What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5469860 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 5469860?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $975.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5469860?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5469860?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13492872-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5469860 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 5469860?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $975.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5469860?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5469860?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13492872-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

261 Sturges Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5469860 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5469860 — net $1,503.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 45	$975.00	Section 45
Compensation	$500.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,503.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,503.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Bingwen Fang must pay [The tenant/s] $1,503.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
By agreement, the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 261 Sturges Road, Henderson is terminated and ends on 24 April 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 23 April 2026.
The tenancy began on 16 January 2026. On 6 February 2026 (21 days after the tenancy commenced) the landlord issued a 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant applied for a claim relating to the Healthy Homes standards, for compensation in relation to the landlord’s breach of section 45 and for a declaration that the notice to end the tenancy was retaliatory. Landlord’s agent
At the hearing the landlord and his father attended. There is a third person (Ahmed) who has been an informal agent for the landlord because of the landlord’s lack of English-speaking ability. Also, apparently the third person also knew more about tenancies. It is that person who the tenant has dealt with in relation to issues. She also thought that the landlord’s father was the landlord and had never met the landlord prior to the hearing.
The tenant said at the hearing that she has tried to contact the landlord on the phone numbers in the tenancy agreement, but they were never answered. Instead, she has contacted Ahmed about issues, but that contact has not always resulted in a response from the landlord. For example, the tenant messaged Ahmed about a fallen branch blocking the path on 29 March 2026. At the date of hearing nothing has been done about clearing the branch and the landlord said that he was not aware of the issue.
If the landlord is not able to carry out his obligations as a landlord due to language difficulties or because of a lack of knowledge of tenancy laws, it may be better for him to appoint an agent (such as a Property Management company) whose details are included in the tenancy agreement. The issues that this tenant has had to deal with would likely have been avoided or dealt with earlier had such an agent been involved from the beginning. Healthy Homes standards
The tenant claimed in relation to the Healthy Homes standards.
At the hearing the landlord produced a Healthy Homes report prepared by A Buyers Choice and dated 12 July 2025. That report records that the premises comply with the Healthy Homes standards. That claim is dismissed. Section 45
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires that the landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 1 and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair 2 .
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 issues raised by the tenant include windows in the premises which either do not open, because they have been painted shut, or do not shut unless they are pushed shut from the outside. The Healthy Homes report identifies that there are windows but does not consider whether they are usable.
At the hearing the landlord said that the handyman came to look at the windows and confirmed that one could not be completely fixed and instead had to be shut by pushing from the outside. This is not acceptable.
While the tenant referred to problems with other windows there was no evidence produced in relation to them.
The tenant also referred to the carpet in the downstairs area which she says was soiled by dog faeces and urine. She had photographs of the soiling, but they were not clear. The landlord acknowledged the carpet was dirty and had wanted to remove the carpet from the room rather than clean it, but he said that the tenant wanted the carpet to remain. Given that the carpet was there at the beginning of the tenancy (or when the tenant viewed the property) she was entitled to ask for it to remain and for the landlord to clean the carpet as he is required to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 3 .
A further issue raised by the tenant was the fallen tree branch. This issue was raised with the landlord’s agent on 29 March 2026 but at the date of hearing no action had been taken by the landlord which is a clear indication that his appointment of an agent has not ensured that he maintains the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The landlord has breached his obligation under section 45. 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 other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 1 Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 3 Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The landlord was aware of most of the issues with the premises which should have been addressed before the tenancy commenced. In relation to the tree branch the tenant clearly advised the landlord’s agent so it was the fault of the landlord that that information was not provided for him to carry out the necessary work to address the issue.
The landlord’s failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state and address maintenance issues effectively and in a timely manner has had a significant impact on the tenant. Originally her father had lived at the premises with her, but he has moved out apparently due to the issues and because he has health problems. The tenant is not able to remain in the premises on her own.
I consider that exemplary damages of $975.00 is reasonable also taking into account the communication difficulties that the tenant faced. Retaliatory notice
The tenant applied for a declaration that the notice given by the landlord was retaliatory.
The evidence that the landlord gave notice 21 days after the start of the tenancy and after receipt of the plumber’s invoice from the tenant suggests that it may have been retaliatory.
While the landlord said that the notice was due to financial issues there was no evidence that anything happened within those 21 days for the situation to change so much that the landlord needed to give notice.
Due to the notice the tenant has arranged for her belongings to be removed, and she is going to transitional housing tomorrow. At the hearing the landlord agreed for the tenancy to end tomorrow which is an appropriate response given the likelihood that the notice may have been declared retaliatory.
At the hearing the tenant sought compensation for moving costs. Given that the notice was likely retaliatory I consider it appropriate for the landlord to contribute $500.00 toward those costs.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5469860 — net $1,503.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 45	$975.00	Section 45
Compensation	$500.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,503.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,503.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Bingwen Fang must pay [The tenant/s] $1,503.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
By agreement, the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 261 Sturges Road, Henderson is terminated and ends on 24 April 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 23 April 2026.
The tenancy began on 16 January 2026. On 6 February 2026 (21 days after the tenancy commenced) the landlord issued a 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant applied for a claim relating to the Healthy Homes standards, for compensation in relation to the landlord’s breach of section 45 and for a declaration that the notice to end the tenancy was retaliatory. Landlord’s agent
At the hearing the landlord and his father attended. There is a third person (Ahmed) who has been an informal agent for the landlord because of the landlord’s lack of English-speaking ability. Also, apparently the third person also knew more about tenancies. It is that person who the tenant has dealt with in relation to issues. She also thought that the landlord’s father was the landlord and had never met the landlord prior to the hearing.
The tenant said at the hearing that she has tried to contact the landlord on the phone numbers in the tenancy agreement, but they were never answered. Instead, she has contacted Ahmed about issues, but that contact has not always resulted in a response from the landlord. For example, the tenant messaged Ahmed about a fallen branch blocking the path on 29 March 2026. At the date of hearing nothing has been done about clearing the branch and the landlord said that he was not aware of the issue.
If the landlord is not able to carry out his obligations as a landlord due to language difficulties or because of a lack of knowledge of tenancy laws, it may be better for him to appoint an agent (such as a Property Management company) whose details are included in the tenancy agreement. The issues that this tenant has had to deal with would likely have been avoided or dealt with earlier had such an agent been involved from the beginning. Healthy Homes standards
The tenant claimed in relation to the Healthy Homes standards.
At the hearing the landlord produced a Healthy Homes report prepared by A Buyers Choice and dated 12 July 2025. That report records that the premises comply with the Healthy Homes standards. That claim is dismissed. Section 45
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires that the landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 1 and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair 2 .
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 issues raised by the tenant include windows in the premises which either do not open, because they have been painted shut, or do not shut unless they are pushed shut from the outside. The Healthy Homes report identifies that there are windows but does not consider whether they are usable.
At the hearing the landlord said that the handyman came to look at the windows and confirmed that one could not be completely fixed and instead had to be shut by pushing from the outside. This is not acceptable.
While the tenant referred to problems with other windows there was no evidence produced in relation to them.
The tenant also referred to the carpet in the downstairs area which she says was soiled by dog faeces and urine. She had photographs of the soiling, but they were not clear. The landlord acknowledged the carpet was dirty and had wanted to remove the carpet from the room rather than clean it, but he said that the tenant wanted the carpet to remain. Given that the carpet was there at the beginning of the tenancy (or when the tenant viewed the property) she was entitled to ask for it to remain and for the landlord to clean the carpet as he is required to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 3 .
A further issue raised by the tenant was the fallen tree branch. This issue was raised with the landlord’s agent on 29 March 2026 but at the date of hearing no action had been taken by the landlord which is a clear indication that his appointment of an agent has not ensured that he maintains the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The landlord has breached his obligation under section 45. 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 other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 1 Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 3 Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The landlord was aware of most of the issues with the premises which should have been addressed before the tenancy commenced. In relation to the tree branch the tenant clearly advised the landlord’s agent so it was the fault of the landlord that that information was not provided for him to carry out the necessary work to address the issue.
The landlord’s failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state and address maintenance issues effectively and in a timely manner has had a significant impact on the tenant. Originally her father had lived at the premises with her, but he has moved out apparently due to the issues and because he has health problems. The tenant is not able to remain in the premises on her own.
I consider that exemplary damages of $975.00 is reasonable also taking into account the communication difficulties that the tenant faced. Retaliatory notice
The tenant applied for a declaration that the notice given by the landlord was retaliatory.
The evidence that the landlord gave notice 21 days after the start of the tenancy and after receipt of the plumber’s invoice from the tenant suggests that it may have been retaliatory.
While the landlord said that the notice was due to financial issues there was no evidence that anything happened within those 21 days for the situation to change so much that the landlord needed to give notice.
Due to the notice the tenant has arranged for her belongings to be removed, and she is going to transitional housing tomorrow. At the hearing the landlord agreed for the tenancy to end tomorrow which is an appropriate response given the likelihood that the notice may have been declared retaliatory.
At the hearing the tenant sought compensation for moving costs. Given that the notice was likely retaliatory I consider it appropriate for the landlord to contribute $500.00 toward those costs.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5469860 — Exemplary damages at 261 Sturges Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5469860 — Exemplary damages at 261 Sturges Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions