What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5495689 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 5495689?

Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,140.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5495689?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5495689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13529906-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5495689 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 5495689?

Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,140.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5495689?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5495689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13529906-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

155 Gossamer Drive, Pakuranga Heights, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5495689 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5495689 — net $1,460.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears 1 May 2026	$2,140.00		Rent arrears 1 May 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: s45		$3,600.00	s45
Total award	$2,168.00	$3,628.00
Net award		$1,460.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,460.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay We Care Rentals Limited As Agent For Gulati Enterprises Limited $0.00 being rent arrears to 1 May 2026 and reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord owes the tenants $3628.00 in exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee. After deducting the rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee, the landlord owes the tenants the sum of $1460.00, as calculated and set out below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a tenant claim and a counter claim by the landlord.
The tenant’s claim is that the property is in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) in terms of Healthy Homes Standards and the landlord’s failure to provide a premise in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair. They seek compensation for work they carried out to clean the house and garden and exemplary damages for the landlord breach of the RTA.
The landlord seeks rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background:
This is a tenancy that commenced on 13 February 2026 and is ongoing. The tenants are wanting to stay at the property and the landlord seeks a long-term tenancy with the tenants.
The Property Manager company took over the management of the property in February 2026. The property was untenanted at that time, after the previous tenants had left. The landlord had advertised the property for rent and the tenants answered the advertisement.
The landlord said despite advertising for tenants, the property was not ready to be tenanted until work had been carried out. The landlord stated that the tenants were keen to move into the property early and so they took over the tenancy before the cleaning, rubbish removal, lawn mowing, and repairs/maintenance had been carried out.
The landlord accepts that the house was not compliant with Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) at the time the tenancy commenced. The landlord states that the HHS work was done within two weeks of the tenancy commencing. The landlord had obtained a Healthy Homes Assessment prior to the start of the tenancy and was fully aware that the property failed the heating, moisture ingress, draught stopping, and insulation standards.
The fundamental issue for the Tribunal that from 1 July 2025 all private rentals must comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). This tenancy started 7 months after the compliance date and the premises failed HHS on multiple standards.
The Tribunal was provided with an invoice dated 1 March 2026 from Prime Services that carried out the non-compliant work in the premises. That work was to supply and install a Heat pump, smoke alarms, and exhaust fans in the kitchen/bathroom, draught proof the windows and install window handles and frames. In addition, there was rubbish removal, and the installation of ceiling and underfloor insulation and a moisture barrier under the house. This work shows the property was non-compliant in moisture ingress, insulation, heating, and draught standards.
The tenants say that they had to endure the interruptions for workers coming to the property to do the work, plus actually carry out the cleaning of the interior of the house and exterior. The tenants say the lawns were very overgrown at the start of the tenancy and there was extensive rubbish left at the property from the previous tenants. They carried out the work themselves and sought financial compensation for the time and effort put into the property to bring it up to standard.
At the hearing there were discussions about a consent agreement to resolve the compensation sought by the tenants. No agreement was eventually reached. Landlord claims:
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount $2140.00 owing as on 1 May 2026. The next rent payment is due on 8 May 2026.
The tenants do not dispute that they owe the landlord the rent arrears.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the rent arrears. Tenants claim:
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tribunal has set out in paragraphs 7-10 the breaches of HHS and a landlord’s obligations to provide a premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and comply with smoke alarm regulations.
In the hearing the landlord does not dispute that they have breaches the RTA in HHS, smoke alarm regulations and cleanliness. 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.
Section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows the Tribunal to award exemplary damages where a landlord has committed an unlawful act intentionally, and it is just to do so, having regard to the public interest. In this case, the landlord accepts that the property was non-compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards for heating, insulation, draught stopping, cleanliness, and moisture ingress at the start of the tenancy. This tenancy commenced seven months after the statutory deadline for compliance.
There is a strong public expectation that landlords will comply with their legal obligations, particularly those designed to protect tenants’ health and safety. The Healthy Homes Standards were introduced to ensure that all rental properties meet minimum standards, and Parliament has signalled that compliance is a matter of public importance. The Tribunal must have regard to the public interest in upholding these standards and deterring non-compliance.
In considering exemplary damages, the Tribunal must also consider the intent of the landlord, the effect of the unlawful act, and the interests of both parties. In this case, the landlord’s failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards after the statutory deadline is a serious matter, and an award of exemplary damages is appropriate to reflect the public interest in ensuring compliance and deterring similar conduct by other landlords.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards seven months after the statutory deadline. The breach is serious, involves multiple standards, and is contrary to the public interest in ensuring rental properties are safe and healthy.
Having regard to the factors in section 109(3), including the intent of the landlord, the effect on the tenant, and the public interest, an award of $3,600 in exemplary damages is appropriate and consistent with other Tribunal decisions for similar breaches.
As I have given the tenants half the maximum exemplary damages available, I am not awarding compensation as well. The reason being the cleaning standard expected at the start of the tenancy is also a requirement of section 45 RTA and exemplary damages awarded reflects that breach and the tenant’s efforts. Suppression / Filing Fee:
Because We Care Rentals Limited As Agent For Gulati Enterprises Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because We Care Rentals Limited As Agent For Gulati Enterprises Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants have applied for suppression if their names and identifying details and as they have been successful, I am granting suppression. Ongoing maintenance:
The tenants raise some maintenance that is still to be completed at the property. These repairs relate to roofing and window latches. The tenants commented that the toilet needs to be repaired and there were issues with light fittings. The tenants acknowledge that these issues have not been raised with the landlord.
