What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5469470 about?

The tribunal order states: Cutlers Limited Jo Turnbull must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5469470?

Compensation: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5469470?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5469470?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14085580-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5469470 about?

The tribunal order states: Cutlers Limited Jo Turnbull must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5469470?

Compensation: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5469470?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5469470?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14085580-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

77 Round Hill Road, Johnston, RD 3, Lawrence 9593, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5469470 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

77 Round Hill Road, Johnston, RD 3, Lawrence 9593, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5469470 — Tenancy dispute | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5469470 — net $3,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$3,000.00	Compensation
Net award	$3,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,000.00

Claims and awards for application 5469470 — net $3,000.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation

Amount: $3,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation

Net award

Tenant $3,000.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $3,000.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation

Order

Cutlers Limited Jo Turnbull must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $3,000.00 immediately.

Reasons

Following a case conference on 9/7/2026, one tenant and the landlord attended the hearing on 20/10/2026.
Unfortunately, and despite the directions in the case conference minute both parties filed significant documents in evidence two days before the hearing, which has led to a delay in the Tribunal issuing the decision while the evidence was properly considered.
On 17/3/2026 the tenants filed an application seeking work orders, compensation and exemplary damages.
As the tenants have now vacated the premises the issue of work orders is moot.
The parties participated in mediation on 4/4/2026.
The fixed term tenancy began on 26/11/2025 at $480.00 rent per week and ended on 26/5/2026.
The issues for the tenants are: a. Pre tenancy accuracy - relating to late lodgement of the bond, the clause in the tenancy agreement requiring the DVS to remain on, and an inaccurate Healthy Homes statement, b. Failure to provide and maintain the property - in regard to a cracked firebox, unusable front door due to safety concerns, unusable DVS system, asbestos in the ceiling void, lead paint in the gutters and perimeter of the house, rodents in the ceiling, c. Healthy Homes Standards compliance - for drainage, insulation, moisture barrier, and draughts, d. Utilities – relating to power and potable water, e. Quiet enjoyment – by tradespeople, agent and owner, f. Information and document failures – regarding the tenancy agreement, insurance policy, entry inspection report and details of water supply scheme, g. Unlawful entry – added at the case conference, h. Effects of the tenancy on the tenants. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the tenants must establish, with evidence, that their claims are more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, as is the case here, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicant, in this case the tenants, to provide the necessary evidence to support their claims. If they fail to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.

Did the landlord lodge the bond late?

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] claim the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
The tenant submitted that they paid a bond of $1,920.00 on 23 November 2025 but it was not lodged until 26/1/2026, 42 working days after the tenancy began.
In response, the landlord agreed that the bond was lodged late but explained this was due to the issues with Tenancy Services changing the bond system in December 2025.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Although the landlord committed an unlawful act by lodging the bond late, exemplary damages are not available to the tenant because I accept the explanation that the late lodgement was due to well known difficulties with the Bond Centre over the period of time in question.

