What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5528191 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 5528191?

Compensation: Failure to comply with…: $16,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5528191?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5528191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14055776-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5528191 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 5528191?

Compensation: Failure to comply with…: $16,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5528191?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5528191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14055776-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

4 Warren Avenue, Three Kings, Auckland 1042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5528191 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

4 Warren Avenue, Three Kings, Auckland 1042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5528191 — Healthy homes | 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 5528191 — net $20,228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards	$16,200.00	Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards	$3,000.00	44. Taking all of the above matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $3,000.00 in exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with smoke alarm regulations	$1,000.00	57. Taking all of these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages.
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20,228.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20,228.00

Claims and awards for application 5528191 — net $20,228.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards

Amount: $16,200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards

Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards

Amount: $3,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 44. Taking all of the above matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $3,000.00 in exemplary damages.

Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with smoke alarm regulations

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 57. Taking all of these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages.

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $20,228.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Replace Smoke Alarms Filing Fee

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 landlord agrees to allow the tenant to give less than 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy once the tenant has secured a new tenancy.
Ezystayz Limited as agent for Qining Liu as trustee of the Qining Liu Family Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $20,228.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 4 September 2026: a. Install qualifying insulation in the ceiling so that the premises comply with regulation 13 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulation 2019. b. Remedy all unreasonable gaps and holes identified in the healthy homes assessment report completed by Oncore, dated 19 May 2026, to ensure the premises comply with regulation 26 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulation 2019. c. Install a ground moisture barrier to ensure the premises comply with regulation 28 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulation 2019. d. Install a qualifying smoke alarm in each bedroom or within 3 metres of the entrance to each bedroom to ensure compliance with regulation 5 of the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 12 August 2026. The tenant was represented by [the tenant] and the landlord was represented by Johnson Liu. [The tenant] is the tenant’s daughter. Together with the tenant, [the tenant] lives in the premises with her daughter who is 1 year and 4 months old.
The tenancy began on 23 September 2024 and is ongoing. The tenant claims the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards or smoke alarm regulations. They claim that mould developed on the walls inside the premises early on in the tenancy. The tenant claims the mould gets worse in winter and is particularly bad in two out of the three bedrooms. The tenant claims these two bedrooms are not safe or healthy to occupy. For the past 6 months, [the tenant] and her daughter have been living in the lounge. The issues I must determine are: a. Do the premises comply with the healthy homes standards? b. Do the premises comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms)

Regulations 2016?

Before determining these issues, I discuss some general legal principles that apply to the case.

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Standard of proof

As the applicant, the tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
A lot of evidence and submissions were made at the hearing. Whilst I have considered everything the parties said, this decision will only refer to the relevant parts. Compensation and exemplary damages – the law generally
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages. Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy, distress, inconvenience and emotional suffering.
The following factors are relevant when deciding to award compensation: 1 • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. 1 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and deter. They are like a fine.
Under the RTA, exemplary damages may be ordered for defined, unlawful acts.
A party cannot seek exemplary damages later than 12 months after the date of the commission of the unlawful act. 2 The date of the unlawful act is the date on which the act or omission that constitutes the breach occurred.
Section 109(3) RTA states that exemplary damages may be ordered if the Tribunal determines the unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just, having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
The District Court has held that the requirement of intention is not about whether the party was aware they were breaching the RTA. Rather, it is about whether they intended to do whatever it was they did or did not do. 2
A landlord cannot generally plead confusion, lack of knowledge, or ignorance of the law. In TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182, the landlord claimed they were not fully aware of their obligations. The District Court held: Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences or the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.
In summary, intention is proved where the party turns their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately sets out to commit it. It is unnecessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully. It is enough that they intended to commit the act which constitutes the unlawful act. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the obligation they have failed to perform, ignorance of the law is no defence. They are deemed to know the law, and therefore, failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional. Also, if the party is wilfully blind to the factual circumstances that give rise to an unlawful act, this may also be sufficient to prove they acted intentionally. 2 Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00, DC Auckland, 01/05/2001.
The usual approach of the Tribunal is to award one third of the maximum of exemplary damages unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 3 TENANT’S CLAIMS

Do the premises comply with the healthy homes standards?

The law

Section 45(1)(bb) RTA requires a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards.
The healthy homes standards are found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (“HHS”). The HHS provide a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in respect of insulation, heating, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture and drainage.
Regulation 13 relates to ceiling insulation and relevantly states: 13Ceiling insulation (1)The ceiling of each domestic living space in the premises must be fully covered by qualifying ceiling insulation. ...
Regulation 14 defines “qualifying insulation.” In relation to these premises, qualifying insulation means: a. The insulation’s R-value, when it was installed, was 2.9. b. The insulation was installed in accordance with NZS 4246:2016. c. The insulation is in a reasonable condition (or better).
Regulation 26 relates to draught stopping. It states the premises must be free from gaps between, and holes in, building elements that: a. Are not intentional parts of the construction of the premises (such as drainage and ventilation openings); and b. Allow draughts into or out of the premises; and c. Are unreasonable.
Regulation 28 relates to the requirement to have a ground moisture barrier. It relevantly states: 28Suspended floors to have a ground moisture barrier (1)This regulation applies if – 3 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781. (a)the tenancy building has a suspended floor; and (b)the subfloor space is enclosed. (2)The tenancy building’s subfloor space must – (a)have a ground moisture barrier that – (i)is made of a material that meets the specifications for an on-ground vapour barrier set out in section 8 of NZS 4246:2016; and (ii)was installed in accordance with section 8 of NZS 4246:2016; or (b)have an alternative ground moisture barrier that – (i)has a vapour flow resistance of at least 50 MN s/g; and (ii)was installed by an appropriate professional installer. ... Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the premises do not comply with the insulation, draught stopping or moisture requirements of the HHS.
The tenant relies on the findings in a healthy homes assessment report completed by Oncore, dated 19 May 2026. The report concludes the following: a. The premises do not comply with the insulation requirements, because the ceiling insulation is less than 120mm thick, does not have an R-value of 2.9 and is not in a reasonable condition. b. The premises do not comply with the draught stopping requirements, because there are numerous unreasonable gaps in windows and doors. c. The premises do not comply with the moisture requirements, because there is no ground moisture barrier.
The landlord accepts that the healthy homes assessment report identifies areas of concern. They did not submit their own healthy homes assessment report.
The landlord claims that they believed the premises complied with the HHS, because they organised for underfloor and ceiling insulation to be installed in 2019, as well as a ground moisture barrier. The landlord submitted an invoice from Peter Yan, who the landlord claims is a qualified builder and plumber. The invoice states: Description Insulation pink batts Polythene sheets Insulation underfloor & ceiling installation Ground moisture sheet laying Fireplace cover installation Floor vent cover installation
Mr Liu gave evidence that he assessed the premises himself to determine its compliance with the HHS. Mr Liu accepts he does not have any specialist qualifications or expertise in building or insulation.
The landlord claims they have tried to remedy the areas identified in the Oncore report, but the tenant has advised that they do not want the landlord to undertake the relevant work. Therefore, the landlord claims that any order for compensation should only be calculated up to June/July 2026 when the offer to complete repairs was made. Analysis
The tenancy began on 23 September 2024. The landlord had until 21 January 2025, which is 120 days later, to ensure compliance with the HHS.
The invoice submitted by the landlord from Peter Yan suggests a ground moisture barrier was installed on 15 August 2019 however, the photographs of the subfloor in the Oncore report clearly show that no ground moisture barrier is present.
The same invoice also suggests that insulation was installed in the ceiling on 15 August 2019 however, no information is recorded as to its thickness or R-value.
The landlord did not submit their own healthy homes assessment report to counter the findings in the Oncore report. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the findings in the Oncore report and find the premises do not comply with the HHS.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the premises have not complied since the due date of 21 January 2025. This is because the Oncore report is dated 19 May 2026, and the landlord has not undertaken any HHS work at the premises since the tenancy began on 23 September 2024.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach of section 45(1)(bb) RTA. I find $200.00 per week to be reasonable, considering the following factors: a. Nature of the breach. Failure to comply with the HHS is a serious breach of the RTA, as evidenced by the fact that the maximum amount of exemplary damages that may be ordered is $7,200.00. 4 The breach in this case falls 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A. towards the higher end of the spectrum in terms of seriousness. This is because the premises are non-compliant in three respects. Further, the Healthy Homes Statement included with the tenancy agreement is misleading, insofar as it states that the premises comply fully with the HHS, which is clearly not the case. b. Duration of the breach. The breach has endured for approximately 81 weeks since 21 January 2025. This is a long time. I do not consider the fact that the tenant advised the landlord on 3 July 2026 that they did not want the relevant work to be completed excuses the delay. The landlord has an obligation under section 45(1)(bb) RTA to ensure the premises comply with the HHS. The landlord has the power under section 48(2)(cb) RTA to enter the premises with 24 hours written notice for the purpose of complying with the HHS. The landlord does not need the tenant’s permission to enter the premises to complete the necessary work. c. Effect of the breach on the other party. The breach has had a significant effect on the tenant. The tenant rented the premises with the idea that their daughter, [the tenant], who was 3 months pregnant at the time, would live with them. Understandably, it was important to the tenant that the premises complied with the HHS, because a newborn baby would soon be living in it. The tenant relied on the Healthy Homes Statement included with the tenancy agreement that the premises were compliant, when this was clearly not the case. The photographs submitted show large areas of mould on the walls of two of the bedrooms. The amount of mould is significant and very concerning. Examples of some of the photographs submitted are below: d. I accept the tenant’s submission that the two bedrooms show in the photographs are not healthy to live in. [The tenant] and her daughter have been living in the lounge area for the past 6 months and the tenant has moved into the third bedroom. [The tenant] gave evidence that her daughter has been sick for an extended period of time. Medical evidence from [the tenant’s] daughter’s doctor was submitted, which states: The above patient consulted me on 14 June 2026 and has been unwell for 3 months with recurrent infections and now has bronchitis and the damp in her home will be a significant contributing factor to her illness. e. [The tenant] gave evidence that the frequency of her daughter’s sickness has meant she has had to put her studies on hold to look after her daughter. [The tenant] also gave evidence that she has been frequently sick herself, as well as her mother. No medical evidence was submitted to support this however, considering the amount of mould inside the premises, I find it to be likely. f. [The tenant] gave evidence that when she went to move her bed into the living room, it was damp underneath, and the mattress was ruined. [The tenant] submitted photographs of her duvet with mould on it. g. The tenant also claims that the premises are very cold. They claim that electricity bills have been very high, because multiple heaters need to be run in winter to keep the premises warm. The tenant submitted an electricity bill dated 23 September 2025 for $664.05 and a second bill dated 27 July 2026 for $626.67. The Oncore report lists numerous windows and doors as being non-compliant. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that unreasonable gaps in windows and doors are making the premises very cold and contributing towards higher electricity bills.
In Tenant v Cassowary Limited [2023] NZTT 4359820, the Tribunal ordered compensation at a rate of $200.00 per week for breaches of the HHS and the landlord’s failure to properly fix a leak. The case is similar to the present case, because both involve non-compliance with similar provisions of the HHS and concerning levels of mould at the premises. Both cases also involve the landlord providing a misleading Healthy Homes Statement. They also both involve young children living at the premises who suffered recurring illness as a result of non- compliance and supported by medical evidence.
For all of these reasons, the tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $16,200.00.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to comply with the HHS is an unlawful act, for which a maximum amount of $7,200.00 in exemplary damages may be ordered.
The tenant is in time to apply for exemplary damages. This is because the obligation of a landlord to comply with the HHS is an ongoing one. Where there is a failure to comply, the breach is a continuing breach until such a time as the premises comply. This means the 12-month limitation period for applying for exemplary damages runs from the last day the breach continued. In this case, the breach is continuing up to the date of the hearing. The tenant’s application was filed on 18 June 2026, which means they are within the timeframe to apply for exemplary damages.
The next issue I must determine is whether the landlord acted intentionally. I find that they did.
The landlord tried to ensure compliance by educating themselves on the HHS. They believed the premises had a ground moisture barrier, because they paid Peter Yan to install one on 15 August 2019. They also believed the ceiling insulation to be compliant, because they paid Mr Yan to install ceiling insulation on 15 August 2019. The due date for compliance for the premises was 21 January 2025. It was not reasonable for the landlord to rely on work completed 6 years prior to ensure compliance. Mr Liu gave evidence that he inspected the premises himself to determine whether it complied. Mr Liu does not have any relevant expertise that would make is reasonable for the landlord to rely on his assessment. The landlord did not organise for a healthy homes assessment to be completed shortly before 21 January 2025. By failing to seek expert advice about whether the premises complied with the HHS in the lead up to 21 January 2025, I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to comply.
I find it just to order exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act. I find the landlord acted intentionally. b. The effect of the unlawful act. See paragraph [35(c) – (g)] above. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. The tenant has an interest in living in premises that are healthy, warm and meet the standards required by law. d. The public interest. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords are deterred from failing to comply with the HHS.
I find the fact that the Healthy Homes Statement included with the tenancy agreement contained misleading information about the compliance of the premises to be an aggravating factor.
Taking all of the above matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $3,000.00 in exemplary damages. Do the premises comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms)

Regulations 2016?

The law

Section 45(1)(ba) RTA requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A. The Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 are regulations made under this section.
Regulations 5 of the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 relevantly states: 5Smoke alarms to be qualifying smoke alarms and installed in certain locations: tenancies other than boarding house tenancies (1)The requirements set out in subclauses (4), (6), and (8) are imposed on all landlords for the purposes of section 45(1)(ba) of the Act. (2)The requirements must be met as at the commencement of the tenancy and at all subsequent times during the tenancy. ... (4)Every smoke alarm that is installed at the premises must be a qualifying smoke alarm. ... (6)There must be at least 1 qualifying smoke alarm installed – (a) in the sleeping space; or (b) otherwise at the premises within 3 metres of the entrance (or main entrance) to the sleeping space. ... (8)There must be at least 1 qualifying smoke alarm installed on the storey or level in the habitable space or in at least 1 of the habitable spaces (as the case may be). Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the premises do not comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. They rely on the findings in the Oncore report, which conclude there is no smoke alarm in the bedrooms or within 3 metres of the bedrooms.
The landlord claims there is one smoke alarm in the hallway, which is located within 3 metres of two of the bedrooms. The landlord claims the premises have 2 bedrooms and a sunroom, which can be used as a third bedroom. The landlord accepts the premises were marketed for rent as a 3 bedroom home.
The landlord claims they checked the expiry date on the smoke alarm at the beginning of the tenancy and it was not expired. They also checked that it was working. The landlord did not check the life expectancy of the batteries. Analysis
I find the premises are a 3 bedroom house, because they were marketed for rent as such.
The Oncore report only focuses on whether there are smoke alarms in the bedrooms. It does not discuss or consider the presence of the smoke alarm in the hallway, which the tenant accepts is present. Therefore, I have some reservations about the accuracy of the conclusion reached in the report regarding smoke alarms. Notwithstanding this, I am still convinced, on the balance of probabilities, that the premises do not comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. This is because there is no smoke alarm in the third bedroom, referred to by the landlord as the “sunroom.” This room is located more than 3 metres from the hallway. It is located at the end of the dining/living room.
Because there is no smoke alarm in bedroom 3 or within 3 metres of the entrance to the bedroom, I find the premises do not comply with regulation 5(6) of the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. The landlord has breached section 45(1)(ba) RTA.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A RTA is an unlawful act, for which a maximum amount of $7,200.00 in exemplary damages may be ordered.
The tenant is in time to apply for exemplary damages. This is because the obligation of a landlord to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 is an ongoing one. Where there is a failure to comply, the breach is a continuing breach until such a time as the premises comply. This means the 12-month limitation period for applying for exemplary damages runs from the last day the breach continued. In this case, the breach is continuing up to the date of the hearing. The tenant’s application was filed on 18 June 2026, which means they are within the timeframe to apply for exemplary damages.
The next issue I must determine is whether the landlord acted intentionally. I find they did. This is because the landlord gave evidence that they only installed one smoke alarm in the hallway. The landlord did not take any steps to install a smoke alarm in bedroom 3 or within 3 metres of its entrance.
I find it just to order exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act. I find the landlord acted intentionally. b. The effect of the unlawful act. The tenant has been living in the premises for approximately 81 weeks without compliant smoke alarms. I accept it was distressing to learn of this. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. The tenant has an interest in living in premises that have qualifying smoke alarms installed in to keep the tenant safe in the event of a fire. d. The public interest. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords are deterred from failing to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. Failure to comply with these requirements has the potential to cause serious harm to the tenant in the event of a fire, particularly if the tenant is sleeping at the time.
Taking all of these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages. In setting on this figure, I have had regard to the fact that the tenant has only proven, on the balance of probabilities, that there is no qualifying smoke alarm in respect of bedroom 3.

Should the Tribunal make a work order?

The Tribunal has the ability to issue a work order under section 78 RTA.
The tenant has not asked the Tribunal to issue a work order however, I consider it appropriate to do so. This is because, as at the date of the hearing, the premises remain non-compliant with the HHS and Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. This non-compliance is a health and safety concern for the tenant.
The tenant is concerned that the level of work required to address the issues with the premises is significant. The tenant appears to be referring to the fact that they believe there are serious structural and weathertightness issues with the premises. No expert evidence was submitted to support this. Irrespective of whether there are such issues with the premises, at the very least, they can be made compliant with the HHS and Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 whilst the tenant is living in it and looking for another premises to rent. Filing fee and Name Suppression
The tenant has been wholly successful with their application. Therefore, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant did not seek name suppression however, I have a discretion to grant them name suppression under section 95A(4). This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public.
The tenant gave evidence that they have struggled to find a new tenancy to date. I consider publication of the tenant’s name in this decision might make it even more difficult to find a new tenancy. This is because prospective landlords might be deterred from taking on a tenant who has taken a previous landlord to the Tribunal. The tenant needs to find alternative accommodation as soon as possible, given the state of the premises. The public interest in publication of the tenant’s name is low, because the tenant has not breached the RTA. For these reasons, I consider the tenant’s interest in suppression outweighs the public interest in publication. I order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
I decline to order suppression of the landlord’s name. This decision might have a negative effect on the landlord’s reputation however, that is an ordinary consequence of legal proceedings. There is also a public interest in prospective tenants knowing about the state of this premises and the landlord’s conduct.

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 5528191 — net $20,228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards	$16,200.00	Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards	$3,000.00	44. Taking all of the above matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $3,000.00 in exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with smoke alarm regulations	$1,000.00	57. Taking all of these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages.
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20,228.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20,228.00

Claims and awards for application 5528191 — net $20,228.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards

Amount: $16,200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards

Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards

Amount: $3,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 44. Taking all of the above matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $3,000.00 in exemplary damages.

Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with smoke alarm regulations

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 57. Taking all of these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages.

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $20,228.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Replace Smoke Alarms Filing Fee

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 landlord agrees to allow the tenant to give less than 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy once the tenant has secured a new tenancy.
Ezystayz Limited as agent for Qining Liu as trustee of the Qining Liu Family Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $20,228.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 4 September 2026: a. Install qualifying insulation in the ceiling so that the premises comply with regulation 13 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulation 2019. b. Remedy all unreasonable gaps and holes identified in the healthy homes assessment report completed by Oncore, dated 19 May 2026, to ensure the premises comply with regulation 26 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulation 2019. c. Install a ground moisture barrier to ensure the premises comply with regulation 28 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulation 2019. d. Install a qualifying smoke alarm in each bedroom or within 3 metres of the entrance to each bedroom to ensure compliance with regulation 5 of the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 12 August 2026. The tenant was represented by [the tenant] and the landlord was represented by Johnson Liu. [The tenant] is the tenant’s daughter. Together with the tenant, [the tenant] lives in the premises with her daughter who is 1 year and 4 months old.
The tenancy began on 23 September 2024 and is ongoing. The tenant claims the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards or smoke alarm regulations. They claim that mould developed on the walls inside the premises early on in the tenancy. The tenant claims the mould gets worse in winter and is particularly bad in two out of the three bedrooms. The tenant claims these two bedrooms are not safe or healthy to occupy. For the past 6 months, [the tenant] and her daughter have been living in the lounge. The issues I must determine are: a. Do the premises comply with the healthy homes standards? b. Do the premises comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms)

Regulations 2016?

Before determining these issues, I discuss some general legal principles that apply to the case.

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Standard of proof

As the applicant, the tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
A lot of evidence and submissions were made at the hearing. Whilst I have considered everything the parties said, this decision will only refer to the relevant parts. Compensation and exemplary damages – the law generally
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages. Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy, distress, inconvenience and emotional suffering.
The following factors are relevant when deciding to award compensation: 1 • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. 1 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and deter. They are like a fine.
Under the RTA, exemplary damages may be ordered for defined, unlawful acts.
A party cannot seek exemplary damages later than 12 months after the date of the commission of the unlawful act. 2 The date of the unlawful act is the date on which the act or omission that constitutes the breach occurred.
Section 109(3) RTA states that exemplary damages may be ordered if the Tribunal determines the unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just, having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
The District Court has held that the requirement of intention is not about whether the party was aware they were breaching the RTA. Rather, it is about whether they intended to do whatever it was they did or did not do. 2
A landlord cannot generally plead confusion, lack of knowledge, or ignorance of the law. In TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182, the landlord claimed they were not fully aware of their obligations. The District Court held: Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences or the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.
In summary, intention is proved where the party turns their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately sets out to commit it. It is unnecessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully. It is enough that they intended to commit the act which constitutes the unlawful act. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the obligation they have failed to perform, ignorance of the law is no defence. They are deemed to know the law, and therefore, failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional. Also, if the party is wilfully blind to the factual circumstances that give rise to an unlawful act, this may also be sufficient to prove they acted intentionally. 2 Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00, DC Auckland, 01/05/2001.
The usual approach of the Tribunal is to award one third of the maximum of exemplary damages unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 3 TENANT’S CLAIMS

Do the premises comply with the healthy homes standards?

The law

Section 45(1)(bb) RTA requires a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards.
The healthy homes standards are found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (“HHS”). The HHS provide a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in respect of insulation, heating, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture and drainage.
Regulation 13 relates to ceiling insulation and relevantly states: 13Ceiling insulation (1)The ceiling of each domestic living space in the premises must be fully covered by qualifying ceiling insulation. ...
Regulation 14 defines “qualifying insulation.” In relation to these premises, qualifying insulation means: a. The insulation’s R-value, when it was installed, was 2.9. b. The insulation was installed in accordance with NZS 4246:2016. c. The insulation is in a reasonable condition (or better).
Regulation 26 relates to draught stopping. It states the premises must be free from gaps between, and holes in, building elements that: a. Are not intentional parts of the construction of the premises (such as drainage and ventilation openings); and b. Allow draughts into or out of the premises; and c. Are unreasonable.
Regulation 28 relates to the requirement to have a ground moisture barrier. It relevantly states: 28Suspended floors to have a ground moisture barrier (1)This regulation applies if – 3 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781. (a)the tenancy building has a suspended floor; and (b)the subfloor space is enclosed. (2)The tenancy building’s subfloor space must – (a)have a ground moisture barrier that – (i)is made of a material that meets the specifications for an on-ground vapour barrier set out in section 8 of NZS 4246:2016; and (ii)was installed in accordance with section 8 of NZS 4246:2016; or (b)have an alternative ground moisture barrier that – (i)has a vapour flow resistance of at least 50 MN s/g; and (ii)was installed by an appropriate professional installer. ... Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the premises do not comply with the insulation, draught stopping or moisture requirements of the HHS.
The tenant relies on the findings in a healthy homes assessment report completed by Oncore, dated 19 May 2026. The report concludes the following: a. The premises do not comply with the insulation requirements, because the ceiling insulation is less than 120mm thick, does not have an R-value of 2.9 and is not in a reasonable condition. b. The premises do not comply with the draught stopping requirements, because there are numerous unreasonable gaps in windows and doors. c. The premises do not comply with the moisture requirements, because there is no ground moisture barrier.
The landlord accepts that the healthy homes assessment report identifies areas of concern. They did not submit their own healthy homes assessment report.
The landlord claims that they believed the premises complied with the HHS, because they organised for underfloor and ceiling insulation to be installed in 2019, as well as a ground moisture barrier. The landlord submitted an invoice from Peter Yan, who the landlord claims is a qualified builder and plumber. The invoice states: Description Insulation pink batts Polythene sheets Insulation underfloor & ceiling installation Ground moisture sheet laying Fireplace cover installation Floor vent cover installation
Mr Liu gave evidence that he assessed the premises himself to determine its compliance with the HHS. Mr Liu accepts he does not have any specialist qualifications or expertise in building or insulation.
The landlord claims they have tried to remedy the areas identified in the Oncore report, but the tenant has advised that they do not want the landlord to undertake the relevant work. Therefore, the landlord claims that any order for compensation should only be calculated up to June/July 2026 when the offer to complete repairs was made. Analysis
The tenancy began on 23 September 2024. The landlord had until 21 January 2025, which is 120 days later, to ensure compliance with the HHS.
The invoice submitted by the landlord from Peter Yan suggests a ground moisture barrier was installed on 15 August 2019 however, the photographs of the subfloor in the Oncore report clearly show that no ground moisture barrier is present.
The same invoice also suggests that insulation was installed in the ceiling on 15 August 2019 however, no information is recorded as to its thickness or R-value.
The landlord did not submit their own healthy homes assessment report to counter the findings in the Oncore report. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the findings in the Oncore report and find the premises do not comply with the HHS.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the premises have not complied since the due date of 21 January 2025. This is because the Oncore report is dated 19 May 2026, and the landlord has not undertaken any HHS work at the premises since the tenancy began on 23 September 2024.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach of section 45(1)(bb) RTA. I find $200.00 per week to be reasonable, considering the following factors: a. Nature of the breach. Failure to comply with the HHS is a serious breach of the RTA, as evidenced by the fact that the maximum amount of exemplary damages that may be ordered is $7,200.00. 4 The breach in this case falls 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A. towards the higher end of the spectrum in terms of seriousness. This is because the premises are non-compliant in three respects. Further, the Healthy Homes Statement included with the tenancy agreement is misleading, insofar as it states that the premises comply fully with the HHS, which is clearly not the case. b. Duration of the breach. The breach has endured for approximately 81 weeks since 21 January 2025. This is a long time. I do not consider the fact that the tenant advised the landlord on 3 July 2026 that they did not want the relevant work to be completed excuses the delay. The landlord has an obligation under section 45(1)(bb) RTA to ensure the premises comply with the HHS. The landlord has the power under section 48(2)(cb) RTA to enter the premises with 24 hours written notice for the purpose of complying with the HHS. The landlord does not need the tenant’s permission to enter the premises to complete the necessary work. c. Effect of the breach on the other party. The breach has had a significant effect on the tenant. The tenant rented the premises with the idea that their daughter, [the tenant], who was 3 months pregnant at the time, would live with them. Understandably, it was important to the tenant that the premises complied with the HHS, because a newborn baby would soon be living in it. The tenant relied on the Healthy Homes Statement included with the tenancy agreement that the premises were compliant, when this was clearly not the case. The photographs submitted show large areas of mould on the walls of two of the bedrooms. The amount of mould is significant and very concerning. Examples of some of the photographs submitted are below: d. I accept the tenant’s submission that the two bedrooms show in the photographs are not healthy to live in. [The tenant] and her daughter have been living in the lounge area for the past 6 months and the tenant has moved into the third bedroom. [The tenant] gave evidence that her daughter has been sick for an extended period of time. Medical evidence from [the tenant’s] daughter’s doctor was submitted, which states: The above patient consulted me on 14 June 2026 and has been unwell for 3 months with recurrent infections and now has bronchitis and the damp in her home will be a significant contributing factor to her illness. e. [The tenant] gave evidence that the frequency of her daughter’s sickness has meant she has had to put her studies on hold to look after her daughter. [The tenant] also gave evidence that she has been frequently sick herself, as well as her mother. No medical evidence was submitted to support this however, considering the amount of mould inside the premises, I find it to be likely. f. [The tenant] gave evidence that when she went to move her bed into the living room, it was damp underneath, and the mattress was ruined. [The tenant] submitted photographs of her duvet with mould on it. g. The tenant also claims that the premises are very cold. They claim that electricity bills have been very high, because multiple heaters need to be run in winter to keep the premises warm. The tenant submitted an electricity bill dated 23 September 2025 for $664.05 and a second bill dated 27 July 2026 for $626.67. The Oncore report lists numerous windows and doors as being non-compliant. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that unreasonable gaps in windows and doors are making the premises very cold and contributing towards higher electricity bills.
In Tenant v Cassowary Limited [2023] NZTT 4359820, the Tribunal ordered compensation at a rate of $200.00 per week for breaches of the HHS and the landlord’s failure to properly fix a leak. The case is similar to the present case, because both involve non-compliance with similar provisions of the HHS and concerning levels of mould at the premises. Both cases also involve the landlord providing a misleading Healthy Homes Statement. They also both involve young children living at the premises who suffered recurring illness as a result of non- compliance and supported by medical evidence.
For all of these reasons, the tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $16,200.00.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to comply with the HHS is an unlawful act, for which a maximum amount of $7,200.00 in exemplary damages may be ordered.
The tenant is in time to apply for exemplary damages. This is because the obligation of a landlord to comply with the HHS is an ongoing one. Where there is a failure to comply, the breach is a continuing breach until such a time as the premises comply. This means the 12-month limitation period for applying for exemplary damages runs from the last day the breach continued. In this case, the breach is continuing up to the date of the hearing. The tenant’s application was filed on 18 June 2026, which means they are within the timeframe to apply for exemplary damages.
The next issue I must determine is whether the landlord acted intentionally. I find that they did.
The landlord tried to ensure compliance by educating themselves on the HHS. They believed the premises had a ground moisture barrier, because they paid Peter Yan to install one on 15 August 2019. They also believed the ceiling insulation to be compliant, because they paid Mr Yan to install ceiling insulation on 15 August 2019. The due date for compliance for the premises was 21 January 2025. It was not reasonable for the landlord to rely on work completed 6 years prior to ensure compliance. Mr Liu gave evidence that he inspected the premises himself to determine whether it complied. Mr Liu does not have any relevant expertise that would make is reasonable for the landlord to rely on his assessment. The landlord did not organise for a healthy homes assessment to be completed shortly before 21 January 2025. By failing to seek expert advice about whether the premises complied with the HHS in the lead up to 21 January 2025, I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to comply.
I find it just to order exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act. I find the landlord acted intentionally. b. The effect of the unlawful act. See paragraph [35(c) – (g)] above. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. The tenant has an interest in living in premises that are healthy, warm and meet the standards required by law. d. The public interest. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords are deterred from failing to comply with the HHS.
I find the fact that the Healthy Homes Statement included with the tenancy agreement contained misleading information about the compliance of the premises to be an aggravating factor.
Taking all of the above matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $3,000.00 in exemplary damages. Do the premises comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms)

Regulations 2016?

The law

Section 45(1)(ba) RTA requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A. The Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 are regulations made under this section.
Regulations 5 of the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 relevantly states: 5Smoke alarms to be qualifying smoke alarms and installed in certain locations: tenancies other than boarding house tenancies (1)The requirements set out in subclauses (4), (6), and (8) are imposed on all landlords for the purposes of section 45(1)(ba) of the Act. (2)The requirements must be met as at the commencement of the tenancy and at all subsequent times during the tenancy. ... (4)Every smoke alarm that is installed at the premises must be a qualifying smoke alarm. ... (6)There must be at least 1 qualifying smoke alarm installed – (a) in the sleeping space; or (b) otherwise at the premises within 3 metres of the entrance (or main entrance) to the sleeping space. ... (8)There must be at least 1 qualifying smoke alarm installed on the storey or level in the habitable space or in at least 1 of the habitable spaces (as the case may be). Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the premises do not comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. They rely on the findings in the Oncore report, which conclude there is no smoke alarm in the bedrooms or within 3 metres of the bedrooms.
The landlord claims there is one smoke alarm in the hallway, which is located within 3 metres of two of the bedrooms. The landlord claims the premises have 2 bedrooms and a sunroom, which can be used as a third bedroom. The landlord accepts the premises were marketed for rent as a 3 bedroom home.
The landlord claims they checked the expiry date on the smoke alarm at the beginning of the tenancy and it was not expired. They also checked that it was working. The landlord did not check the life expectancy of the batteries. Analysis
I find the premises are a 3 bedroom house, because they were marketed for rent as such.
The Oncore report only focuses on whether there are smoke alarms in the bedrooms. It does not discuss or consider the presence of the smoke alarm in the hallway, which the tenant accepts is present. Therefore, I have some reservations about the accuracy of the conclusion reached in the report regarding smoke alarms. Notwithstanding this, I am still convinced, on the balance of probabilities, that the premises do not comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. This is because there is no smoke alarm in the third bedroom, referred to by the landlord as the “sunroom.” This room is located more than 3 metres from the hallway. It is located at the end of the dining/living room.
Because there is no smoke alarm in bedroom 3 or within 3 metres of the entrance to the bedroom, I find the premises do not comply with regulation 5(6) of the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. The landlord has breached section 45(1)(ba) RTA.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A RTA is an unlawful act, for which a maximum amount of $7,200.00 in exemplary damages may be ordered.
The tenant is in time to apply for exemplary damages. This is because the obligation of a landlord to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 is an ongoing one. Where there is a failure to comply, the breach is a continuing breach until such a time as the premises comply. This means the 12-month limitation period for applying for exemplary damages runs from the last day the breach continued. In this case, the breach is continuing up to the date of the hearing. The tenant’s application was filed on 18 June 2026, which means they are within the timeframe to apply for exemplary damages.
The next issue I must determine is whether the landlord acted intentionally. I find they did. This is because the landlord gave evidence that they only installed one smoke alarm in the hallway. The landlord did not take any steps to install a smoke alarm in bedroom 3 or within 3 metres of its entrance.
I find it just to order exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act. I find the landlord acted intentionally. b. The effect of the unlawful act. The tenant has been living in the premises for approximately 81 weeks without compliant smoke alarms. I accept it was distressing to learn of this. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. The tenant has an interest in living in premises that have qualifying smoke alarms installed in to keep the tenant safe in the event of a fire. d. The public interest. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords are deterred from failing to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. Failure to comply with these requirements has the potential to cause serious harm to the tenant in the event of a fire, particularly if the tenant is sleeping at the time.
Taking all of these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages. In setting on this figure, I have had regard to the fact that the tenant has only proven, on the balance of probabilities, that there is no qualifying smoke alarm in respect of bedroom 3.

Should the Tribunal make a work order?

The Tribunal has the ability to issue a work order under section 78 RTA.
The tenant has not asked the Tribunal to issue a work order however, I consider it appropriate to do so. This is because, as at the date of the hearing, the premises remain non-compliant with the HHS and Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. This non-compliance is a health and safety concern for the tenant.
The tenant is concerned that the level of work required to address the issues with the premises is significant. The tenant appears to be referring to the fact that they believe there are serious structural and weathertightness issues with the premises. No expert evidence was submitted to support this. Irrespective of whether there are such issues with the premises, at the very least, they can be made compliant with the HHS and Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 whilst the tenant is living in it and looking for another premises to rent. Filing fee and Name Suppression
The tenant has been wholly successful with their application. Therefore, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant did not seek name suppression however, I have a discretion to grant them name suppression under section 95A(4). This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public.
The tenant gave evidence that they have struggled to find a new tenancy to date. I consider publication of the tenant’s name in this decision might make it even more difficult to find a new tenancy. This is because prospective landlords might be deterred from taking on a tenant who has taken a previous landlord to the Tribunal. The tenant needs to find alternative accommodation as soon as possible, given the state of the premises. The public interest in publication of the tenant’s name is low, because the tenant has not breached the RTA. For these reasons, I consider the tenant’s interest in suppression outweighs the public interest in publication. I order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
I decline to order suppression of the landlord’s name. This decision might have a negative effect on the landlord’s reputation however, that is an ordinary consequence of legal proceedings. There is also a public interest in prospective tenants knowing about the state of this premises and the landlord’s conduct.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5528191 — Healthy homes at 4 Warren Avenue, Three Kings, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5528191 — Healthy homes at 4 Warren Avenue, Three Kings, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Regulations 2016?

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Do the premises comply with the healthy homes standards?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Regulations 2016?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Should the Tribunal make a work order?

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

Regulations 2016?

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Do the premises comply with the healthy homes standards?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Regulations 2016?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Should the Tribunal make a work order?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.