example) is obvious.
- In my view a responsible landlord should be diligent in ensuring that the premises meet the required standards. If a landlord is in any doubt, they can always ask the tenant if they want something done and that will often be the responsible and prudent thing to do.
- The tenants reported a problem with the light, and I find that the landlords should, at the least, have investigated it. The kitchen came with a set of three lights and the tenants were entitled to have three working lights. Also, where electrical fittings are concerned, landlords should always be aware of the risks associated with faults such as the risk of fire.
- In my view, the landlord should have attended and replaced the faulty light and if the problem persisted, replaced the entire light fitting.
- The tenants are entitled to compensation for consequences of the breach. I don’t accept their calculation. The assessment of compensation is not an arithmetic exercise. I must consider the loss of amenity as well as other factors, including mitigation.
- The evidence does not prove that the landlord was aware that the tenants were not using the lights after the first light failed. There was also light from the dining room, so they were not without light altogether. I find that a lamp on the bench was a reasonable measure for the tenants to take in mitigation if required.
- There was some loss of amenity but, in terms of compensation, I assess that it was not serious. There is no hard evidence that the tenants informed the landlords that they were not using the lights at all. I find that an award of $500 is appropriate compensation.
- The breach does not meet the threshold for an award of exemplary damages. Roof Space
- This claim incorporates different elements. There were gaps around the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom and the tenants said that the gaps in the bathroom caused draughts. The tenants reported the gaps to the agent in August 2024 and followed that in November with a report of flies entering through the gaps.
- In February 2025 the tenants reported dead birds in the roof space and flies entering through the gaps. In March 2025 the landlords sealed the gap around the bathroom fan and arranged for the roof space to be fly bombed. I note that the tenants had used tape to seal the gap previously. The problem persisted and in April flashings for the kitchen fan were installed. Guttering and Drainage
- In February 2024 the tenants reported overflowing guttering to the agent due to lack of fall on the guttering and it being blocked with debris.
- In August, the tenants reported that the guttering was overflowing.
- At the end of February 2025, a contractor attended and replaced ¾ of the guttering. Pests
- In January 2025 the tenants used the landlords’ Tapi platform to raise an issue of birds nesting in the roof space. They said that they had mentioned it earlier to the agent at routine inspections.
- There was some discussion about removing or lifting some roofing iron to gain access to remove the birds and their nests. It seems that the agent supported that. The landlord was not keen on the idea and the guttering contractor trapped the birds in the roof space with gutter netting and they died there.
- The tenants wanted the birds, and their nests removed from the roof space due to the fires hazard and because they attracted flies, but the owner would not authorise it. The agent confirmed that no further action would be taken.
- The tenants said that they had a problem with infestations of flies in the premises which they said came about due to the combination of water ponding in the guttering, birds in the roof space and gaps around the fans.
- I find that the fact that birds were able to enter the roof space and nest there constitutes a failure by the landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. There should not have been gaps allowing birds to enter. The problem was compounded by the owner’s failure to deal with the bird infestation appropriately when it arose. I do not accept that it was reasonable for the owner to contain the birds in the roof space where they would die and decompose.
- The main problem for the tenants was the volume of flies in the premises. The landlords said that flies are a common problem in North Canterbury. They referred to “cluster” flies. There is no evidence that the flies that affected the tenants were cluster flies. It is reasonable to accept that the birds in the roof space at least contributed to the problem. The guttering and the gaps around the fans were other contributing factors.
- I am conscious that flies are a common problem especially in rural areas and where farming is conducted.
- I find that the landlords’ breach caused the tenants discomfort and some associated stress and upset due to the mixed messaging from the landlords and the delay in directly addressing the problem. The tenants are entitled to compensation. I assess that in the round, not by separating the different elements of the claim as the tenants have done. These things are all related. In my view an award of $1,500 is reasonable compensation.
- No award of exemplary damages is justified. I have found that the owner did not deal with the problem correctly, but I do not find that he wilfully ignored his obligations. The Hot Water Cupboard
- At some time before the tenancy, there was a leak in the hot water cupboard and board above the cylinder became stained and, the tenants said, degraded. They reported mould there to the agent in January 2025.
- The landlord came at the end of February and said that he would be back with new Gib and paint to fix the damage. That did not happen and in March the tenants reported to the agent that there was evidence that rodents had entered the cupboard. They tried to stop the gap with a rag.
- Later in March, the landlord came to bait mice and painted the top of the cupboard but there was no repair. That is how things stayed up until the tenancy ended.
- I agree that between them, the agent and the landlord could and should have dealt with this issue better. But I do not regard it as a serious defect or one that had a significant effect on the tenants. In my view, it does not warrant an award of compensation or exemplary damages. Interference With Quiet Enjoyment
- The tenants claim compensation and exemplary damages based on the cumulative effect of the claims discussed above. They say that the actions and inaction of the agent and the landlord and the continual shifting of their positions in relation to maintenance of the premises constitutes a pattern of behaviour that crosses the line into interference with their quiet enjoyment of the premises.
- In my view it is not appropriate to treat the failure to comply with maintenance obligations in this case as a breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. Obviously, there is some overlap, but the conventional approach is to consider the effect of the failure to maintain and assess the appropriate remedy taking all relevant factors into consideration. It would be arbitrary to divide the remedy as suggested by the tenants and it would risk double counting. Division should not produce a different result overall in any case. Result
- The landlords must pay the tenants $2,000 compensation plus the filing fee. This is a case where it is appropriate to treat the agent as a landlord. Both the owner and the agent were inextricably bound in terms of managing the tenancy. It is reasonable in these circumstances to leave it to them to resolve how the liability is to apportioned between them. They are, in the usual way, jointly and severally liable to the tenants.
- The tenants have had some success and so I have granted them name suppression.