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] claim the landlord and owner have harassed them by the way the landlord and owner responded to their concerns and tradespeople turning up without sufficient notice.
In support of the agent, plumber, painter, electrician, engineer and builder not providing adequate notice the tenants set out the history of visits and timeframe from 30/1 to 28/4/2026.
Further the tenants submitted that the agent’s and owner’s conduct was unprofessional and antagonistic, especially after their request for all communications to be in writing.
The tenants suggested the agent left windows open following inspections, issues were minimised or dismissed, especially over the asbestos, potable water and electricity account problems.
The tenants believed the consistent pattern of behaviour had been “mentally exhausting” they had been “worn down” and had made it difficult to “enjoy our home”.
On the other hand, the landlord found communication with the tenants difficult due to the number of, constant and escalating complaints and the insistence on communication only by “hundreds” of emails.
The landlord described the six months of the tenancy as a “nightmare”, which with the subsequent three months until the hearing as having “consumed so much time in her life, totally disrupted her work and attention”.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
I am not persuaded by the evidence that the landlord or owner has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenants in their use of the premises in circumstances which amount to harassment.
The evidence does not establish a pattern of behaviour intended to wear out or exhaust the tenants but rather attempts by the landlord and owner to address the numerous issues raised by the tenants by either sending tradespeople to undertake work or attending at the premises themselves.
When tenants advise a landlord of problems some disruption must be expected if these issues are to be resolved. The more the issues the more likely the disruptions.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In summary, but not exclusively, the tenants submitted that: a. The clause in the tenancy agreement requiring the DVD system to remain connected at all times shifted the responsibility for managing moisture issues onto the tenants, b. The Healthy Homes Compliance statement attached to the tenancy agreement did not confirm compliance, c. After querying the bedroom ceiling being exposed to the roof cavity the wardrobe door was nailed shut by the landlord’s tradesperson, d. Repairs to the cracked firebox took two months and required extensive cleaning up after the repair, e. Due to safety concerns about the 1 metre drop the front door was unusable and taped off by the landlord, restricting the ability to vacate during any emergency, f. Asbestos in the ceiling cavity after water blasting by the landlord’s painter caused the DVS to be turned off, access restricted to the ceiling cavity, and Work Safe issuing a Prohibition Order, g. Testing confirmed lead paint in the gutters and perimeter of the house and garage roof, the latter area feeding the water tank. The gutters were cleaned on 1/5/2026, 83 days after advising the landlord of the problem, h. Rodent activity was advised to the landlord and was of concern because of the open header tank. The tank was replaced on 5/5 due to an historic leak, i. Although the gutters were cleared on 1/5 the tenants do not consider the gutters have sufficient fall to the down pipes, j. Roof insulation is considered deficient because a large section was observed as displaced, k. The moisture barrier under the house was observed as missing in large portions of the sub floor space and not taped to joins, l. Significant draught behind the dishwasher, m. Some under floor insulation was observed as sagging and after the landlord attended the space was padlocked, n. By the time of the hearing the landlord had paid the tenant $796.00 being the agreed amount for overpayment of electricity due to the landlord having a meter for his commercial activities attached to the premises, o. Part of the water supply for the premises was attached to a scheme which had been subject to a boil water notice since 2022, and the tenants suggested that the tenancy agreement was defective because of the failure to provide critical information about the water supply. p. When the water tank was cleaned the tenants did not believe proper procedure was followed resulting in bottled water having to be used.
In support of the application the tenants provided: a. Copies of reports from DAL about asbestos and lead contamination dated 13/2, 17/2 and 27/2/2026 respectively, and Hills Laboratory test results dated 3/3 and 9/3/2026. b. Numerous photographs, including but not limited to, the gutters, ceiling, firebox, front door, and insulation, c. Power accounts, Contact Energy email, Clutha District Council notice, Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 prohibition notice dated 7/5/2026 and revocation dated 21/5/2026. d. Email and text correspondence between the parties, and statement from the owners. e. Entry inspection report dated 24/11/2025, routine inspection report dated 19/2/2026 and exit inspection report dated 26/5/2026.
In response, the landlord submitted: a. The requirement for the DVS system to stay on at all times for heat transfer was included in the tenancy agreement but was turned off on 12/2/2026 after discovery of asbestos in the ceiling, b. The Healthy Homes Compliance Statement attached to the tenancy agreement complied with the legislation and a copy was supplied, c. Although agreeing that there was a gap in the wardrobe ceiling no remediation was undertaken immediately as the tenants had taped up the problem and subsequently agreed to having the wardrobe door nailed shut, d. They were unaware of the crack in the firebox until advised and despite the delay in fixing the fire could still be used. The landlord disputed extensive cleaning was needed after the repair, e. The one metre drop from the front door had existed since the premises were built. Due to the tenant’s health and safety concerns tape was used to restrict access. Two other exists were available for emergencies, f. The owner delayed attending to the issue of asbestos in the ceiling cavity because they were unconvinced by the testing results, g. The landlord accepted that the spouting should have been disconnected from the underground tank because of the lead, but the owners had been told the tank had been cleaned in March 2025, which was the usual practice, h. Bait was not laid in the ceiling for the rodents due to the open water tank, i. Gutters were cleaned annually and there was no issue with the fall, j. The ceiling insulation complied, and the landlord was unsure why it would have been moved, k. The owner attended to the moisture barrier under the dwelling, l. When the landlord became aware of the draught behind the dishwasher polystyrene was used to block any draught, m. The owner attended to the sagging polystyrene insulation under the dwelling, n. At the beginning of the tenancy the landlord believed there were two ICP meters rather than one being a sub metre, and that what was needed was a reading, o. The landlord was unaware that part of the water was connected to a scheme with a boil water notice, p. A filter was installed on 1/5 for the water.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety and provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the drainage, insulation, moisture barrier and draught standards.
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.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals , all private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The 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 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. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Findings: a. There is no evidence to support that leaving the DVS on all the time shifted responsibility for any moisture issues onto the tenants, rather the tenancy agreement noted it was for heat transfer. b. A healthy homes standards compliance statement must be made and signed in the tenancy agreement under section 13A(1C) to comply with section 45(1)(bb). Although not included in the statement itself the landlord provided a signed compliance confirmation in the tenancy agreement. c. The evidence does not support that the long standing issue in the wardrobe ceiling breached any healthy homes standards, apart from the way it looked. d. Despite the length of time taken to fix the firebox, there is no objective evidence to establish the fire could not be safely used during the timeframe between 18 December and 25 February. e. While clearly a hazard for young children as the front doorsteps and drop were included as part of the original house build there is no breach of the Building Code. f. Asbestos test results from DAL were received on 12/2/2026. The delay of three months by the owner to address the issue I consider is unreasonable. g. Lead paint contamination on gutters and roofs was confirmed on 12/2/2026. I consider the delay until 1/5 in rectifying this issue unreasonable. h. Due to the open header tank, I consider the reason for not laying bait in the ceiling cavity until the tank was replaced was reasonable. i. The photographic evidence by itself is not enough to prove that the fall of the gutters is inadequate. j. The healthy homes standards compliance certificate of 13/5/2026 confirms the ceiling insulation with an R value of 3.3 is in good condition and complies. k. The healthy homes standards compliance confirms the presence of a ground moisture barrier free from significant damage. l. I consider the landlord undertook repairs of the draught behind the dishwasher in a reasonable time after being advised of the issue. m. The healthy homes standards compliance report confirms the underfloor insulation has an R value of 1.3 and is in reasonable condition. n. Under section 39(3)&(4) tenants are responsible for all outgoings, including electricity, that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises or use of facilities. Requiring payment of electricity used by the owner and then being reimbursed and having no option about the provider are unacceptable practices. o. The E.coli results from the testing establishes that part of the water supply to the premises was not from a potable source, albeit that the landlord was unaware of this fact at the beginning of the tenancy. p. I am not persuaded that the steps taken by the landlord to clean the water tank were ineffective or amounted to a health hazard.
I find the landlord has committed unlawful acts by failing to take steps to address the asbestos and lead paint contamination in a reasonable time or provide potable water at the beginning of the tenancy.
In addition, I find the landlord breached the provisions of section 39(3)&(4) by requiring the tenants to pay for metered electricity not used by them and only allowing them to connect to the landlord’s provider at a commercial rate.
All other claims for compensation and exemplary damages fail.

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] claim, based on a photograph of a meter reading that the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice on 20/1/2026. They suggested this was not the only time this had happened.
In response the landlord categorically denied entering the premises on 20/1, or at any other time without notice or consent.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
At best I consider the evidence provided about unlawful entry by the landlord is speculative and unconvincing and not enough to establish that unlawful entry occurred at any time.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.

Was the tenancy agreement defective?

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] claim the landlord has not provided an insurance policy when requested to do so on 7/3/2026, but only sent a “certificate of insurance”.
The landlord confirmed that a certificate of insurance only and a link to the website had been provided because the insurance for the premises was included as part of a global insurance policy for the owner’s farming business.
A landlord must include in the tenancy agreement information about insurance of the premises, including whether the premises are insured, the amount of excess and that a copy of the policy is available. See sections 13(2) and 45(2B)Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching sections 13(2) and 45(2)(D) are unlawful acts for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00 and $900.00 respectively. See sections 13(1F)(a) and 45(2D) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The details provided in the tenancy agreement were that the insurance was with FMG, and the excess was $1,150.00.
The Tribunal was unable to locate the subsequent certificate of insurance sent to the tenants.
I am not persuaded by the evidence that the landlord failed to provide the required details about the insurance on the premises in the tenancy agreement.
Without access to the certificate of insurance or website details it is impossible for the Tribunal to determine if the information provided by the landlord was enough to constitute a copy of the policy.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

As I have found the landlord committed unlawful acts by failing to take steps to address the asbestos and lead paint contamination in a reasonable time or provide potable water at the beginning of the tenancy, I must consider the issue of exemplary damages.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney- General(Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
An award of exemplary damages is made at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved, as in this case, that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. In making an award I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).
The first of these is the intent of the landlord.
For intent there must be actual knowledge of the breach. In a recent case the District Court confirmed that intentional means “in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge” TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.
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, (Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00 DC Auckland, 1/5/2001).
With regard to the asbestos and lead paint contamination I consider the evidence supports that the landlord and owner intentionally committed unlawful acts.
In both cases the landlord and owner were aware of the testing results but delayed their responses because the latter did not believe the results, but did not take any steps to arrange their own testing.
However, and despite the boil water notice I consider the evidence does not support that the landlord intentionally failed to provide potable water.
The evidence of the landlord was that they were unaware of the notice and further believed the drinking water was rainwater via the tank system.
In addition the landlord’s response to the presence of E.coli was reasonably timely by having the tank cleaned and a filter fitted.
The claim for exemplary damages for failure to provided potable water fails due to lack of intent.
I have carefully considered the evidence of both parties, who have clearly been significantly adversely affected by the behaviour of each other.
The evidence is clear that the tenants were very stressed by the impact the tenancy had on them, particularly the constant uncertainty.
Similarly, the landlord was stressed by the constant issues which arose and the way these were communicated.
The consequences flowing from the various breaches have been extensive, in particular the issue of utility payments.
However, taking into account the factors in section 109(3) I do not consider an award of exemplary damages is needed to punish and deter the landlord and owner for the breaches because the premises are no longer available to rent.
Despite exemplary damages for the breach not being available, I consider an award of compensation is reasonable in the circumstances because, in particular because of the delays over rectifying the asbestos and lead contamination and to a lesser extent the electricity payment which was made before the hearing.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
The Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to the strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
In the circumstances of this particularly acrimonious dispute, which escalated significantly over the period of the tenancy, I consider an award of compensation of $3,000.00 to the tenants is reasonable.
However, no filing fee is awarded because the tenants were only partly successful.
Suppression is not granted under section 95A because the tenants did not wholly or substantially succeed with the proceedings.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5469470 — net $3,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$3,000.00	Compensation
Net award	$3,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,000.00

Claims and awards for application 5469470 — net $3,000.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation

Amount: $3,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation

Net award

Tenant $3,000.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $3,000.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation

Order

Cutlers Limited Jo Turnbull must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $3,000.00 immediately.

Reasons

Following a case conference on 9/7/2026, one tenant and the landlord attended the hearing on 20/10/2026.
Unfortunately, and despite the directions in the case conference minute both parties filed significant documents in evidence two days before the hearing, which has led to a delay in the Tribunal issuing the decision while the evidence was properly considered.
On 17/3/2026 the tenants filed an application seeking work orders, compensation and exemplary damages.
As the tenants have now vacated the premises the issue of work orders is moot.
The parties participated in mediation on 4/4/2026.
The fixed term tenancy began on 26/11/2025 at $480.00 rent per week and ended on 26/5/2026.
The issues for the tenants are: a. Pre tenancy accuracy - relating to late lodgement of the bond, the clause in the tenancy agreement requiring the DVS to remain on, and an inaccurate Healthy Homes statement, b. Failure to provide and maintain the property - in regard to a cracked firebox, unusable front door due to safety concerns, unusable DVS system, asbestos in the ceiling void, lead paint in the gutters and perimeter of the house, rodents in the ceiling, c. Healthy Homes Standards compliance - for drainage, insulation, moisture barrier, and draughts, d. Utilities – relating to power and potable water, e. Quiet enjoyment – by tradespeople, agent and owner, f. Information and document failures – regarding the tenancy agreement, insurance policy, entry inspection report and details of water supply scheme, g. Unlawful entry – added at the case conference, h. Effects of the tenancy on the tenants. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the tenants must establish, with evidence, that their claims are more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, as is the case here, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicant, in this case the tenants, to provide the necessary evidence to support their claims. If they fail to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.

Did the landlord lodge the bond late?

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] claim the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
The tenant submitted that they paid a bond of $1,920.00 on 23 November 2025 but it was not lodged until 26/1/2026, 42 working days after the tenancy began.
In response, the landlord agreed that the bond was lodged late but explained this was due to the issues with Tenancy Services changing the bond system in December 2025.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Although the landlord committed an unlawful act by lodging the bond late, exemplary damages are not available to the tenant because I accept the explanation that the late lodgement was due to well known difficulties with the Bond Centre over the period of time in question.

