What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5453328 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 5453328?

Compensation: HH Report: $297.14 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Variation Of TA: $744.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,700.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5453328?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5453328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13532193-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5453328 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 5453328?

Compensation: HH Report: $297.14 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Variation Of TA: $744.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,700.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5453328?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5453328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13532193-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

30A Waimumu Road, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5453328 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5453328 — net $2,769.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 45	$1,700.00	Section 45
Compensation: Variation of TA	$744.00	Variation of TA
Compensation: HH Report	$297.14	HH Report
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,769.14
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,769.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Austar Property Services Limited Arthur Bun must pay [The tenant/s] $2,769.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 30 April 2026.
The tenancy began on 9 February 2026.
There are two issues before the Tribunal. The first relates to the Ground Moisture Barrier (GMB) and the second relates to a request for a variation of the tenancy agreement.
The tenant applied for a work order in relation to the GMB, for a claim related to the Healthy Homes standards and for compensation. Ground Moisture Barrier
On 16 February 2024 the GMB was installed at the premises. The landlord produced a Healthy Homes report completed by Core Compliance dated 31 January 2024.
As the date of the report is before the installation of the GMB it is likely that the premises was non-compliant in relation to water ingress and drainage on the date of the report. Following this noncompliance the GMB was installed, and the report was updated, although the report does not record when it was updated. Also, the photograph for the GMB in the report has not been updated because it shows the area under the house being soil, without a GMB. The practice of updating HH reports but not recording when an update took place often causes confusion as to when a landlord has complied with the standards.
Given the date that this tenancy commenced the Healthy Homes compliance date is 1 July 2025.
On 17 February 2025 the tenant sent a text to the owner advising that there were issues with the GMB. She heard nothing from the owner about this issue. On 20 August 2025 the tenant sent photographs of the GMB to the owner showing that it was likely non-compliant. This was followed by a video which she sent to the owner on 26 August 2025.
That video was produced at the hearing and shows that there were gaps of the GMB around the piles, water was pooling on the GMB, there was building waste which had been used to secure joins and covering gaps of the GMB and rocks were used around the perimeter of the building on top of the GMB.
The tenant said that she arranged for Core Compliance to inspect the GMB on 11 September 2025. She did not hear further about the inspection.
The tenant continued to regularly raise the issues concerning the GMB with the landlord. She referred to the house being damp and cold and having to use two dehumidifiers during winter as well as heating. She said that her electricity bill skyrocketed. She said that there was black mould everywhere despite her efforts to regularly clean it.
The tenant said that she has developed asthma due to the living conditions and she and her son, who has an autoimmune disease, have been coughing. She also reports that the issues only arose after the GMB was installed and for the previous eight years of the tenancy there had been no issues like this.
On 6 February 2026 the tenant issued the landlord with a 14 day notice to remedy a breach. The breach related to the landlord not complying with the Healthy Homes standards regarding the GMB. The landlord took no steps within the 14-day notice period.
The tenant employed Betta Property Compliance to carry out a Healthy Homes assessment and their report dated 17 February 2026 was produced. The tenant paid $297.14 for this assessment. The report records that the premises did not comply in relation to the moisture and ingress standard and the draught stopping standard.
In relation to the moisture and ingress standard the report states, “Moisture barrier not fitted correctly, gaping and not taped to concrete piles”. There are photographs in the report showing theses issues as well as pooling of water.
At the hearing the landlord produced a report which appears to have been prepared following the inspection carried out by Core Compliance in September 2025 although I note that there is no date on the report and no where on the report is the author or company responsible for preparing the report.
That report states that the inspection was carried out in response to tenant complaints. The report records the following after inspection: A. Inside the House •Black mould observed in the back bedroom window sill. •The tenant associated mould and dampness issues with the subfloor moisture problems. B. Under the House •Multiple visible gaps at joins in the moisture barrier; these do not comply with regulations (should be adequately overlapped). •Water pooling is observed on top of the moisture barrier, especially at the entrance. •Damage evident in several areas: staples had been used but many were torn or ripped, causing joins to separate and leave gaps.
In relation to the cause of the issues with the GMB the report records:
Analysis of Causes •Primary Cause: Persistent flooding underneath the house, due to lack of drainage, leading to regular water flow and damage to the moisture barrier. •Secondary Cause: Physical disruption by tradespeople or items being moved/placed under the house, causing separation of moisture barrier joins.
The tenant was not provided with this report and given that it is undated it is not certain when the landlord obtained it, however I am satisfied that it was likely around the time of the inspection in September 2025 and well before the 14-day notice issued by the tenant.
The landlord arranged for the GMB to be repaired on 23 April 2026. Unfortunately, the day after the repair there was rain and again water was pooling on the GMB. The tenant advised the landlord, and the contractor returned on 25 April 2026 and with the assistance of the tenant, the GMB was repaired and is now compliant. That contractor was from Advanced Energy Solutions Ltd and his view recorded in the email dated 26 April 2026 in relation to the original installation of the GMB was that “it was not installed as per the standard, but is now updated and compliant in our view”.
It is unfortunate that at the hearing the landlord said that the owner believes that the tenant had tampered with the GMB and presumably considers she is therefore responsible for it not being compliant before the remediation in April 2026.
That view is not accepted in any respect. I consider that the tenant has acted in good faith and had given the landlord every opportunity to check that the GMB was compliant. It is clear after watching the video that the tenant would not have been able to tamper with the GMB to such an extent as suggested given the condition of the GMB in the video. There was no taping between the sheets, there was building waste on the GMB and rubbish and rocks had been used to anchor the sheet joins and around the outside of the building. This could not have happened through tampering.
The evidence before the Tribunal shows that the premises were non-compliant in respect of the Healthy Homes standard in respect of moisture ingress and drainage on the compliance date. The landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which provides that a landlord must comply with the healthy homes standards 1 .
The Healthy Homes standards concern heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage. The standard particularly relevant for this tenancy is moisture ingress and drainage.
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.
The landlord knew that the GMB was likely to be non-compliant given the evidence provided by the tenant. It took the landlord until April 2026, nine months after the compliance date, to ensure compliance. I find they have committed 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 interests of the 1 Section 45(1)(bb) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Given the evidence before the Tribunal the landlord has knowingly failed to comply. It is not sufficient to rely on a contractor carrying out work especially where evidence is produced to suggest that the work was deficient as was the case here. The landlord should have taken all steps to ensure compliance on the compliance date.
The landlord’s failure to comply with the Healthy Homes standard in relation to moisture ingress and drainage has had a significant impact on the tenant. There is plenty of evidence to show that water was pooling under the flooring. After taking account of the evidence of the impact on the tenant I consider that exemplary damages of $1,700.00 is reasonable.
In addition, the cost of the tenant obtaining the Healthy Homes assessment from Betta Property Compliance is reimbursed to the tenant. Variation of tenancy agreement
The tenant has lived at the premises with her son who has special needs. When the tenant’s son turned 18, she no longer received an accommodation allowance for him from Work and Income NZ (WINZ). This was a deduction of $165.00 from her benefit.
It was because of this that the tenant asked the landlord on 16 January 2026 if the tenancy could be varied to include her son as a tenant which was a requirement of WINZ to provide him with an accommodation allowance.
On 5 February 2026 the landlord sent a tenancy agreement variation to the tenant with the tenant’s son added as a tenant. On the same day the tenant initialled the first three pages of the tenancy agreement and returned it to the landlord but advised that she would not sign the Healthy Homes Compliance statement. What the tenant did not realise was that it is the landlord who signs the Healthy Homes compliance statement.
Unfortunately, the tenancy agreement variation was never signed by the landlord. The landlord did not respond to the tenant’s email about the tenancy agreement variation and the landlord failed to sign the agreement even after receiving the tenant’s Tribunal application which records that she is missing out on $124.00 per week without the tenancy agreement variation.
The tenant claims compensation in relation to not being in receipt of the accommodation supplement due to the delay in the landlord signing the tenancy agreement variation.
One of the issues that the tenant has faced is that her communication has been responded to by a virtual assistant to the property manager and that assistant is not based in New Zealand. This may explain why the landlord did not sign the variation.
At the hearing both parties signed the tenancy agreement variation which names the tenant’s son as a tenant.
However, the tenant has suffered a loss due to the landlord’s delay in signing the variation. The tenant has gone 12 weeks without the weekly accommodation supplement of $124.00. While the landlord did not sign the agreement the tenant did not follow up further after the 5 February 2026 email. I consider that the blame for this situation is shared between the parties. In the circumstances I award six weeks’ worth of the amount lost which I consider is reasonable.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the tenant’s name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5453328 — net $2,769.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 45	$1,700.00	Section 45
Compensation: Variation of TA	$744.00	Variation of TA
Compensation: HH Report	$297.14	HH Report
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,769.14
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,769.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Austar Property Services Limited Arthur Bun must pay [The tenant/s] $2,769.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 30 April 2026.
The tenancy began on 9 February 2026.
There are two issues before the Tribunal. The first relates to the Ground Moisture Barrier (GMB) and the second relates to a request for a variation of the tenancy agreement.
The tenant applied for a work order in relation to the GMB, for a claim related to the Healthy Homes standards and for compensation. Ground Moisture Barrier
On 16 February 2024 the GMB was installed at the premises. The landlord produced a Healthy Homes report completed by Core Compliance dated 31 January 2024.
As the date of the report is before the installation of the GMB it is likely that the premises was non-compliant in relation to water ingress and drainage on the date of the report. Following this noncompliance the GMB was installed, and the report was updated, although the report does not record when it was updated. Also, the photograph for the GMB in the report has not been updated because it shows the area under the house being soil, without a GMB. The practice of updating HH reports but not recording when an update took place often causes confusion as to when a landlord has complied with the standards.
Given the date that this tenancy commenced the Healthy Homes compliance date is 1 July 2025.
On 17 February 2025 the tenant sent a text to the owner advising that there were issues with the GMB. She heard nothing from the owner about this issue. On 20 August 2025 the tenant sent photographs of the GMB to the owner showing that it was likely non-compliant. This was followed by a video which she sent to the owner on 26 August 2025.
That video was produced at the hearing and shows that there were gaps of the GMB around the piles, water was pooling on the GMB, there was building waste which had been used to secure joins and covering gaps of the GMB and rocks were used around the perimeter of the building on top of the GMB.
The tenant said that she arranged for Core Compliance to inspect the GMB on 11 September 2025. She did not hear further about the inspection.
The tenant continued to regularly raise the issues concerning the GMB with the landlord. She referred to the house being damp and cold and having to use two dehumidifiers during winter as well as heating. She said that her electricity bill skyrocketed. She said that there was black mould everywhere despite her efforts to regularly clean it.
The tenant said that she has developed asthma due to the living conditions and she and her son, who has an autoimmune disease, have been coughing. She also reports that the issues only arose after the GMB was installed and for the previous eight years of the tenancy there had been no issues like this.
On 6 February 2026 the tenant issued the landlord with a 14 day notice to remedy a breach. The breach related to the landlord not complying with the Healthy Homes standards regarding the GMB. The landlord took no steps within the 14-day notice period.
The tenant employed Betta Property Compliance to carry out a Healthy Homes assessment and their report dated 17 February 2026 was produced. The tenant paid $297.14 for this assessment. The report records that the premises did not comply in relation to the moisture and ingress standard and the draught stopping standard.
In relation to the moisture and ingress standard the report states, “Moisture barrier not fitted correctly, gaping and not taped to concrete piles”. There are photographs in the report showing theses issues as well as pooling of water.
At the hearing the landlord produced a report which appears to have been prepared following the inspection carried out by Core Compliance in September 2025 although I note that there is no date on the report and no where on the report is the author or company responsible for preparing the report.
That report states that the inspection was carried out in response to tenant complaints. The report records the following after inspection: A. Inside the House •Black mould observed in the back bedroom window sill. •The tenant associated mould and dampness issues with the subfloor moisture problems. B. Under the House •Multiple visible gaps at joins in the moisture barrier; these do not comply with regulations (should be adequately overlapped). •Water pooling is observed on top of the moisture barrier, especially at the entrance. •Damage evident in several areas: staples had been used but many were torn or ripped, causing joins to separate and leave gaps.
In relation to the cause of the issues with the GMB the report records:
Analysis of Causes •Primary Cause: Persistent flooding underneath the house, due to lack of drainage, leading to regular water flow and damage to the moisture barrier. •Secondary Cause: Physical disruption by tradespeople or items being moved/placed under the house, causing separation of moisture barrier joins.
The tenant was not provided with this report and given that it is undated it is not certain when the landlord obtained it, however I am satisfied that it was likely around the time of the inspection in September 2025 and well before the 14-day notice issued by the tenant.
The landlord arranged for the GMB to be repaired on 23 April 2026. Unfortunately, the day after the repair there was rain and again water was pooling on the GMB. The tenant advised the landlord, and the contractor returned on 25 April 2026 and with the assistance of the tenant, the GMB was repaired and is now compliant. That contractor was from Advanced Energy Solutions Ltd and his view recorded in the email dated 26 April 2026 in relation to the original installation of the GMB was that “it was not installed as per the standard, but is now updated and compliant in our view”.
It is unfortunate that at the hearing the landlord said that the owner believes that the tenant had tampered with the GMB and presumably considers she is therefore responsible for it not being compliant before the remediation in April 2026.
That view is not accepted in any respect. I consider that the tenant has acted in good faith and had given the landlord every opportunity to check that the GMB was compliant. It is clear after watching the video that the tenant would not have been able to tamper with the GMB to such an extent as suggested given the condition of the GMB in the video. There was no taping between the sheets, there was building waste on the GMB and rubbish and rocks had been used to anchor the sheet joins and around the outside of the building. This could not have happened through tampering.
The evidence before the Tribunal shows that the premises were non-compliant in respect of the Healthy Homes standard in respect of moisture ingress and drainage on the compliance date. The landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which provides that a landlord must comply with the healthy homes standards 1 .
The Healthy Homes standards concern heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage. The standard particularly relevant for this tenancy is moisture ingress and drainage.
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.
The landlord knew that the GMB was likely to be non-compliant given the evidence provided by the tenant. It took the landlord until April 2026, nine months after the compliance date, to ensure compliance. I find they have committed 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 interests of the 1 Section 45(1)(bb) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Given the evidence before the Tribunal the landlord has knowingly failed to comply. It is not sufficient to rely on a contractor carrying out work especially where evidence is produced to suggest that the work was deficient as was the case here. The landlord should have taken all steps to ensure compliance on the compliance date.
The landlord’s failure to comply with the Healthy Homes standard in relation to moisture ingress and drainage has had a significant impact on the tenant. There is plenty of evidence to show that water was pooling under the flooring. After taking account of the evidence of the impact on the tenant I consider that exemplary damages of $1,700.00 is reasonable.
In addition, the cost of the tenant obtaining the Healthy Homes assessment from Betta Property Compliance is reimbursed to the tenant. Variation of tenancy agreement
The tenant has lived at the premises with her son who has special needs. When the tenant’s son turned 18, she no longer received an accommodation allowance for him from Work and Income NZ (WINZ). This was a deduction of $165.00 from her benefit.
It was because of this that the tenant asked the landlord on 16 January 2026 if the tenancy could be varied to include her son as a tenant which was a requirement of WINZ to provide him with an accommodation allowance.
On 5 February 2026 the landlord sent a tenancy agreement variation to the tenant with the tenant’s son added as a tenant. On the same day the tenant initialled the first three pages of the tenancy agreement and returned it to the landlord but advised that she would not sign the Healthy Homes Compliance statement. What the tenant did not realise was that it is the landlord who signs the Healthy Homes compliance statement.
Unfortunately, the tenancy agreement variation was never signed by the landlord. The landlord did not respond to the tenant’s email about the tenancy agreement variation and the landlord failed to sign the agreement even after receiving the tenant’s Tribunal application which records that she is missing out on $124.00 per week without the tenancy agreement variation.
The tenant claims compensation in relation to not being in receipt of the accommodation supplement due to the delay in the landlord signing the tenancy agreement variation.
One of the issues that the tenant has faced is that her communication has been responded to by a virtual assistant to the property manager and that assistant is not based in New Zealand. This may explain why the landlord did not sign the variation.
At the hearing both parties signed the tenancy agreement variation which names the tenant’s son as a tenant.
However, the tenant has suffered a loss due to the landlord’s delay in signing the variation. The tenant has gone 12 weeks without the weekly accommodation supplement of $124.00. While the landlord did not sign the agreement the tenant did not follow up further after the 5 February 2026 email. I consider that the blame for this situation is shared between the parties. In the circumstances I award six weeks’ worth of the amount lost which I consider is reasonable.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5453328 — Exemplary damages at 30A Waimumu Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5453328 — Exemplary damages at 30A Waimumu Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions