What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5473951 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5473951?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5473951?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5473951?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13945602-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5473951 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5473951?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5473951?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5473951?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13945602-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

135 Glenmore Street, Kelburn, Wellington 6012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5473951 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenants against the landlord.

BACKGROUND

There is a significant background in this case, with an unfortunate lack of contemporaneous or accurate records, and significant variations and recollection between the parties on important matters.

It is relevant to note that I issued a decision on 18 March 2026, which set out the background of the applicants coming into this property in greater detail, and in that decision I also made findings as to whether Mia and Grace were tenants. This decision should be read in light of that earlier order.

However, to provide a summary and context, the premises are a large residential dwelling in Wellington. It appears that the tenancy commenced in 2020, and over the course of the years, the composition of the tenants has changed. There is no relationship between the original tenants and those in the premises at the end of the tenancy.

Furthermore, the tenancies have been fixed-term tenancies, where the tenancy agreement would be extended at the end of the prior fixed-term period. This is relevant because there are two ways that a fixed-term tenancy could be enlarged: that is, the original tenancy could be extended, which is effectively a variation of the original agreement, where the end date moves forward by the agreed period, or the other way is that the tenancy agreement could be renewed. A renewal would be a new contract. In this case, my impression is that there has been a succession of extensions. What that means is that the original tenancy agreement, which is the contract between the parties, remains in place, but what has occurred is that the end date of the fixed-term agreement gets pushed out.

But as far as this decision is concerned, as noted in my earlier order, the evidence is that from 11 March 2025 to the end of the tenancy, the tenants were: a. James Farrar b. Nathan Mulligan c. [The tenant/s], and d. [The tenant/s].

The expiry date of this extended tenancy agreement became 18 February 2026.

It is also relevant to note that James was the ‘head tenant’. The term ‘head tenant’ is not found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), but it is a term used in New Zealand which means the lead tenant in a multi-tenant agreement. What is commonly seen is that rent is normally paid to the head tenant. Who then forwards the payments to the landlord, and communications from the landlord may be directed to the head tenant. This is not a legal position as such, but rather practice that has developed in New Zealand to allow multi-tenant tenancies to function smoothly. But even in circumstances when there is a head tenant, the obligations that exist between the landlord and tenants apply to all tenants equally. There are no special obligations that exist under the RTA for head tenants.

In this case, Mia and Grace say they were making regular payments to James, but those payments were not being passed to the landlord. Earlier landlord application

The Tribunal received an earlier application from the landlord, seeking an order of rent arrears. The Tribunal (Adjudicator Pollak) issued an order dated 11 September 2025. The adjudicator determined that the four co-tenants owed the landlord rent arrears of $13,207.14, being rent due up to 11 September 2025. Grace and Mia were not at that hearing.

Grace and Mia applied for a re-hearing on the basis that they had not been notified of the hearing date and time, so have not had an opportunity to be heard. The application for rehearing was declined, and no appeal was advanced of that decision. What that means is that the decision is therefore binding on the parties, and also myself. Tenancy now ended

The tenancy has now ended. The landlord’s position is that rent arrears of $59,892.86 are owed by the tenants at the end of the tenancy, as of 9 February 2026. Current application filed

The tenants filed this current application. As noted above, an earlier hearing was convened, and a decision issued on 18 March 2026, confirming who the tenants were, which will apply to this current dispute.

A further hearing was convened on 1 July 2026 in Wellington. The tenants were in attendance, and submissions were also provided from Penelope and Peter Hurndell on behalf of [The tenant/s].

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.

That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant) establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

ANALYSIS

Having heard from the tenants, as I indicated at the hearing, there are four issues I need to determine, that is whether orders can be made for: a.A rent reduction for Grace and Mia. b.Exemplary damages for a breach of the Healthy Home Standards. c.Exemplary damages for a breach of the landlord’s smoke alarm obligations; and d.Exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond.

I will consider each of those claims below, and set out the relevant arguments for the parties there. Claim 1 – Rent reduction for Grace and Mia Tenants’ position

The tenants’ position is that their rent liability should be reduced for a range of reasons.

Firstly, the property manager failed to engage in mediation or act responsibly with the tenants. That includes providing information to the tenants, including the bank account for which payment should be made, failing to lodge the bond, and having inadequate records such as who the tenants were at particular times.

It was submitted that the tenants were not accurately informed of the true tenancy arrangements. Further, Grace and Mia shared a single room, so their proportion of liability should be less.

When rent payments were made to the head tenant, they were not applied to rent.

In relation to the management of the tenancy, the tenants are concerned that they were not advised when rent arrears were accumulating, and had this been raised earlier, rent could have been paid directly to the landlord. The property manager should have done more to mitigate their losses. In this case, the landlord’s decision not to apply to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy earlier was made only for commercial reasons.

Ms Hurndell’s position is that the landlord was remiss in relying on a head tenant who was inexperienced in that role and failing to provide reasonable support.

The tenants believe that the landlord has acted in a predatory way.

Grace and Mia accept that the principle of joint and several liability is an established principle but consider it does not take fairness into consideration.

The rent was not a market rate for these premises.

Further, it was submitted that the premises failed to comply with the Healthy Homes requirements. Landlord’s position

The landlord’s position is that the tenants are jointly and severally liable for the rent arrears, which, as noted above, total just under $60,000.00 at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord submits there is no basis to reduce the tenants’ rent liability, and in particular, there would be no remedy available within the RTA to do that.

As there are multiple tenants, all tenants are liable to pay any rent debt due.

The landlord accepts that issues of mitigation may be relevant, but the tenants would need to establish that reasonable steps were not taken. In this case, the property manager says that there was engagement with the tenants, so this is not a case of the tenants not being informed of the arrears situation.

The landlord submits there was an outstanding application for rent arrears that still needed to be heard and considered in this proceeding. Analysis

In my earlier decision, I referred to this case as troubling, and I have not changed my view of that.

This is a decision that arises from applications filed by the tenants. Because it is a tenant application, it must be viewed as an application for a declaration as to the extent of the tenant’s liability.

The overarching consideration I must make is whether the rent liability for Grace and Mia can be reduced. For the reasons I will now set out, I find it cannot.

The tribunal has previously made an order in relation to rent arrears at these premises, until 11 September 2025. That decision was not challenged at appeal, and it is binding on all parties as mentioned above. That means that I can now only consider the situation as it relates to rent arrears after that date.

The starting point must be to recognise that there is a tenancy between the parties, and that requires the tenants to pay rent to the landlord. There was no dispute around that, but the tenants consider the landlord should have done more to bring the issue of the arrears to their knowledge.

The problem for Grace and Mia is that the landlord did advise them of the situation, and I refer to an email from the Property Manager sent on 30 September 2025, which clearly raises the issue of a rent debt with them. The email states: We have still continued to receive no payments for rent at 135 Glenmore Street. I have attached the rent statement for you. You are all jointly and severally liable for the arrears. We want to meet at the property at 10 am on Friday to discuss the arrears and options to help with reletting. I have received emails saying that some parties have not paid their rent in full, but what you need to understand is that if rent is not paid to us, then it is not paid. Other disputes with rent between yourselves as a civil matter and you will need to address separately. ... The current outstanding balance is $19,350.00. See attached rent statement...

The landlord’s explanation of the obligations around rent is entirely correct. Furthermore, that email was sent to Mia and Grace as well as James and Nathan. The email address used for Grace and Mia was the same email address which is recorded on the application form filed to the tribunal; to that extent, it is likely the email was properly sent to them. Accordingly, it could not be said that the landlord had not raised the issue with Grace and Mia.

I also accept that the landlord has undertaken other mechanisms to try and mitigate any continuing rent arrears, such as agreeing to release the tenants early if a new set of tenants could be found. The landlord has provided evidence which confirms that the premises were advertised for reletting.

I note the landlord’s reference to its own claim for rent arrears. The landlord referred to the application number, which relates to the Tribunal order issued on 11 September 2025. The Tribunal determined that the rent arrears as of that date were $13,207.14, and the arrears were ordered to be paid by the tenants. That was a final order; if the landlord wishes to claim rent arrears after 11 September 2025, then the landlord must file a new application in relation to that claim.

Grace and Mia also say that because they were sharing a room, their proportion of the liability should be less. There is joint and several liability in relation to the rent arrears, which means that the tenants are collectively responsible for paying the rent to the landlord, and if the full rent is not paid, then the landlord can pursue one or all of the tenants to recover that debt. Because of that, while I accept that Grace and Mia share one bedroom, that does not, in law, limit their liability for the overall debt.

It was submitted that the landlord was wrong in relying on an inexperienced head tenant, and should have done more to support him. There is no legal obligation on a contracting party to decide who the representative for the other party would be, and there is also no requirement that one contracting party provide support or training to the other contracting party and meet their obligations. What that means is that there is no obligation on a landlord to provide training or oversight for a head tenant.

The co-tenants are responsible for deciding who the head tenant would be that engages with the landlord, and equally the co-tenants could decide there will be no head tenant, that they will all engage with the landlord; that is an option for the tenants to decide.

Nevertheless, it must be recognised that the landlord has raised with Grace and Mia on 30 September 2025 that rent was not being paid, and so it was open to the tenants to change how they were engaging with the landlord and paying rent, at that time.

Finally, it was submitted that the rental for the premises was not a market rate. The Tribunal can consider applications to determine the market rent of premises, but in this case, the application filed was not an application for a market rent assessment, so that is not a matter I can advance further. Claim 2 – Breach of the Healthy Homes Standards Tenant’s position

The tenants’ position is that the landlord has failed to comply with its Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) obligations. It was submitted that the premises were very cold, although the tenants accept they did not know the insulation situation in the property.

The tenants also submit that they requested an HHS certificate, but none was provided by the landlord. Landlord’s position

The landlord’s position is that the dwelling was HHS compliant.

At the hearing, I asked whether or not the landlord had the HHS compliance statement available, because it was not on the Tribunal’s file. Mr Cook did not have that document with him, but I requested it be provided following the hearing, which it was. The certificate is as follows: Analysis

The tenants’ position is that the landlord has breached its obligations in relation to the Healthy Homes Standards.

Because the tenancy commenced in 2020, it needed to comply with the HHS by 1 July 2025.

The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provided for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress, and drainage.

Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the HHS. A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered.

The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.

The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An online calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/

The Insulation standard requires that the premises have qualifying insulation in the ceiling cavity, and under the floor if the floor is a suspended floor. To be considered ‘qualifying insulation’, the insulation must meet a minimum R value. The insulation must also be in a reasonable condition.

The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.

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 groundwater, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.

In terms of compliance with the HHS, the real problem that the tenants face is that they have not provided any evidence showing that the premises do not comply. Again, the onus is on the person bringing the claim, the tenants in this case, to prove that a breach arises.

Nevertheless, the landlord has provided an invoice showing the heat pump was installed in 2022 (with the calculation of heat pump size presented), and the evidence from the HHS statement above otherwise suggests the premises are compliant. a. Heating was provided by way of a heat pump with a 5.8 kW capacity, with the assessed heating needs for the property being 5.7 kW. b. Insulation is fitted in the ceiling by way of Pink Batts. There is partial underfloor insulation only, due to decreased clearance “partial installed due to clearance issues at rear of property”. c. Ventilation is achieved by openable windows, and there are externally ducted extraction fans in the kitchen and both bathrooms. d. Gutters and downpipes drain effectively, and there is a partial installation of a ground moisture barrier, again “partially installed due to clearance issues at the rear of the property”. e. The premises are free of draughts.

I find, therefore, that the tenants have not proven that the premises do not comply with the HHS. Claim 3 – Breach of smoke alarm regulations Tenant’s position

The tenant’s position is simple: there were no smoke alarms installed at the property at all. That breaches the landlord’s smoke alarm obligations. Landlord’s position

The landlord disputes that there are no smoke alarms. The landlord states that in July a photograph was taken of the downstairs smoke alarm on the ceiling, and the base plate for the upstairs alarm where the alarm had been removed. Analysis

Section 45(1)(ba) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that landlords comply with all requirements in relation to smoke alarms made under section 138A.

The relevant regulations are the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. Those regulations require landlords to have qualifying smoke alarms installed and operational.

Regulation 5 requires that there be at least one qualifying smoke alarm installed: a. Within a sleeping space (bedroom); or b. Within 3 metres of the entrance to a sleeping space; AND c. On each story or level of the premises.

In this case, the best evidence I have available is the photographic evidence. I have no reason not to believe the photographs are an accurate representation of the premises. I accept the photograph shows what appears to be a smoke alarm in one of the images, which I will accept is the downstairs smoke alarm referred to by the landlord. I also accept that another photograph shows that there was a bracket for a smoke alarm on the ceiling, which I will accept is the upstairs bracket the landlord referred to.

Those photographs do not support the tenant’s position that there were no alarms. Of course, there was no alarm on the upstairs ceiling, but the fact of a bracket being present does support that an alarm was at some point in place.

It is the tenants that must prove their claim, which means the tenants must provide sufficient evidence to convince the Tribunal that the landlord did not have smoke alarms present at the start of the tenancy (in 2020), or that they were not positioned within the required distances from bedrooms, or on each level, and the tenants have not proven that. Claim 4 – Exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond Tenant’s position

It is submitted that Grace and Mia paid their bond to the head tenant in January 2025, but they did not receive a bond lodgement certificate until 14 August 2025. Grace and Mia state that they checked with Tenancy Services as to whether the bond had been lodged in their name, and were advised that it had not. It was only on 5 September 2025 that they were advised a bond had been lodged in their name. Analysis

Section 19 of the RTA sets out the landlord’s duties on receipt of the bond. That requires that the landlord lodge the bond with the Chief Executive (the Bond Centre) within 23 working days of receipt, and with the approved form.

In this case, the tenants paid the bond to the head tenant, but that is not evidence of the tenants paying the bond to the landlord. The 23 working days start from the date the landlord received the bond. Therefore, the tenants have not proven that the landlord was late in lodging the bond.

I have contacted the Bond Centre to request a copy of the bond lodgement form, but they do not have a copy. All they have is a record of the bond being lodged in August 2025. I cannot know what information was on that form, unfortunately, and therefore I cannot take that obligation on the landlord any further.

Ultimately, I find the tenants have not established a breach on the part of the landlord with the bond lodgement. Conclusion

For the above reasons, I find that the tenants have not established a breach of any obligation on the part of the landlord.

Reasons