What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5469231 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5469231?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5469231?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5469231?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13879958-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5469231 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5469231?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5469231?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5469231?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13879958-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5469231 — Property damage

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details. The tenant has been substantially successful 1 . The landlord has filed a further claim following the end of the tenancy which may give rise to an entitlement to suppression. 2.
Enforcement of this Order is stayed until the landlord’s application 5540528 is heard. 1 S.95A(1)(a) RTA

Reasons

Both parties attended this hearing. The landlord was represented by its Directors. The tenant attended by phone.
An Order dated 4 June 2026 dismissed the tenant’s application for an Order declaring the landlord’s notice of termination to be retaliatory. The landlord was granted possession of the premises.
This hearing considered the tenant’s claims that: a. the landlord did not lodge his bond; b. the premises were not provided or maintained in a reasonable state of repair; and c. the premises did not comply with Healthy Homes (“HH”) standards. Background
These premises are one of a number of dwellings on a property owned by the landlord, mostly rented out to other tenants.
The landlord has been progressively upgrading the dwellings with a view to a subdivision being completed. It says that this property has been last on the list of upgrades because the tenant has been very difficult to dealt with.
The landlord has filed a significant amount of evidence directed at the tenant’s character and behaviour. That evidence is not relevant to these claims and has not been considered.
The landlord says that after a previous tenancy, it had intended to do some upgrades on this dwelling but shortly before the directors were going away, the tenant approached them and was very insistent that he be allowed to move in. The landlord agreed, though reluctantly, without having done the upgrade work first. That made it difficult to do some of the intended work, with the tenant in occupation. It says that the evidence about the condition of the premises needs to be assessed in that context.
The tenancy began on 5 August 2019 at a rent of $200.00 per week. The landlord also says that the Tribunal should take into account that rent has remained at $200.00 throughout the almost 7 years of the tenancy, to recognise the condition of the premises. Bond
There is no dispute that a bond of $800.00 was paid by the tenant.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received 2 .
Breaching that obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 3 .
There is no dispute that the bond has never been lodged with the Bond Centre. The landlord has thereby 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest 4 .
Here, the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond is intentional. Whether there may have been an initial oversight, the landlord has held the tenant’s bond since the start of the tenancy in 2019 yet it remains with the landlord.
There has been no direct loss caused to the tenant, the landlord is in a position to refund the bond. In case of dispute the tenant is entitled to know that his bond is independently held, not under the landlord’s control.
The public interest requires that landlords, especially landlords responsible for multiple tenancies, comply with such fundamental obligations.
In those circumstances it would be just to make a meaningful award of exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach, I assess 1/3 of the maximum as appropriate.

Were the premises provided in a reasonable state of repair?

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..” 5 .
This is an older wooden house. It was rewired and redecorated in May 2024 with the bathroom refitted in the same year. Re-roofing was done in August 2025 Some painting work was done in November 2025. Major plumbing and drainage work was completed around mid-2024, although that appears largely 2 S. 19(1) RTA 3 S.19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA 4 S.109(3) RTA. 5 S.45(1)(b) to relate to the plumbing and drainage requirements for subdivision consent. A new fire was installed.
The evidence suggests that the work that was done in 2024/25 likely required doing when the tenancy began, meaning that the tenant has occupied the preemies without necessary maintenance work being done during that time.
The tenant arranged an assessment by the Tenancy Investigation and Compliance Team (“TICT”) which did a site visit on 24 March 2026. A comprehensive report, supported by a large number of photos, was provided and forms part of the evidence. Neither party chose to have the report writer called for questioning and in the absence of contrary evidence there is no basis in the evidence to question the report writer’s observations and conclusions.
The report includes a note of concerns reported by the tenant, not able to be verified in the inspection (eg. leaks, risk from collapse of the chimney, fireplace not working, presence of asbestos). It also notes issues that may be a tenant responsibility (eg. broken and cracked windows - the landlord acknowledges some cracked windows when the tenancy began – dangerous electrical connections).
Allowing for those factors, the report unmistakably documents a property in a very poor state of maintenance, despite the upgrading work previously done. Paint (lead based?) had deteriorated and was flaking from exterior walls and joinery. Major structural components, the chimney and ring foundation seem significantly compromised. Some guttering and drains are shown disconnected or with holes and/ or growth, rot is apparent in cladding and external joinery, the oven was rusted through and not useable (hob elements did work), ceilings were sagging, exterior holes allowing entry by vermin were apparent.
The evidence also shows efforts made by the tenant to bring his concerns about the condition of the premises to the landlord’s attention and the landlord’s failure to comprehensively address them. This led to the tenant taking the step of having the TICT investigation and to file these proceedings.
The evidence satisfies me that the landlord has intentionally breached its obligation to ensure the premises were provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair.

Should compensation be awarded?

It seems likely that the rent charged to the tenant during the tenancy has not been increased because the landlord was aware of the substandard condition of the premises.
There is however no evidence on which I can assess the benefit to the tenant. There is no evidence of any agreement on the tenant’s part that he would accept the lack of maintenance in return for reduced rent – the choice has been the landlord’s.
It is also the case that a tenant cannot waive entitlements given by the RTA 6 .
The evidence satisfies me that while the tenant has undoubtedly had benefit from being able to occupy the premises as his home, that benefit has been materially diminished by the poor condition of the premises. The landlord has not provided the premises in the required state of repair and maintenance in return for the rent charged, so compensation should be paid.
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is subject to the Limitation Act 7 . That means that compensation cannot be awarded for breaches occurring more than 6 years before the claim was filed 8 . The tenant’s claim was filed on 16 March 2026.
Viewing the evidence as a whole, I assess fair compensation as 15% of the rent paid ($30.00 per week) from 16 March 2020 (six years before the date of the application) for the 231 weeks of the tenancy to mid-August 2024 when the re- roofing and other improvement work was carried out and 10% of the rent ($20.00 per week) for the 94 weeks from then to the end of the tenancy. The resulting calculation is (231 x $30) + (94 x $20) = total compensation $8,810.00.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Breach of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair is also an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded 9 .
The landlord’s breach was intentional.
I have decided it would not be just to make an award of exemplary damages in addition to the compensation awarded because: a. the award of compensation is significant and addresses the impact of the landlord’s breach on the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises; and b. exemplary damages cannot be claimed for a breach that occurred more than 12 months before 10 ; and c. by that time (16 March 2025) the landlord had taken some significant steps towards bringing the premises into a reasonable state of repair – albeit with some way to go. 6 S.11 RTA 7 S.77(1) RTA 8 S.11 Limitation Act 2010 9 S.45(1)(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA 10 S.109(2) RTA Healthy Homes compliance Compliance statement
At the date the tenancy agreement was signed, landlords were required to include in the agreement a Healthy Homes Compliance statement 11 .
The landlord included an insulation statement, but no HH compliance statement was provided. That omission comprised an unlawful act for which (then) exemplary damages of up to $500.00 could be awarded.
The landlord says that it was very aware of the need to ensure insulation requirements were met but that was the focus rather than giving information about future HH standards compliance, which were then some way off (HH compliance date for these premises being 1 July 2025).
Although this could perhaps be regarded as a continuing non-disclosure and therefore a continuing breach, essentially the failure was to meet an obligation owed when the agreement ws signed so s.109(2) prevents an application for exemplary damages being brought now.
There is no evidence of any loss being caused to the tenant by the breach for which compensation should be considered. Compliance with HH standards
By 1 July 2025, the premises needed to comply with the standards imposed by the Healthy Homes Regulations 2019. 12
The landlord had an assessment done on 24 April 2026 after the TICT investigation. That report showed the premises to be compliant with the heating, insulation and ventilation standards, but failing to meet the drainage, draught stopping and moisture ingress standards.
As regards non-compliance, the report states that: “The drainage does not comply as the guttering is damaged and requires repair. The recommendation is that professional assistance is sought from a suitably qualified plumber/ drainlayer. The majority of guttering is good. One minor rust hole on one of top gutters. The dwelling does not comply with the Healthy Homes standard. There are multiple gaps exceeding 3mm between the window sash and the window frame. These will need to be fixed or have draught excluders installed.... there are multiple gaps exceeding 3mm between the door and the door frame. These will need to be fixed or have draught excluders installed...” 11 S.13A(1CA) RTA version 31 July 2019 12 R.2 Schedule 1 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 A moisture barrier needs to be installed to comply with the Healthy Homes standards”
A breach of the landlord’s obligation to ensure HH compliance is proved.

Should compensation be awarded?

The effect of these aspects of the premises’ shortcomings is recognised in the award of compensation already made. Awarding further compensation would effectively compensate the tenant twice for essentially the same breaches.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Breach of the landlord’s obligation to ensure premises comply with HH standards is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded.
The landlord’s breach must be regarded as intentional; it did not happen by accident.
In considering the factors in s.109(3) referred to above, I take into account: a. as regards the failure to install a ground moisture barrier, the insulation assessment obtained by the landlord before the tenancy began, reported that it was not reasonably practicable to install underfloor insulation. It is perhaps understandable that the landlord assumed that would be the case for installation of a ground moisture barrier as well; b. the obligation to ensure HH compliance is an additional and separatee obligation than to ensure reasonable repair and maintenance of the premises, for which compensation has been awarded; c. this was not a technical breach, where compliance was just achieved a little late. The landlord did not obtain a compliance assessment until after the TICT report. Three of the six assessed standards were breached; d. the photos provided by the TICT investigation show that the issues giving rise to breach of the drainage and draught stopping standards were apparent and matters the landlord ought to have been aware of e. there is a public interest in landlords, especially those responsible for multiple tenancies, being aware of and complying with all HH standards – significant draughts and moisture significantly undermine the value of heating and insulation.
Weighing those considerations I find that in would be just to make a meaningful award of exemplary damages for this breach, again 1/3 of the maximum.
Because the tenant has been substantially successful with the claim I reimburse the filing fee.
As signalled at the hearing, the landlord has now filed a claim for compensation following termination of the tenancy (application 5540528). Enforcement of this Order should be stayed until the landlord’s application is heard, to preserve any set-off rights arising from that claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5469231 — Property damage

Tenancy Tribunal case 5469231 — Property damage

Order

Reasons

Were the premises provided in a reasonable state of repair?

Should compensation be awarded?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Should compensation be awarded?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Order

Reasons

Were the premises provided in a reasonable state of repair?

Should compensation be awarded?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Should compensation be awarded?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?