The landlord states that they are committed to carry out the repairs and that the tenants just need to contact them regarding issues, and it will be remedied.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5495689 — net $1,460.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears 1 May 2026	$2,140.00		Rent arrears 1 May 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: s45		$3,600.00	s45
Total award	$2,168.00	$3,628.00
Net award		$1,460.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,460.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay We Care Rentals Limited As Agent For Gulati Enterprises Limited $0.00 being rent arrears to 1 May 2026 and reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord owes the tenants $3628.00 in exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee. After deducting the rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee, the landlord owes the tenants the sum of $1460.00, as calculated and set out below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a tenant claim and a counter claim by the landlord.
The tenant’s claim is that the property is in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) in terms of Healthy Homes Standards and the landlord’s failure to provide a premise in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair. They seek compensation for work they carried out to clean the house and garden and exemplary damages for the landlord breach of the RTA.
The landlord seeks rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background:
This is a tenancy that commenced on 13 February 2026 and is ongoing. The tenants are wanting to stay at the property and the landlord seeks a long-term tenancy with the tenants.
The Property Manager company took over the management of the property in February 2026. The property was untenanted at that time, after the previous tenants had left. The landlord had advertised the property for rent and the tenants answered the advertisement.
The landlord said despite advertising for tenants, the property was not ready to be tenanted until work had been carried out. The landlord stated that the tenants were keen to move into the property early and so they took over the tenancy before the cleaning, rubbish removal, lawn mowing, and repairs/maintenance had been carried out.
The landlord accepts that the house was not compliant with Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) at the time the tenancy commenced. The landlord states that the HHS work was done within two weeks of the tenancy commencing. The landlord had obtained a Healthy Homes Assessment prior to the start of the tenancy and was fully aware that the property failed the heating, moisture ingress, draught stopping, and insulation standards.
The fundamental issue for the Tribunal that from 1 July 2025 all private rentals must comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). This tenancy started 7 months after the compliance date and the premises failed HHS on multiple standards.
The Tribunal was provided with an invoice dated 1 March 2026 from Prime Services that carried out the non-compliant work in the premises. That work was to supply and install a Heat pump, smoke alarms, and exhaust fans in the kitchen/bathroom, draught proof the windows and install window handles and frames. In addition, there was rubbish removal, and the installation of ceiling and underfloor insulation and a moisture barrier under the house. This work shows the property was non-compliant in moisture ingress, insulation, heating, and draught standards.
The tenants say that they had to endure the interruptions for workers coming to the property to do the work, plus actually carry out the cleaning of the interior of the house and exterior. The tenants say the lawns were very overgrown at the start of the tenancy and there was extensive rubbish left at the property from the previous tenants. They carried out the work themselves and sought financial compensation for the time and effort put into the property to bring it up to standard.
At the hearing there were discussions about a consent agreement to resolve the compensation sought by the tenants. No agreement was eventually reached. Landlord claims:
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount $2140.00 owing as on 1 May 2026. The next rent payment is due on 8 May 2026.
The tenants do not dispute that they owe the landlord the rent arrears.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the rent arrears. Tenants claim:
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tribunal has set out in paragraphs 7-10 the breaches of HHS and a landlord’s obligations to provide a premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and comply with smoke alarm regulations.
In the hearing the landlord does not dispute that they have breaches the RTA in HHS, smoke alarm regulations and cleanliness. 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.
Section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows the Tribunal to award exemplary damages where a landlord has committed an unlawful act intentionally, and it is just to do so, having regard to the public interest. In this case, the landlord accepts that the property was non-compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards for heating, insulation, draught stopping, cleanliness, and moisture ingress at the start of the tenancy. This tenancy commenced seven months after the statutory deadline for compliance.
There is a strong public expectation that landlords will comply with their legal obligations, particularly those designed to protect tenants’ health and safety. The Healthy Homes Standards were introduced to ensure that all rental properties meet minimum standards, and Parliament has signalled that compliance is a matter of public importance. The Tribunal must have regard to the public interest in upholding these standards and deterring non-compliance.
In considering exemplary damages, the Tribunal must also consider the intent of the landlord, the effect of the unlawful act, and the interests of both parties. In this case, the landlord’s failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards after the statutory deadline is a serious matter, and an award of exemplary damages is appropriate to reflect the public interest in ensuring compliance and deterring similar conduct by other landlords.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards seven months after the statutory deadline. The breach is serious, involves multiple standards, and is contrary to the public interest in ensuring rental properties are safe and healthy.
Having regard to the factors in section 109(3), including the intent of the landlord, the effect on the tenant, and the public interest, an award of $3,600 in exemplary damages is appropriate and consistent with other Tribunal decisions for similar breaches.
As I have given the tenants half the maximum exemplary damages available, I am not awarding compensation as well. The reason being the cleaning standard expected at the start of the tenancy is also a requirement of section 45 RTA and exemplary damages awarded reflects that breach and the tenant’s efforts. Suppression / Filing Fee:
Because We Care Rentals Limited As Agent For Gulati Enterprises Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because We Care Rentals Limited As Agent For Gulati Enterprises Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants have applied for suppression if their names and identifying details and as they have been successful, I am granting suppression. Ongoing maintenance:
The tenants raise some maintenance that is still to be completed at the property. These repairs relate to roofing and window latches. The tenants commented that the toilet needs to be repaired and there were issues with light fittings. The tenants acknowledge that these issues have not been raised with the landlord.
The landlord states that they are committed to carry out the repairs and that the tenants just need to contact them regarding issues, and it will be remedied.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5495689 — Exemplary damages at 155 Gossamer Drive, Pakuranga Heights, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5495689 — Exemplary damages at 155 Gossamer Drive, Pakuranga Heights, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions