What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5446618 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 5446618?

Property Damage: $4,320.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,145.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5446618?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5446618?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13859291-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5446618 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 5446618?

Property Damage: $4,320.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,145.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5446618?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5446618?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13859291-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

11A Freemans Road, Otaki, Otaki 5512 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5446618 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5446618 — net $6,493.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Breach of healthy homes standards	$4,320.00	Breach of healthy homes standards
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory notice	$2,145.00	Retaliatory notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,493.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,493.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages in relation to the following claims: a. Failure to maintain the premises in relation to various leaks, damp, mould and other miscellaneous repairs at the premises; b. Failure to comply with healthy homes standards regarding heating, ventilation, draught stopping and moisture ingress; c. Issuing a retaliatory notice terminating the tenancy. Background and preliminary issues

This is a periodic tenancy which began on 16 October 2008 and ran for a period of just over 17 years, ending on 30 October 2025. The original tenancy agreement, which remained in force and was not renewed, recorded the landlord as a property manager acting “for” the owner. The tenancy agreement referred to the owner as “Strong Investments.” Elsewhere on the agreement it referred to Cathy Strong and provided her contact details. Over the years, the property manager has changed from time to time. I was not provided with any evidence of the subsequent property manager appointments and the tenancy agreement was not amended to record the changes. Any correspondence between the subsequent property managers and/or the owner and/or the tenant detailing the changes of property manager were also not provided to the Tribunal. The last property manager was Watson Integrity. Agency

Ms Strong has remained the owner of the property and attended the hearing. She advised at the outset that she was surprised to be named as the landlord respondent in these proceedings because she was the owner and not the property manager. She says that she never really managed the tenancy, leaving it to the appointed property managers. She suggested that she should not be held liable for any claims made by the tenant and her property managers should be responsible as they handled the day-to-day dealings with the tenant and acted as the landlord. However, there is evidence, that the tenant and Ms Strong had direct communications about the tenancy at various times. Ms Strong also gave evidence during the hearing that she was aware of complaints made about plumbing pipes; she was aware of quarterly inspections; she received copies of the inspection reports; and the property managers sought her approval for repairs.

The definition of a landlord in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises and “where appropriate, includes—an agent of the landlord.” 1 Leading commentaries on the RTA state that “where appropriate” has been taken to mean “in accordance with the principles of the law of agency.” 2 In accordance with the ordinary law of agency, the landlord (principal) assumes responsibility for the acts of the agent, particularly when the agent makes it clear that they are acting on behalf of the principal. In this case 1 See the definition of landlord in section 2(1) RTA 2 See Grinlinton, Residential Tenancies—The Law and Practice (4 th Edition) at 5.9 the first property manager recorded that he was acting “for” the owner and signed the agreement as “agent”. Documentation concerning subsequent appointments was not provided. Therefore, I cannot be sure how subsequent property managers were described.

There are circumstances (and supporting case law) where an agent may also be jointly and severally liable with the owner for claims concerning the tenancy, even where the agency is disclosed. 3 However, in this case, the agent was not joined as a party and nor did the owner request that they be joined. In any event, by the time of the proceedings, the property management agreement had ended, so the property manager no longer had that status. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine disputes between an owner/landlord and their agent. If Ms Strong alleges that the property manager should contribute to any award made against her, she would have to pursue them separately and could take the matter to the Disputes Tribunal. Limitation periods

The tenant’s claims against the landlord span a period of 17 years. However, as discussed in the hearing, there are time limits for bringing claims.

It is a defence to a money claim, if the defendant proves that the date on which the claim is filed is 6 years after the date of the act or omission. 4 The tenant filed her claim on 16 February 2026. This means that I cannot consider any acts or omissions by the landlord which occurred prior to 17 February 2020.

