What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5502229 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 5502229?

Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5502229?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5502229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13801241-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5502229 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 5502229?

Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5502229?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5502229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13801241-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 16 Cameron Place, Ranui, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5502229 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5502229 — net $2,428.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 45	$2,400.00	Section 45
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,428.00
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,428.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Keystone Property Management Limited As Agent For Saniya Kabra must pay [The tenant/s] $2,428.00 immediately.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 12 May 2026.
The tenant applied for refund of bond, a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards, compensation and exemplary damages. At the end of the hearing the tenant withdrew her claim for compensation.
The landlord applied for compensation for cleaning. At the end of the hearing the landlord withdrew his claim.
The tenancy began on 30 September 2024 and ended on 4 January 2026.
The tenant raised issues with the landlord including in relation to a leak at the ranch slider in the lounge. The tenant said that she mentioned the leak at the routine inspection held on 30 June 2025 and provided the landlord with a video of the leak on 10 July 2025. That video was available at the hearing and showed a significant leak with the tenant catching the water with multiple buckets and pots. The tenant said that she used towels and blankets to mop up the water and these items were not able to be used afterwards.
The tenant said that the leak continued until December 2025. There was a further routine inspection on 3 December 2025 when the tenant said that she reminded the landlord about the repairs. The tenant produced a text message dated 1 December 2025 where she says, “Hi Ujall, I have texted through about the leak under the sliding on the 14 th of Nov and I have also called you about it. Since then nothing been done and it has gotten worse. It needs to be fixed asap I have emptied 3 buckets of water and I can’t close the sliding door because the buckets I am putting out are not catching some of the leaking water. You need to get this fixed urgently it has been an ongoing problem and needs to be fixed properly urgently.”
The landlord replied, “I will send the roofer tomorrow, pls let me know availability.”
At the hearing the landlord said that the gutter was leaking because of rust and a temporary fix was carried out on the site of the leak in August 2025. The landlord produced an invoice dated 14 August 2025 which states that the gutter had “temporary fixed sealed”. It further states, “Any leak in future need removal of pergola roof sheet and access it and replace gutter. Rotten top.”
The landlord said that the issue was completely fixed on 30 November 2025 by replacing the guttering and he produced an invoice dated 3 December 2025 for internal roof gutter repair and replacement.
The tenant is not sure about the date that the issue was fully addressed but it took five months from the date that the issue was first raised. The landlord said that the delay was because the owner wanted to claim insurance and it was a specialist repair by a roofer.
The delay by the landlord meant that the tenant and her family lived in a home that leaked considerably. The text from the tenant dated 1 December 2025 shows that the leak continued despite the temporary fix by the landlord. It also suggests that the date of the final repair was after 1 December 2025 and not 30 November 2025 as submitted by the landlord. The reasons the landlord gave for the delay to completely repair the issue are not accepted because these could have been resolved on an urgent basis.
The landlord was unable to produce any evidence that he responded to the tenant’s email on 10 July 2025. Even the temporary fix took two months despite the video which was provided to the landlord, showing significantly leaking. There is no evidence that the landlord assisted with the clean-up from the leak.
The water ingress meant that the tenant had difficulty opening and closing the ranch slider. This was mentioned in the text on 1 December 2025. It is further recorded in the routine inspection report from 11 September 2025 where it states, “The sliding door jammed, need force to open.”
The problem with the sliding door is not a new issue as the landlord pointed out in an invoice dated 2 October 2024 that the sliding door had CRC applied. That was before the tenancy commenced.
The other main issue is the downpipe from the laundry tub where the water is emptying onto the concrete path. The downpipe does not go to any drainage.
The tenant said that the cut downpipe was raised by her in the routine inspection held on 3 December 2025. The tenant said she had discovered the issue the week prior. At the hearing the tenant produced a video showing water flowing from the downpipe onto the path at the back of the house.
The tenant emailed the landlord on 3 December 2025 recording the issues identified during the inspection. These included issues in addition to the downpipe including the floor dipping in the hallway, cracks in ceilings, wall opposite shower rotting, and window in dining area loose and coming out. The tenant provided the landlord with photographs and videos.
The landlord took no steps in relation to these issues following the inspection. He said that was because he was supporting the tenant to find another home.
The tenant confirmed that she did not receive any correspondence from the landlord after her 3 December 2025 email. On 15 December 2025 the tenant gave 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy.
The tenant claimed that the premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes standards. There is a signed Healthy Homes statement attached to the tenancy agreement which was signed by the landlord on 27 September 2024. That statement records that the standards were assessed on 16 June 2022, more than two years before this tenancy commenced.
This tenancy commenced on 30 September 2024, so the Healthy Homes compliance date is 120 days after commencement, which is 28 January 2025.