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] claim the landlord and owner have harassed them by the way the landlord and owner responded to their concerns and tradespeople turning up without sufficient notice.
In support of the agent, plumber, painter, electrician, engineer and builder not providing adequate notice the tenants set out the history of visits and timeframe from 30/1 to 28/4/2026.
Further the tenants submitted that the agent’s and owner’s conduct was unprofessional and antagonistic, especially after their request for all communications to be in writing.
The tenants suggested the agent left windows open following inspections, issues were minimised or dismissed, especially over the asbestos, potable water and electricity account problems.
The tenants believed the consistent pattern of behaviour had been “mentally exhausting” they had been “worn down” and had made it difficult to “enjoy our home”.
On the other hand, the landlord found communication with the tenants difficult due to the number of, constant and escalating complaints and the insistence on communication only by “hundreds” of emails.
The landlord described the six months of the tenancy as a “nightmare”, which with the subsequent three months until the hearing as having “consumed so much time in her life, totally disrupted her work and attention”.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
I am not persuaded by the evidence that the landlord or owner has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenants in their use of the premises in circumstances which amount to harassment.
The evidence does not establish a pattern of behaviour intended to wear out or exhaust the tenants but rather attempts by the landlord and owner to address the numerous issues raised by the tenants by either sending tradespeople to undertake work or attending at the premises themselves.
When tenants advise a landlord of problems some disruption must be expected if these issues are to be resolved. The more the issues the more likely the disruptions.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In summary, but not exclusively, the tenants submitted that: a. The clause in the tenancy agreement requiring the DVD system to remain connected at all times shifted the responsibility for managing moisture issues onto the tenants, b. The Healthy Homes Compliance statement attached to the tenancy agreement did not confirm compliance, c. After querying the bedroom ceiling being exposed to the roof cavity the wardrobe door was nailed shut by the landlord’s tradesperson, d. Repairs to the cracked firebox took two months and required extensive cleaning up after the repair, e. Due to safety concerns about the 1 metre drop the front door was unusable and taped off by the landlord, restricting the ability to vacate during any emergency, f. Asbestos in the ceiling cavity after water blasting by the landlord’s painter caused the DVS to be turned off, access restricted to the ceiling cavity, and Work Safe issuing a Prohibition Order, g. Testing confirmed lead paint in the gutters and perimeter of the house and garage roof, the latter area feeding the water tank. The gutters were cleaned on 1/5/2026, 83 days after advising the landlord of the problem, h. Rodent activity was advised to the landlord and was of concern because of the open header tank. The tank was replaced on 5/5 due to an historic leak, i. Although the gutters were cleared on 1/5 the tenants do not consider the gutters have sufficient fall to the down pipes, j. Roof insulation is considered deficient because a large section was observed as displaced, k. The moisture barrier under the house was observed as missing in large portions of the sub floor space and not taped to joins, l. Significant draught behind the dishwasher, m. Some under floor insulation was observed as sagging and after the landlord attended the space was padlocked, n. By the time of the hearing the landlord had paid the tenant $796.00 being the agreed amount for overpayment of electricity due to the landlord having a meter for his commercial activities attached to the premises, o. Part of the water supply for the premises was attached to a scheme which had been subject to a boil water notice since 2022, and the tenants suggested that the tenancy agreement was defective because of the failure to provide critical information about the water supply. p. When the water tank was cleaned the tenants did not believe proper procedure was followed resulting in bottled water having to be used.
In support of the application the tenants provided: a. Copies of reports from DAL about asbestos and lead contamination dated 13/2, 17/2 and 27/2/2026 respectively, and Hills Laboratory test results dated 3/3 and 9/3/2026. b. Numerous photographs, including but not limited to, the gutters, ceiling, firebox, front door, and insulation, c. Power accounts, Contact Energy email, Clutha District Council notice, Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 prohibition notice dated 7/5/2026 and revocation dated 21/5/2026. d. Email and text correspondence between the parties, and statement from the owners. e. Entry inspection report dated 24/11/2025, routine inspection report dated 19/2/2026 and exit inspection report dated 26/5/2026.
In response, the landlord submitted: a. The requirement for the DVS system to stay on at all times for heat transfer was included in the tenancy agreement but was turned off on 12/2/2026 after discovery of asbestos in the ceiling, b. The Healthy Homes Compliance Statement attached to the tenancy agreement complied with the legislation and a copy was supplied, c. Although agreeing that there was a gap in the wardrobe ceiling no remediation was undertaken immediately as the tenants had taped up the problem and subsequently agreed to having the wardrobe door nailed shut, d. They were unaware of the crack in the firebox until advised and despite the delay in fixing the fire could still be used. The landlord disputed extensive cleaning was needed after the repair, e. The one metre drop from the front door had existed since the premises were built. Due to the tenant’s health and safety concerns tape was used to restrict access. Two other exists were available for emergencies, f. The owner delayed attending to the issue of asbestos in the ceiling cavity because they were unconvinced by the testing results, g. The landlord accepted that the spouting should have been disconnected from the underground tank because of the lead, but the owners had been told the tank had been cleaned in March 2025, which was the usual practice, h. Bait was not laid in the ceiling for the rodents due to the open water tank, i. Gutters were cleaned annually and there was no issue with the fall, j. The ceiling insulation complied, and the landlord was unsure why it would have been moved, k. The owner attended to the moisture barrier under the dwelling, l. When the landlord became aware of the draught behind the dishwasher polystyrene was used to block any draught, m. The owner attended to the sagging polystyrene insulation under the dwelling, n. At the beginning of the tenancy the landlord believed there were two ICP meters rather than one being a sub metre, and that what was needed was a reading, o. The landlord was unaware that part of the water was connected to a scheme with a boil water notice, p. A filter was installed on 1/5 for the water.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety and provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the drainage, insulation, moisture barrier and draught standards.
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.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals , all private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The 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 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. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Findings: a. There is no evidence to support that leaving the DVS on all the time shifted responsibility for any moisture issues onto the tenants, rather the tenancy agreement noted it was for heat transfer. b. A healthy homes standards compliance statement must be made and signed in the tenancy agreement under section 13A(1C) to comply with section 45(1)(bb). Although not included in the statement itself the landlord provided a signed compliance confirmation in the tenancy agreement. c. The evidence does not support that the long standing issue in the wardrobe ceiling breached any healthy homes standards, apart from the way it looked. d. Despite the length of time taken to fix the firebox, there is no objective evidence to establish the fire could not be safely used during the timeframe between 18 December and 25 February. e. While clearly a hazard for young children as the front doorsteps and drop were included as part of the original house build there is no breach of the Building Code. f. Asbestos test results from DAL were received on 12/2/2026. The delay of three months by the owner to address the issue I consider is unreasonable. g. Lead paint contamination on gutters and roofs was confirmed on 12/2/2026. I consider the delay until 1/5 in rectifying this issue unreasonable. h. Due to the open header tank, I consider the reason for not laying bait in the ceiling cavity until the tank was replaced was reasonable. i. The photographic evidence by itself is not enough to prove that the fall of the gutters is inadequate. j. The healthy homes standards compliance certificate of 13/5/2026 confirms the ceiling insulation with an R value of 3.3 is in good condition and complies. k. The healthy homes standards compliance confirms the presence of a ground moisture barrier free from significant damage. l. I consider the landlord undertook repairs of the draught behind the dishwasher in a reasonable time after being advised of the issue. m. The healthy homes standards compliance report confirms the underfloor insulation has an R value of 1.3 and is in reasonable condition. n. Under section 39(3)&(4) tenants are responsible for all outgoings, including electricity, that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises or use of facilities. Requiring payment of electricity used by the owner and then being reimbursed and having no option about the provider are unacceptable practices. o. The E.coli results from the testing establishes that part of the water supply to the premises was not from a potable source, albeit that the landlord was unaware of this fact at the beginning of the tenancy. p. I am not persuaded that the steps taken by the landlord to clean the water tank were ineffective or amounted to a health hazard.
I find the landlord has committed unlawful acts by failing to take steps to address the asbestos and lead paint contamination in a reasonable time or provide potable water at the beginning of the tenancy.
In addition, I find the landlord breached the provisions of section 39(3)&(4) by requiring the tenants to pay for metered electricity not used by them and only allowing them to connect to the landlord’s provider at a commercial rate.
All other claims for compensation and exemplary damages fail.

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] claim, based on a photograph of a meter reading that the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice on 20/1/2026. They suggested this was not the only time this had happened.
In response the landlord categorically denied entering the premises on 20/1, or at any other time without notice or consent.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
At best I consider the evidence provided about unlawful entry by the landlord is speculative and unconvincing and not enough to establish that unlawful entry occurred at any time.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.

Was the tenancy agreement defective?

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] claim the landlord has not provided an insurance policy when requested to do so on 7/3/2026, but only sent a “certificate of insurance”.
The landlord confirmed that a certificate of insurance only and a link to the website had been provided because the insurance for the premises was included as part of a global insurance policy for the owner’s farming business.
A landlord must include in the tenancy agreement information about insurance of the premises, including whether the premises are insured, the amount of excess and that a copy of the policy is available. See sections 13(2) and 45(2B)Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching sections 13(2) and 45(2)(D) are unlawful acts for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00 and $900.00 respectively. See sections 13(1F)(a) and 45(2D) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The details provided in the tenancy agreement were that the insurance was with FMG, and the excess was $1,150.00.
The Tribunal was unable to locate the subsequent certificate of insurance sent to the tenants.
I am not persuaded by the evidence that the landlord failed to provide the required details about the insurance on the premises in the tenancy agreement.
Without access to the certificate of insurance or website details it is impossible for the Tribunal to determine if the information provided by the landlord was enough to constitute a copy of the policy.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

As I have found the landlord committed unlawful acts by failing to take steps to address the asbestos and lead paint contamination in a reasonable time or provide potable water at the beginning of the tenancy, I must consider the issue of exemplary damages.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney- General(Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
An award of exemplary damages is made at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved, as in this case, that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. In making an award I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).
The first of these is the intent of the landlord.
For intent there must be actual knowledge of the breach. In a recent case the District Court confirmed that intentional means “in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge” TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.
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, (Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00 DC Auckland, 1/5/2001).
With regard to the asbestos and lead paint contamination I consider the evidence supports that the landlord and owner intentionally committed unlawful acts.
In both cases the landlord and owner were aware of the testing results but delayed their responses because the latter did not believe the results, but did not take any steps to arrange their own testing.
However, and despite the boil water notice I consider the evidence does not support that the landlord intentionally failed to provide potable water.
The evidence of the landlord was that they were unaware of the notice and further believed the drinking water was rainwater via the tank system.
In addition the landlord’s response to the presence of E.coli was reasonably timely by having the tank cleaned and a filter fitted.
The claim for exemplary damages for failure to provided potable water fails due to lack of intent.
I have carefully considered the evidence of both parties, who have clearly been significantly adversely affected by the behaviour of each other.
The evidence is clear that the tenants were very stressed by the impact the tenancy had on them, particularly the constant uncertainty.
Similarly, the landlord was stressed by the constant issues which arose and the way these were communicated.
The consequences flowing from the various breaches have been extensive, in particular the issue of utility payments.
However, taking into account the factors in section 109(3) I do not consider an award of exemplary damages is needed to punish and deter the landlord and owner for the breaches because the premises are no longer available to rent.
Despite exemplary damages for the breach not being available, I consider an award of compensation is reasonable in the circumstances because, in particular because of the delays over rectifying the asbestos and lead contamination and to a lesser extent the electricity payment which was made before the hearing.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
The Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to the strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
In the circumstances of this particularly acrimonious dispute, which escalated significantly over the period of the tenancy, I consider an award of compensation of $3,000.00 to the tenants is reasonable.
However, no filing fee is awarded because the tenants were only partly successful.
Suppression is not granted under section 95A because the tenants did not wholly or substantially succeed with the proceedings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5469470 — Tenancy dispute at 77 Round Hill Road, Johnston, RD 3, Lawrence 9593,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5469470 — Tenancy dispute at 77 Round Hill Road, Johnston, RD 3, Lawrence 9593,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord lodge the bond late?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

Was the tenancy agreement defective?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord lodge the bond late?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

Was the tenancy agreement defective?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord lodge the bond late?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

Did the landlord enter the premises without consent?

Was the tenancy agreement defective?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord lodge the bond late?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

Did the landlord enter the premises without consent?

Was the tenancy agreement defective?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.