Also, the tenant cannot bring an application for exemplary damages in relation to the alleged unlawful acts she claims, later than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. 5 Background facts to the claims

The tenant says that in the first 3-4 years of the tenancy, there were some issues with plumbing and leaks, but overall, she liked the home and could handle the small issues that arose. Problems started to occur such as pipes leaking under the home and roof leaks. She would report these leaks to the property manager or the owner, and sometimes both. Plumbers would attend but not tell her anything. She believes that while problems were repaired, they were not fixed permanently. She says that ongoing leaks, dampness, and plumbing issues became severe with wet floorboards, ceilings and mould present. From approximately 2022-2023, she says two of the bedrooms became unusable and she slept in the lounge, using the third bedroom for storage. 3 Mumby v Gary Brown Realty Limited [2011] DCR 420 4 See section 11 Limitation Act 2010 5 Section 109(2)(b) RTA

Other problems also arose during the tenancy including faulty and cracked windows; threadbare carpet; lights frequently blowing because of damp ceilings; a bathroom leak that spread into bedrooms, all of which made the house cold and caused mould.

Over time, the tenant says her concerns about the state of the premises were not taken seriously and were dismissed. She feels she did everything asked of her by the landlord by keeping the property clean and tidy; wiping mould; carrying out minor repairs; repainting the bedrooms (with the help of her sons), and reporting defects promptly to the property manager. She says that the last manager advised her that the owner was not going to fix anything until she moved out. However, the last manager was not present at the hearing to give evidence. Therefore, this hearsay evidence from the tenant cannot be given great weight.

Unfortunately, the tenant has provided little evidence of written notices (such as text messages and emails), photos or videos sent to the landlord recording maintenance issues which she claims have persisted over the years. The evidence that has been provided is limited and relates mainly to issues raised in the last year of the tenancy.

The landlord confirmed that property inspections were carried out every three months, but no inspection reports were made available to the Tribunal. The last property manager provided the tenant with an audio recording in which she acknowledged that the house had been in poor repair and had degraded significantly in 17 years with most of the gradual damage noted in inspection reports. The property manager also noted that there were two windows that had been broken since 2024 which the owner agreed to fix but this was not done before the tenancy ended.

Ms Strong says that the property inspection reports sent to her noted that there was fair wear and tear. However, whenever the tenant reported a problem, she would authorise repairs and believes that all necessary work was completed, including repairs to plumbing pipes, the roof and replacement of the hot water cylinder.

Ms Strong confirmed that there was Dux Quest plumbing throughout the premises. Dux Quest is a discontinued, failure-prone plastic plumbing pipe used in New Zealand homes between the late 1970s to late 1980s. The pipes were discontinued because they react with chlorine in public water supplies, often causing micro fractures over time. The pipes are also highly prone to splitting at joints and elbows, often causing hidden water damage behind walls and ceilings.

Ms Strong says that in 2022, the tenant indicated that she intended to move out of the premises. Ms Strong decided that when that happened she would move back into the premises. She asked her plumber whether the Dux Quest pipes should be replaced and was advised that it had not got to that point. Thereafter, the plumber gave her a price estimate each year for replacement so she could decide whether to take pre-emptive steps to replace the pipes. 2025 issues

On 7 February 2025, the tenant reported a leak in the “same area at the back” to the property manager and noted that she had received a high power bill. She said that she could hear a noise and believed there was a problem with pipes under the house again and the water cylinder. She says that a plumber came and fixed it but advised that the pipe would need to be replaced.

The tenant said that her health had deteriorated over the last few years, when she suffered from pneumonia twice, Influenza A and other issues which she says are likely related to the condition of the premises. She then received a cancer diagnosis for which she received treatment from March-August 2025. During treatment she explained the state of the premises to her health practitioner who became concerned about her situation, least because she was immune compromised. They assisted her to access assistance from Warm Up Otaki and the MBIE Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Team (TCIT).

A representative from Warm Up Otaki visited the premises and recorded in an email dated 2 July 2025 that the property was damp, cold and mouldy with some broken windows, no rangehood, a broken bathroom extractor, and no ground moisture barrier. Other issues were noted but it is difficult to know whether they were direct observations or a record of what the tenant reported.

On 23 July 2025, the landlord visited the premises with a plumber. At this visit the tenant (and her friend) pointed out issues including that the back bedroom floor was rotten.

On 1 August 2025, the landlord gave a 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy with effect on 30 October 2025.

On 5 August 2025, TCIT visited the premises and conducted a maintenance and healthy homes assessment. Their subsequent report recorded many outstanding issues at the premises including: a. Water leak marks and damage on ceilings and floors throughout; hallway floor soft; warped/rotten floor in bathroom; b. Problems with windows including rotten/warped windowsills; cracked windows; loose window latches and gaps in windows; c. Water damage inside kitchen cupboards and kitchen drawers not functioning correctly; d. Toilet leak and bathroom cupboard water damage, towel rail broken; e. No extractor fan in kitchen and extractor fan in bathroom not working; f. No ground moisture barrier and water pooling under the house.

On 12 August and 15 September 2025, the tenant reported another pipe leak under the back of the house near the kitchen. This leak and the issues raised in the TCIT report were not addressed before the tenancy ended.

After the tenancy ended, Ms Strong moved in and proceeded to replace the Dux Quest pipes and the hot water cylinder, installed a new kitchen and bathroom vanity, replaced carpet and painted throughout. She has since sold the house. Has the landlord failed to maintain the premises and failed to comply with healthy homes standards?

A landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. 6

Landlords are liable for defects they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire that knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 7 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage.... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: “....the obligation of the landlord under s45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is......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...” 8

Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation. 9

Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs. 10

Notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair, or the need for repair is apparent from observation. 11

A landlord must also comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) which cover insulation, heating, ventilation, draught 6 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 7 Stewart Benson, Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18 8 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Limited DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 9 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as LJ Hooker [2015] TT 2845 10 Section 40(1)(d) RTA 11 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey, DC Auckland CIV 2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 stopping, drainage and moisture ingress. 12 The HHS compliance date for this tenancy was 1 July 2025 in relation to all standards except insulation which has an earlier compliance date.

Breaching any of these maintenance and HHS obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. 13 Maintenance obligations—discussion and findings

For most of the tenancy, there is insufficient evidence to clearly establish exactly when the tenant notified the landlord of various maintenance issues with the premises. There is also insufficient evidence to establish when the landlord first failed to take reasonable steps to address those maintenance issues. For example, prior to the TCIT report obtained in August 2025, there is little evidence to establish when many of the maintenance issues identified in that report occurred, and at what point the issues would have been observable and should have been addressed. Similarly, there is no evidence to establish that the Dux Quest pipes had failed to the extent that they should have been replaced sooner during the tenancy rather than patch-repaired nor evidence to establish that two of the bedrooms were unusable as alleged by the tenant.

The TCIT report prepared in August 2025 establishes that several issues were present by that date which were not fixed before the tenancy ended. I also accept that those issues would have been obvious to the landlord given that they regularly inspected the premises. They would also have been obvious to Ms Strong who visited the premises on 23 July 2025 with her plumber. For example, the report records cracks in windowpanes; rotten and warped windowsills; damaged kitchen cupboards and drawers; leak in the hot water cylinder cupboard; soft floor in hallway; warped/rotten bathroom floor and laundry floor damage from obvious leaks.

Ms Strong generally claimed that maintenance issues were addressed as reported to her during the tenancy. She also asserted that her builders who carried out renovations after the tenancy ended did not find any need to replace floors or ceilings because of water damage/rot. However, there was no independent evidence from builders she instructed to corroborate that submission.

Ms Strong acknowledged the following issues present at the end of the tenancy : a. the two cracked windows. Because they could not find someone to fix them she instructed the property manager to leave them until she moved back; 12 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA 13 Section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA b. the kitchen cabinetry was broken but she says that her offer to instal a new kitchen prior to 2022 was declined by the tenant; she agrees there was water damage inside the kitchen cupboard; c. one of the windowsills in the kitchen was bubbly; d. there was a damp patch on the floor of the hot water cupboard; e. there was a toilet leak and the floor in that area was warped; f. The bathroom cupboard was water damaged and the towel rail was broken;

She says many of the above issues were not brought to her attention. However, I find this damage would have been obvious to the property manager and to Ms Strong when she inspected the premises.

I am satisfied that the photos taken by TCIT demonstrate that some of the maintenance issues had likely been present for some time but the date the issues first arose and the date that the landlord first failed to act within a reasonable time after being notified of them is unknown. Based on the tenant’s own evidence, any failure to act by the landlord may have occurred in the limitation period prior to 17 February 2020, which is a defence to any claim for compensation arising from the failure under the Limitation Act 2010 14 .

The failure to maintain is a continuing act or omission for as long as the landlord fails to remedy the problem. However, for the purposes of the Limitation Act restriction, the limitation period runs from the date the landlord first failed to act within a reasonable time after being notified.

Even if I found that the landlord breached their obligations, the claims may be barred by the Limitation Act 2010.

The tenant also had an obligation to mitigate her loss. Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or the RTA, the other party must take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract. 15 I find that the tenant did not take reasonable steps to mitigate by bringing a claim to the Tribunal sooner.

For those reasons, I must dismiss the claims against the landlord for breach of maintenance obligations. HHS obligations—discussion and findings

The TCIT report also establishes that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS as follows: 14 See n4 above and section 11 Limitation Act 2010 15 Section 49 RTA a. Ventilation standard—by failing to install an extractor fan in the kitchen; failing to repair extractor fan not working in the bathroom; b. Draught stopping standard—by failing to ensure that the premises were free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. The cracked windows, failing window latches, and window gaps identified in the TCIT report prove the breach. I prefer this report over Ms Strong’s claim that the windows were fine; c. Moisture ingress and drainage standard—which requires that the premises must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The standard also requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space. The TCIT report established that large amounts of water were pooling under the house and there was no ground moisture barrier, in breach of the standard.

The HHS compliance date for this tenancy was 1 July 2025.

Ms Strong alleged that she did comply with HHS but had no evidence to rebut the TCIT report that shows the property did not comply with HHS. Ms Strong alleges that every 2 years or so she would meet with the property manager to go through an HHS checklist, but no evidence was supplied regarding the checklist. I asked Ms Strong how she knew or could prove that she complied with the HHS. For example, I asked whether she instructed an independent person to conduct an HHS assessment before 1 July 2025 to ensure the premises complied. She says that she did not.

Ms Strong emphasized that the tenant advised in 2022 that she intended to leave the tenancy. Ms Strong took this to mean that the tenancy had ended, and the tenant was moving out. However, it is not disputed that, apart from indicating an intention to leave, the tenant at no time gave a notice to end the tenancy during the period from 2022 until the tenancy was ended by the landlord on 30 October 2025. To assert that the tenancy had somehow ended in the three years prior to that date is not credible. Later in the hearing, Ms Strong she said that she knew about the HHS compliance date and genuinely thought she would be living at the property by then and be able to take care of those things.

I am satisfied on the evidence that, despite relying on property managers for advice, Ms Strong had an active duty and responsibility to ensure that the premises complied with HHS. She would know, or ought to have known, that the premises did not have certain obvious items installed to comply with HHS such as an extractor fan in the kitchen and a ground moisture barrier. Therefore, she is in breach of her obligation to comply with HHS.

Should the Tribunal award compensation and/or exemplary damages?

The landlord was in breach of their HHS obligations from 1 July 2025 until the tenancy ended on 30 October 2025. However, there is limited evidence as to the impact of those breaches on the tenant and how they affected the premises independent of other maintenance issues present at the property for which I find the landlord cannot be held liable. For that reason, I find that a claim for compensation has not been proved. However, I consider whether an exemplary damages award is appropriate.

By failing to comply with HHS, the landlord has committed an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. 16

Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 17 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proved, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.

Exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.

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. 18 16 Section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA 17 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 18 Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00, DC Auckland,1/5/2001

The landlord cannot plead confusion, lack of knowledge, or ignorance of the law. In a case where the landlord claimed not to be fully aware of his obligations, the District Court held 19 : “Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.”

In summary, intention is proved where the party turns their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately sets out to commit the act. It is unnecessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully, it is enough that they intended to commit the act which is in fact unlawful. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the obligation they have failed to perform, ignorance of the law is no defence. They are deemed to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional. Also, if the party is wilfully blind to the factual circumstances that give rise to an unlawful act, this may also be sufficient to prove they acted intentionally.”

I am satisfied that the matter of intention is proved in this case because the landlord knew or ought to have known that the premises did not comply with HHS in several respects. Also, they had clearly not taken reasonable steps to properly assess the premises for HHS compliance before the 1 July 2025 compliance date.

It is of significant interest to tenants and the public that landlords comply with their maintenance and HHS obligations. The HHS was a major piece of legislation designed to address a well-documented lack of healthy, warm, dry rental houses. The legislation was well publicised over a long period with the initial provisions regarding insulation coming into force from 1 July 2019 and remaining standards from 1 July 2021. The compliance date for this tenancy was 1 July 2025, so there was a long lead in time for the landlord. Having regard to those factors, I consider that an award of $4,320 for exemplary damages is justified. This is 60% of the maximum award available which recognises that three out of the five healthy homes standards were breached. I consider the award is justified to mark disapproval of the landlord’s conduct.

Was the termination notice retaliatory?

On 1 August 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 30 October 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory. 19 TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182

For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. 20

Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. 21

Ms Strong emailed the tenant advising that she wished to inspect the premises with a plumber on 23 July 2025. She says that this was again for the plumber to look at the Dux Quest plumbing and provide a price for replacement. The tenant was present for the visit with a friend. During the visit, Ms Strong acknowledges that the tenant and her friend insisted that they inspect the back bedroom stating that the floor was rotten. The tenant says that she asked if they could fix the issue.

Ms Strong says that they could not tell if the floor in the bedroom was wet or not underneath the carpet, but she was concerned about the issue. After the visit she spoke to the property manager and asked why they had not told her about it. The manager said the tenant had not notified them about it. She says that the property manager then suggested that they give the tenant a 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy. Ms Strong agreed. At the hearing she said that she told the property manager to “do what they like.”

I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant raising an issue about the floor in the bedroom and asking it to be fixed in deciding to serve the 90-day notice. Therefore, I find that service of the termination notice was retaliatory and in serving it, the landlord has committed an unlawful act for which I may consider an award of exemplary damages.

For the same reasons set out in paragraphs 50-56 above, I find that the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally. The termination came at a time when the tenant was undergoing cancer treatment which made the situation even more stressful and difficult. I award the tenant $2,145.00 being 33% of the maximum award available. Suppression and filing fee

The tenant has partially succeeded with her claims against the landlord, and I award reimbursement of the filing fee.

The tenant has applied for suppression. 20 Section 54(2)(a) RTA 21 Sections 54(2),(4) &(6) & Schedule 1A RTA

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 22

The Tribunal may, on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. 23

The tenant sought compensation and exemplary damages up to $100,000. The awards ordered are significantly less such that she has not substantially succeeded in the proceedings. The tenant explained that she did not know what to ask for and was also unaware of the limitation issues that affected her lengthy tenancy. In the circumstances, and given the length of the tenancy, the tenant’s health concerns, and that she has proved significant breaches by the landlord, I consider that it is not in the public interest to publish her name and identifying details. They are suppressed accordingly.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5446618 — net $6,493.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Breach of healthy homes standards	$4,320.00	Breach of healthy homes standards
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory notice	$2,145.00	Retaliatory notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,493.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,493.00