The tenant obtained two reports in relation to the Healthy Homes standards. The first report dated 1 December 2025 was prepared by Noho Ahuru. That report records that the rangehood was not working, there were draughts, the smoke alarms were non-compliant and there was a broken window. The report also records that rain entered the premises on 30 November 2025 and there were issues related to electrical safety and rodents.
The second report was dated 4 December 2025 and was prepared by Habitat for Humanity. That report records that the premises were non-compliant in relation to ventilation (bathroom ventilation not working), drainage and draught stopping.
At the hearing the landlord said that the Healthy Homes status was assessed on 16 June 2022. He had no recent evidence of compliance. The landlord said that the reports were not shared with him and the reports were obtained by the tenant just before she left.
I note that the advertisement for sale of the property that the tenant produced states that Healthy Homes compliance is the responsibility of the purchaser which suggests that the vendor (owner) knew that it was not Healthy Homes compliant at the date that the property was put up for sale, which was soon after the tenancy ended.
The onus is on the landlord to ensure that the premises comply with the Healthy Homes standards by the compliance date. It is not acceptable that the landlord relies on an assessment that took place two and a half years earlier. All the standards should have been checked before the compliance date for this tenancy. The landlord failed to do so, and the tenant produced evidence that the premises did not comply during the tenancy.
Another issue raised at the hearing relating to safety was the lack of a back door key. The tenant said that the landlord did not provide her with one and she had asked for one several times during the tenancy.
The landlord said that a set of keys was provided at the beginning of the tenancy but was unable to confirm that that included a back door key. The tenant did not return a back door key at the end of the tenancy, and this was not questioned by the landlord.
[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 and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair 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 landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and failed to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). 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.
The landlord was aware of the requirement to comply with the Healthy Homes standards because a statement was completed with the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a property manager so is aware of the need to ensure that premises are maintained to a reasonable state of repair. The landlord’s failure has had a significant effect on the tenant and her three children, one of who has health issues. The tenant regularly raised issues with the landlord which were not resolved in a timely manner.
It is in the public interest for landlords to comply with the Healthy Homes standards and maintain rentals in a reasonable state.
I consider that it is reasonable for an award of exemplary damages of one third the maximum of $7,200.00 which is $2,400.00.
The bond is released to the tenant as the landlord has no claim that has been established.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason the tenant’s name is suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5502229 — net $2,428.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 45	$2,400.00	Section 45
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,428.00
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,428.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Keystone Property Management Limited As Agent For Saniya Kabra must pay [The tenant/s] $2,428.00 immediately.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 12 May 2026.
The tenant applied for refund of bond, a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards, compensation and exemplary damages. At the end of the hearing the tenant withdrew her claim for compensation.
The landlord applied for compensation for cleaning. At the end of the hearing the landlord withdrew his claim.
The tenancy began on 30 September 2024 and ended on 4 January 2026.
The tenant raised issues with the landlord including in relation to a leak at the ranch slider in the lounge. The tenant said that she mentioned the leak at the routine inspection held on 30 June 2025 and provided the landlord with a video of the leak on 10 July 2025. That video was available at the hearing and showed a significant leak with the tenant catching the water with multiple buckets and pots. The tenant said that she used towels and blankets to mop up the water and these items were not able to be used afterwards.
The tenant said that the leak continued until December 2025. There was a further routine inspection on 3 December 2025 when the tenant said that she reminded the landlord about the repairs. The tenant produced a text message dated 1 December 2025 where she says, “Hi Ujall, I have texted through about the leak under the sliding on the 14 th of Nov and I have also called you about it. Since then nothing been done and it has gotten worse. It needs to be fixed asap I have emptied 3 buckets of water and I can’t close the sliding door because the buckets I am putting out are not catching some of the leaking water. You need to get this fixed urgently it has been an ongoing problem and needs to be fixed properly urgently.”
The landlord replied, “I will send the roofer tomorrow, pls let me know availability.”
At the hearing the landlord said that the gutter was leaking because of rust and a temporary fix was carried out on the site of the leak in August 2025. The landlord produced an invoice dated 14 August 2025 which states that the gutter had “temporary fixed sealed”. It further states, “Any leak in future need removal of pergola roof sheet and access it and replace gutter. Rotten top.”
The landlord said that the issue was completely fixed on 30 November 2025 by replacing the guttering and he produced an invoice dated 3 December 2025 for internal roof gutter repair and replacement.
The tenant is not sure about the date that the issue was fully addressed but it took five months from the date that the issue was first raised. The landlord said that the delay was because the owner wanted to claim insurance and it was a specialist repair by a roofer.
The delay by the landlord meant that the tenant and her family lived in a home that leaked considerably. The text from the tenant dated 1 December 2025 shows that the leak continued despite the temporary fix by the landlord. It also suggests that the date of the final repair was after 1 December 2025 and not 30 November 2025 as submitted by the landlord. The reasons the landlord gave for the delay to completely repair the issue are not accepted because these could have been resolved on an urgent basis.
The landlord was unable to produce any evidence that he responded to the tenant’s email on 10 July 2025. Even the temporary fix took two months despite the video which was provided to the landlord, showing significantly leaking. There is no evidence that the landlord assisted with the clean-up from the leak.
The water ingress meant that the tenant had difficulty opening and closing the ranch slider. This was mentioned in the text on 1 December 2025. It is further recorded in the routine inspection report from 11 September 2025 where it states, “The sliding door jammed, need force to open.”
The problem with the sliding door is not a new issue as the landlord pointed out in an invoice dated 2 October 2024 that the sliding door had CRC applied. That was before the tenancy commenced.
The other main issue is the downpipe from the laundry tub where the water is emptying onto the concrete path. The downpipe does not go to any drainage.
The tenant said that the cut downpipe was raised by her in the routine inspection held on 3 December 2025. The tenant said she had discovered the issue the week prior. At the hearing the tenant produced a video showing water flowing from the downpipe onto the path at the back of the house.
The tenant emailed the landlord on 3 December 2025 recording the issues identified during the inspection. These included issues in addition to the downpipe including the floor dipping in the hallway, cracks in ceilings, wall opposite shower rotting, and window in dining area loose and coming out. The tenant provided the landlord with photographs and videos.
The landlord took no steps in relation to these issues following the inspection. He said that was because he was supporting the tenant to find another home.
The tenant confirmed that she did not receive any correspondence from the landlord after her 3 December 2025 email. On 15 December 2025 the tenant gave 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy.
The tenant claimed that the premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes standards. There is a signed Healthy Homes statement attached to the tenancy agreement which was signed by the landlord on 27 September 2024. That statement records that the standards were assessed on 16 June 2022, more than two years before this tenancy commenced.
This tenancy commenced on 30 September 2024, so the Healthy Homes compliance date is 120 days after commencement, which is 28 January 2025.
The tenant obtained two reports in relation to the Healthy Homes standards. The first report dated 1 December 2025 was prepared by Noho Ahuru. That report records that the rangehood was not working, there were draughts, the smoke alarms were non-compliant and there was a broken window. The report also records that rain entered the premises on 30 November 2025 and there were issues related to electrical safety and rodents.
The second report was dated 4 December 2025 and was prepared by Habitat for Humanity. That report records that the premises were non-compliant in relation to ventilation (bathroom ventilation not working), drainage and draught stopping.
At the hearing the landlord said that the Healthy Homes status was assessed on 16 June 2022. He had no recent evidence of compliance. The landlord said that the reports were not shared with him and the reports were obtained by the tenant just before she left.
I note that the advertisement for sale of the property that the tenant produced states that Healthy Homes compliance is the responsibility of the purchaser which suggests that the vendor (owner) knew that it was not Healthy Homes compliant at the date that the property was put up for sale, which was soon after the tenancy ended.
The onus is on the landlord to ensure that the premises comply with the Healthy Homes standards by the compliance date. It is not acceptable that the landlord relies on an assessment that took place two and a half years earlier. All the standards should have been checked before the compliance date for this tenancy. The landlord failed to do so, and the tenant produced evidence that the premises did not comply during the tenancy.
Another issue raised at the hearing relating to safety was the lack of a back door key. The tenant said that the landlord did not provide her with one and she had asked for one several times during the tenancy.
The landlord said that a set of keys was provided at the beginning of the tenancy but was unable to confirm that that included a back door key. The tenant did not return a back door key at the end of the tenancy, and this was not questioned by the landlord.
[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 and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair 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 landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and failed to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). 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.
The landlord was aware of the requirement to comply with the Healthy Homes standards because a statement was completed with the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a property manager so is aware of the need to ensure that premises are maintained to a reasonable state of repair. The landlord’s failure has had a significant effect on the tenant and her three children, one of who has health issues. The tenant regularly raised issues with the landlord which were not resolved in a timely manner.
It is in the public interest for landlords to comply with the Healthy Homes standards and maintain rentals in a reasonable state.
I consider that it is reasonable for an award of exemplary damages of one third the maximum of $7,200.00 which is $2,400.00.
The bond is released to the tenant as the landlord has no claim that has been established.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason the tenant’s name is suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5502229 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2, 16 Cameron Place, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5502229 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2, 16 Cameron Place, Ranui, Auckland 0612

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