Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5463481 — Exemplary damages at 35 Kolmar Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025
Published 24 April 2026 · Application 5463481
Tenant favoured
- Exemplary damages
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Tenant favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
N Walker
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $2,728.00
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $2,728.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exemplary damages: Section 45 | $1,800.00 | Section 45 | |
| Compensation: Loss of amenity | $900.00 | Loss of amenity | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $2,728.00 | ||
| Total payable by Landlord to Tenant | $2,728.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5463481 — net $2,728.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Exemplary damages: Section 45
- Amount
- $1,800.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Section 45
Compensation: Loss of amenity
- Amount
- $900.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Tenant $2,728.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant
Tenant $2,728.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Landlord Direct Limited As Agent For Amneet Family Trust Jimmy Singh must pay Amrinder Singh Khangura $2,728.00 immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing held on 24 April 2026.
- The tenancy began on 15 September 2025 and was for a fixed term due to end on 15 September 2026. The parties agreed for the tenancy to end early on 4 April 2026.
- The tenant applied for a claim related to the Healthy Homes standards, to be released from the fixed term tenancy, for compensation and exemplary damages.
- As the tenancy has ended the part of the claim related to being released from the fixed term tenancy is no longer required and was withdrawn at the hearing. Exemplary damages
- Amrinder Singh Khangura claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
- 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 produced a Healthy Homes report prepared by Auckland Building Reports. That report records that the property was inspected on 4 August 2025. It also confirms that the premises complied with all of the Healthy Homes standards.
- The tenant has raised issues in relation to the Healthy Homes standards and in particular the insulation which he said was installed in the ceiling and under the floor two weeks after he moved in. The landlord said that the insulation was topped up at that time. Unfortunately, there is insufficient evidence to determine that the report is incorrect in relation to the insulation although it is unusual for underfloor insulation to be topped up.
- The tenant has however provided sufficient evidence to determine that the smoke alarms contained in the report were not present at the beginning of the tenancy. The only photograph that the landlord could provide of the lounge from before the tenancy began does not have the smoke alarm. This photograph was used in the advertising of the premises, which was in early September 2025, after the HH report inspection.
- The tenant’s evidence is that the smoke alarms were installed after the tenancy began on 11 December 2025. He provided a photograph of the packaging for the smoke alarms from the time when they were being installed.
- The conclusion I reach is that the HH report was updated in relation to the smoke alarms but the inspection date from August 2025 remains in the report. This means that the landlord failed to install smoke alarms at the beginning of the tenancy.
- The tenancy agreement also fails to provide necessary information in relation to the smoke alarms even though the agreement should record the type of smoke alarm, the location and the expiry date. I also note that the agreement records that there are four smoke alarms, but the HH report records there are three. This discrepancy supports my conclusion that the smoke alarms were added after the tenancy began.
- The Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 require that there is one qualifying smoke alarm installed in the sleeping place or within three metres of the entrance to the sleeping place. The Regulations define “sleeping place” as “a space that is for use, or that can reasonably be expected to be used, as a bedroom or other sleeping space.”
- The tenant raised other issues related to the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant said that the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean condition. The landlord confirmed that the owner paid for the inside and outside of the premises to be cleaned on 9 October 2025. That is after the tenancy began and confirms that the landlord had not provided it in a reasonably clean state. The tenant also provided evidence that the rubbish bins were full when he moved in, and the council refused to empty them because the recycling had not been separated from the rubbish. This is something that the tenant ended up doing.
- The tenant sent an email to the landlord on 25 September 2025 listing all the issues that he had identified at the beginning of the tenancy including unclean drinking water, toilet issues, leaking tap, windows without latches, hot water problems, bathroom vanity issues and shower issues.
- The landlord submits that the landlord acted to remedy the tenant’s concerns. While some issues were resolved they are issues that should not have been present at the beginning of the tenancy given the landlord’s responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain in a reasonable state of repair 1 .
- There are also some issues that were never resolved including the toilet, the windows and the kitchen. They were not provided in a reasonable state of repair.
- The landlord did not install smoke alarms at the beginning of the premises, did not provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and did not provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 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 1 Section 45(1)(a) and (b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 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.
- I acknowledge that the landlord had spent some money on renovations and repairs, but that is because the premises were in a bad state at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord should ensure that the premises are clean and in good repair at the beginning of a tenancy, not start a tenancy and wait for a tenant to complain and react to those complaints.
- The landlord was aware of the issues, and this had a negative impact on the tenant’s use of the premises. I consider that exemplary damages of $1,800.00 is reasonable. Compensation
- The tenant referred to loss of amenity including when one of the two bathrooms was renovated, leaving only one bathroom for use. After the bathroom was renovated the rubbish from the renovation was left on the lawn at the front of the premises. The renovation took place from the end of December 2025. Also, there was broken glass in the front porch when the tenancy began which was not fixed for two weeks and then the glass was put in the garden against the fence until it was removed three months later with the renovation rubbish.
- The tenant said that there were no curtains in the lounge or main bedroom when he moved in. This meant that there was a lack of privacy and instead the tenant hung sheets at the windows. The landlord was unable to produce photographs from just before the tenancy began but acknowledged that the landlord paid to install blinds on 8 October 2025. If there had been curtains on all the windows, I find it unlikely that the landlord would have gone to the expense to replace all of the curtains with blinds.
- Many of the windows at the premises had no stays which meant that it was difficult to leave open for ventilation particularly if it was a windy day. One window broke because there was no stay even though the tenant had already raised this issue with the landlord. The windows were not repaired during the tenancy, and this was an issue raised by the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy.
- The tenant provided a video of the state of the kitchen. He says that he was told that it would be renovated soon after the tenancy began but it never was. The video showed many cupboards without handles and the sliding doors on the high cupboards could not be used. The kitchen was in a very original and dated condition.
- All these issues have had an impact on the tenant’s use of the premises. The tenant should be compensated, and I consider that one weeks rent of $900.00 is reasonable.
- The tenant raised the issue of the safety of the electrics at the premises. When a contractor from Wells came to instal a new power meter he advised that it could not be done because the meter was unsafe. He said that there were live wires that needed to be fixed as soon as possible.
- The landlord had two electricians look at the electrics. It seems that there was agreement that the system needed to be updated but the landlord was given a certificate confirming that the electrics was safe. Because of this I am unable to determine that there was any issue with the electrical system at the premises.
- Because Amrinder Singh Khangura has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s109(3), s2016, s45, s45(1), s45(1A), s5
Key findings
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5463481?
The tribunal order states: Landlord Direct Limited As Agent For Amneet Family Trust Jimmy Singh must
How much money was awarded in case 5463481?
Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5463481?
The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5463481?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13501132-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.