What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4747989?

The tribunal order states: Goodhome Holding Ltd Rishav Gupta must pay Georgia Emily Lyes $21,241.87

How much money was awarded in case 4747989?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4747989?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4747989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11115858-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4747989?

The tribunal order states: Goodhome Holding Ltd Rishav Gupta must pay Georgia Emily Lyes $21,241.87

How much money was awarded in case 4747989?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4747989?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4747989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11115858-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

59B Newman Road, Stillwater, RD 3, Silverdale 0993 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4747989 — Leaks

Order

Goodhome Holding Ltd Rishav Gupta must pay Georgia Emily Lyes $21,241.87 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 21 November 2024.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. Background
There are three houses on this rural property, which were purchased by the landlord in August 2022, a week prior to the tenant’s tenancy commencing.
One of the directors of the landlord company lives in the main house, with his wife and 2 children.
The tenant rented the unit closest to the main house, about 200 metres away, and the unit was also connected to the barn, which the landlord used to store alpaca feed, personal belongings, equipment and park his son’s car.
The landlord says it rented the unit to the tenant so soon after taking possession of the property as she was a single mother looking for a lower rent and was in a hurry to rent the property.
The tenant also sought to rent the barn as a playroom, but the rental the landlord was asking for it was cost prohibitive for the tenant.
There was an internal door to the barn from the unit. The landlord says the door could be locked from the unit so that the unit could be locked from the barn. The tenant had photographs that showed the lock could be opened from either side of the door and that she was concerned that someone could enter her unit from the barn without her consent. As such, she kept an item of furniture in front of the door to prevent any unconsented access.
The landlord says it never tried to access the unit through this door and that it had only been in the house once during tenancy, when there was an issue with the electricity. The landlord confirmed he did not undertake any property inspections during the tenancy, despite most insurers requiring landlords to undertake such inspections quarterly.
The parties confirmed the main house and the unit share the same power meter and water pumps and water tanks and that power was included in the rent at an additional $25.00 per week. The rent remained at $525.00 per week, including power for the duration of the tenancy.
The tenant was only required to pay $1,000.00 bond.
The parties lived in such close proximity that most of the issues raise by the tenant at the hearing were raised orally rather than in any form of writing. This presented a challenge for the tenant to meet the burden of proof to prove the claims she made on the balance of probabilities.
The parties had a cordial relationship during the tenancy, which was underpinned by a level on ongoing frustration by the tenant at the landlord’s ongoing breaches of its obligations to her under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Work Order
The tenant produced a list of repair and maintenance issues that she has applied for a work order to address. Her tenancy ended over a year ago, but she claims she does not want future tenants being subject to the substandard living conditions she was. The tenant wants theses problem fixed.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds, the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC) (b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy ended over a year ago and the tenant has no knowledge of what repairs and maintenance has been done on the premise in that twelve-month period or if the landlord has relet the premise. Further, she has no way to know whether the landlord carries out any work orders made. For all of these reasons, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for a work order. Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b), (ba), (bb) and (c) of the RTA obligations to the tenant?
Georgia Emily Lyes claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b), (ba), (bb) and (c) of the RTA.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA, a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A.
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards by the statutorily required date.
Under section 45(1)(c) of the RTA, a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises, including but not limited to the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (“HIR”). 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
Breaching any of these s45(1) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which a total amount of exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 for all of these breaches combined and not for each separate head of claim proven under each subsection of s45(1) of the RTA. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Exemplary damages are a penalty, much like a fine, designed to deter landlord’s from breaching their obligations to their tenants.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain (s45(1)(b)
The tenant says the landlord has failed to investigate and repair defects with the unit brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. Flooding, leaks, mould and dampness
The tenant says that from the commencement of the tenancy there has consistently been black mould growing on the walls of all of the rooms in the unit. She provided a photograph of this black mould on the walls, ceilings and skirting boards at the hearing.
The tenant says she raised this issue with the landlord at the commencement of the tenancy and several times during her tenancy.
The landlord remembers the tenant raising this issue with it on commencement of the tenancy when she was unhappy with the standard of cleanliness of the premise. It also remembers her raising this as part of her enquiry into getting a heat pump or HRV system installed and when the issue of flooding around the unit was raised with it. It does not recall her raising this issue after that.
The tenant provided a letter from her son and her partner’s doctors that say these persons have developed asthma and eczema as a result of the living conditions they were subjected to in the unit. The tenant has proven her son and her partner’s medical conditions did not exist prior to living in the unit and have disappeared after they left the tenancy.
The tenant has proven with video, photographic and oral evidence that: a. After heavy rain the ground around the unit remains flooded with up to 25cm of water, particularly at the back of the unit by the barn, where the rubbish bins are kept and near the tenant’s bedroom window. She produced a photograph of a barrel she had placed under her bedroom window for her cat to use to jump into the unit as it refused to go near the window because of the flooding; b. There was insufficient heating in the unit; c. The ranch slider and main bedroom windows were leaking and as a consequence the windows and ranch slider were heavy with condensation every morning, despite the tenant running 4 dehumidifiers in the unit and regularly airing it out.
I am satisfied that the landlord ought to have reasonably known about the leaks and mould issues from the start of the tenancy and he did not investigate and remediate these issues during the tenancy. As such, the tenant and her young son lived in substandard conditions prohibited by the RTA.
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for the period 25 August 2022 to 1 November 2023 (61 weeks and 6 days) for the stress and inconvenience she, her son and her partner suffered from living in cold, damp and mouldy conditions. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $100.00 per week for the period 25 August 2022 to 1 November 2023 (61 weeks and 6 days). $100.00 x 61 =$6,100.00. $100.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 6 = $85.71. The total rent rebate ordered is $6,185.71. Cracks in the kitchen ceiling
The tenant says that from the commencement of the tenancy there has been a large crack across the kitchen ceiling that the photographs show sagged and dipped further during the tenancy.
The tenant showed a photograph that proved a second crack in the kitchen ceiling had been repaired at the start of the tenancy. The second crack had been plastered but not sanded back or painted.
The landlord says the tenant was ok with these cracks and did not keep raising these with it. Therefore, there were so many more pressing repair and maintenance issues that it did not address this one.
I am satisfied that the landlord knew about the crack issues from the start of the tenancy and he did not fully investigate or remediate these issues during the tenancy.
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for the period 25 August 2022 to 1 November 2023 (61 weeks and 6 days) for the stress and inconvenience she, her son and her partner suffered from living with large and unsightly cracks in the kitchen ceiling that could have indicated a serious underlying issue with the ceiling. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $15.00 per week for the period 25 August 2022 to 1 November 2023 (61 weeks and 6 days). $15.00 x 61 =$915.00. $15.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 6 = $12.86. The total rent rebate ordered is $927.86. Oven
The tenant says that from the commencement of the tenancy the oven only cooked things on one side and was temperamental so sometimes it worked and then it did not.
The tenant confirmed she told the landlord about this not long into the tenancy (fin the first week) but says she did not say it was urgent as she was using an air fryer a lot and other appliances.
The landlord says it initially recalls being told about this issue, after the tenant did the cleaning in the first week of her tenancy. It confirmed that it looked at the oven and at the time it was working fine. After that it did not hear about the oven any further so assumed the oven was working as it should be.
The tenant does not recall the landlord’s directors coming to look at the oven and there are no text messages or emails about this issue.
The tenant says she was concerned about the safety of the oven so did not use it for the duration of the tenancy and admits to not raising the issue again with the landlord after the initial reporting of the problem.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has met the burden of proof that the oven was faulty and that the landlord was aware that after its initial investigation into the issue that the issue had not been resolved.
I dismiss this claim for lack of sufficient evidence to meet the evidential burden of proof. Leaking shower wall
The tenant says that for the duration of her tenancy, the grouting and tiles in the shower wall and the bath coating were not waterproof and each time the tenant showered or bathed water seeped through the wall and into the hallway causing damage to the furniture and storage cubes she kept in the hallway.
The landlord admitted it was aware there was an issue but were not aware of the extent of the issue until it saw the photographs produced by the tenant of the leaks and the damage to her furniture and other belongings. There is no doubt in my mind that this issue also contributed to the mouldy walls, ceilings, and skirting boards throughout the unit.
I am satisfied that the landlord knew about the leaky shower wall and bath issues from the start of the tenancy, and he did not fully investigate or remediate these issues during the tenancy.
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for the period 25 August 2022 to 1 November 2023 (61 weeks and 6 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience she, her son and her partner suffered from living with these significant leaks and trying to shower without having the water touch the shower wall. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $40.00 per week for the period 25 August 2022 to 1 November 2023 (61 weeks and 6 days). $40.00 x 61 =$2,440.00. $40.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 6 = $32.29. The total rent rebate ordered is $2,474.29. Potholes on driveway
The tenant says that for the duration of her tenancy, she made multiple requests to have pot holes fixed on driveway and was told “it was the least of the landlord’s worries” considering the other work that was required to bring the property up to standard.
Tenant says he experienced considerable damage to her car and that it required four new tyres, and that the suspension damage was so severe she has been unable to pay to get it fixed and now has no car. The tenant produced evidence that proves her mechanic confirmed the damage to her car was directly attributable to potholes she had to drive over each day of her tenancy.
The landlord confirmed that when it rained the metal washed off the driveway and that the tenant did raise this issue. It also confirmed there was a big dip from the concrete to metal where the landlord had placed some bricks to try to ease the deep dip, but photographic evidence produced by the tenant shows lots of pot holes that could have caused the damage to the tenant’s car.
The landlord stated it and the other tenants drove on the same driveway and had not had any issues. It also confirmed it had done some maintenance of the driveway itself by filling in holes, but it could not afford to get new metal compacted on it or have it levelled out by a rural driveway specialist.
I am satisfied that the landlord knew about the leaky shower wall and bath issues from the start of the tenancy, and he did not fully investigate or remediate these issues during the tenancy.
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for the period 25 August 2022 to 1 November 2023 (61 weeks and 6 days) for the loss of amenity, stress, and inconvenience she suffered from living with potholes and dips in the metal driveway that was not maintained in a reasonable condition. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $5.00 per week for the period 25 August 2022 to 1 November 2023 (61 weeks and 6 days). $5.00 x 61 =$305.00. $5.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 6 = $4.29. The total rent rebate ordered is $309.29. Dirty tank water
The tenant says that for the duration of her tenancy, the tank water sometimes had a nasty brown tinge and some days I also had black floaty things in it. Other days it was clearer.
The tenant produced a photograph of bath water that had a slight brown tinge to it and several black floaty things in it.
The tenant also provided letters from her son and her partner’s doctors that stated the tenant, her son, and her partner all experienced welts on their skin and eczema. These doctors have attributed the eczema and welts to the inferior quality of the tank water.
The tenant says her doctor told her to ask the landlord to get the water filtered better.
The landlord confirmed there is double filtration system on the water tanks and that the main dwelling and the unit use the same water and the landlord’s family is not sick and has not noticed discolouration of the water, except after heavy rain and that it quickly settles. It also confirmed every six months the filters are changes and are cleaned regularly.
The landlord also confirmed when it purchased the property the tanks had been cleaned and thereafter the tanks were on a two-yearly maintenance schedule. It also confirmed the guttering had just been cleaned prior to purchase, but it had not been done again during tenancy.
The landlord says the tenant mentioned the brown water once but not since and has never mentioned the eczema.
The tenant says she told the landlord about the itchy bumps on her and her family’s skin and that she told it about the discolouration multiple times. There was nothing in writing to prove this issue was raised with the landlord a number of times or that the extent of the issue was conveyed to the landlord.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has met the burden of proof that the tank water was contaminated and causing her and her family’s health issues.
I dismiss this claim for lack of sufficient evidence to meet the evidential burden of proof. Pests
The tenant says that there was a significant rat and mouse infestation at the property when her tenancy commenced. She says the landlord was advised of this and did nothing to eradicate the pests and that she was left to address the pests at her own cost.
The tenant proved she purchased traps that electrocuted the rodents and that she used these for three weeks after she move in. She said that had eradicated the rodents, but they came back near the end of the tenancy as she left rubbish outside.
She also stated there were weevils in the pantry at start of tenancy and an infestation of spiders. She confirmed she set off bug bombs throughout the house to kill the weevils and spiders.
The landlord confirmed she had told it that she had seen rats outside the unit and around the barn and that it placed rat bait stations in and around the barn at the start of the tenancy. It says it did not hear of any further rodent issues from the tenant after that and considered the issue resolved.
The tenant says the landlord said it would get all the properties fumigated after she first raised the issue and then did nothing more than the rat bait stations.
The tenant says she did not raise the pest infestations again after the start of the tenancy as she spent $200.00 on bug bombs, spider eradicator and rat traps when the landlord did not get the fumigation done.
The tenant confirmed she had lost food from rats in the pantry and had to go to Work and Income New Zealand to get money for containers to store her food to stop the weevils and rats contaminating or eating her food.
The landlord reiterated that he did not know rats were in the house.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has met the burden of proof that the unit was pest infested or that the landlord knew about the weevils and spiders or that the rats had been seen inside the house and not just outside.
I dismiss this claim for lack of sufficient evidence to meet the evidential burden of proof.
I award the tenant reimbursement of $200.00 for the pest control products she purchased to use in the rental premise to eradicate the weevils, spiders, and rodents. Power
The tenant says that on two occasions near the end of the tenancy (17 and 30 July 2023), the power would cut out randomly.
The first time, the electrician came 24 hours after the issue was first raised by the tenant with the landlord. The tenant says it was 48 hours, but the landlord produced text message evidence that proved it was 24 hours and that he had raised the issue with the electrician straight away and the electrician came to investigate and remediate the issue as fast as he could.
The parties confirmed there was an issue with the power points being overloaded and the safety switch at the switch board tripping. That tripping stopped power to all the power points in the unit, but the lights and stove retained power.
The landlord attributed the overload to the tenant’s pet lizards’ enclosures that require heat lams to be on during the daytime hours.
The tenant confirmed the heat lamps do not pull much power and are energy efficient and that the enclosures had been in the unit since around the end of September 2022 and that this issue with the power points occurred a long time after that date. The tenant also confirmed that her power usage had not changed at all during the tenancy.
The landlord confirmed the electrician had fully investigated the issue and could not find any issues with the power circuits and told the landlord to flick the tripped switches if the power board tripped again and to ask the tenant to use less power points at the same time if this issue kept happening.
The second time the power went out, the landlord’s wife addressed it the same day.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has met the burden of proof that the landlord failed to investigate and remediate the issues with the circuit board tripping when the power points were used. The landlord has proven it engaged a registered electrician to investigate the first outage that was reported at 5:12pm on 17 July 2023 and was fixed within 24 hours. The landlord could not get an electrician to come after hours for power point issues.
The parties confirmed the landlord compensated the tenant for the food that spoiled in her fridge and freezer in those 24 hours.
I dismiss this claim for lack of sufficient evidence to meet the evidential burden of proof and consider the landlord to have disproved the claim that it did not investigate and remediate the issue in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances. Did the landlord fail to meet the smoke alarms regulations
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA states the landlord “shall comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A”.
The tenants claim the rental premise had no working smoke alarms when the tenants moved in and none were installed during the tenancy.
Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) website, www.fire.org, confirms both landlords and tenants take some responsible for smoke alarms as follows: a. Landlords must ensure smoke alarms: i. Are placed within 3 metres of each bedroom door, or in every room where a person sleeps; ii. Are in each level or storey of a multi-storey or multi-level home; iii. Are in all rental homes, boarding houses, rental caravans, and self- contained sleep-outs. iv. Are working at the start of each new tenancy; v. Remain in working order during the tenancy; and vi. That are not working are replaced with photoelectric smoke alarms. b. Tenants must: i. not damage, remove, or disconnect a smoke alarm; ii. replace dead batteries during the tenancy if there are older-style smoke alarms with replaceable batteries; and iii. let the landlord know if there are any problems with the smoke alarms as soon as possible.
I am satisfied that the tenant has proven by photographic evidence taken for the day the tenancy commenced that the landlord failed to ensure the rental premises were fitted with enough working smoke alarms to meet the regulatory requirements referred to in the RTA and that the one smoke alarm provided was not positioned in a part of the unit that meets the regulatory requirements. There was one smoke alarm situated in the hallway that was not positioned so it was within 3 metres of the tenant or her son’s bedrooms.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. the landlord failed to provide enough compliant smoke alarms in the unit and subjected the tenant and her son to a level of risk that could have cost them their lives; b. the tenant was subjected to a level of risk that could have cost her and her son their lives and they should have been able to rely on the landlord to meet its obligations under the RTA and associated regulations; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and risk to their health and wellbeing; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to provide fully functioning and compliant smoke alarms to tenants and to record details about these accurately in a written tenancy agreement.
The quantum of exemplary damages to be awarded to the tenant will be addressed at the end of the section 45(1) of the RTA breaches by the landlord section of this decision as a maximum of $7,200.00 can be awarded for all the section 45(1)(b),(ba),(bb) and (c) breaches. Healthy Homes Standards Compliance
The tenant claims the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with all of the healthy homes standards.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy agreement commenced on 25 August 2022. As such, the landlord was required to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards from the 90th day after the tenancy commenced, being 23 November 2022.

Did the landlord breach the insulation standard?

Georgia Emily Lyes claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
The landlord has proven the unit has ceiling insulation. The tenant has also seen the ceiling insulation and says she glued some of it back down at the start of the tenancy without informing the landlord this needed to be done or giving it the opportunity to investigate and remediate any lifting ceiling insulation.
The parties have both confirmed there is no underfloor insulation and that there is no cavity under the floor that would enable anyone to install such insulation. The landlord has not sought an exemption to this part of the insulation standard but would be highly likely to get it if an exemption were sought.
The tenant has evidence there is no insulation in the unit walls, but wall insulation is not required as art of the insulation standard.
I dismiss this claim for lack of sufficient evidence to meet the evidential burden of proof and consider the landlord to have disproved the claim that it did not meet this standard.

Did the landlord breach the heating standard?

Georgia Emily Lyes claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Tenant says there was insufficient heating and that landlord stated before the tenancy agreement was signed that he would install a heat pump in the unit. Further, the tenant says she reminded the landlord numerous times and at one point it said a heat pump would be installed in the next two weeks. Both parties confirmed no heat pump was ever installed.
The parties confirmed there were portable heaters provided at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord says it wanted to instal a heat pump and because of the Directors work and travel, things moved on and the landlord did not get around to arranging the installation. The landlord accepts this is something the tenant has raised on a number of occasions with him.
In this case I have determined that the landlord has failed to meet this standard as it has confirmed the only heating provided to the tenant was a couple of portable heaters.
I find Goodhome Holding Ltd Rishav Gupta 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
I am satisfied the evidence proves that the landlord intentionally failed to meet the heating standard.

Did the landlord breach the ventilation standard?

Georgia Emily Lyes claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
In this case I have determined that the bathroom extractor fan exhaust was in the barn, which was shut up and that the steam extracted by the bathroom fan came back into the unit via a substantial gap under the door between the unit and the barn. The landlord confirmed it knew the extractor fan in the bathroom was not externally venting but did not consider this an issue that needed to be remedied.
I find Goodhome Holding Ltd, Rishav Gupta had 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
I am satisfied the evidence proves that the landlord intentionally failed to meet the heating standard.

Did the landlord breach the draught stopping standard?

Georgia Emily Lyes claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Draughts increase the likelihood of lower temperatures in houses and can make it more expensive for a tenant to heat their home. This is what the tenant says was the result of a substantial gap under the door between the barn and the unit that let cold and damp air into the unit.
The tenant produced a photograph that shows this significant gap under the connecting door on the unit side, and she says there is a bigger gap on the barn side as there is no carpet on the barn side.
The landlord accepts there is a gap there and it thought the barn doors were always closed so the gap did not need addressing.
The tenant says she raised this issue with the landlord once at the beginning of the tenancy and after that she put a door stop under the gap to try to stop the draught coming in.
I find Goodhome Holding Ltd Rishav Gupta 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
I am satisfied the evidence proves that the landlord intentionally failed to meet the draught stopping standard.

Did the landlord breach the moisture ingress and drainage standard?

Georgia Emily Lyes claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant has produced photographic evidence that proves there was insufficient drainage behind the unit and that after rain flooding of up to 25cm remained at the back of the property for up to a week at a time. The tenant also proved the unit retained water around the tenant’s bedroom window and by the rubbish bins as the water overflowed out of the spouting on the barn roof and on to the ground and there was not sufficient drainage to adequately remove this water,
The lack of a heat pump coupled with the insufficient drainage meant the house was constantly damp in the winter months.
The tenant says she experienced constant black mould throughout the year despite cleaning the mould away regularly, it would return due to the dampness of the property.
She also says that around the unit and barn, there was a slant, so all the water was running down the slant and collecting around the unit. Water ran off barn, and water tanks and was everywhere around the unit.
The landlord accepted many times, with heavy rain, the water used to collect around the water tank but says it dispersed within a day. The tenant says the water gathered for up to a week at a time.
The landlord states it was worse during the 2023 we weather events but the tenants says it was an issue for the duration of the tenancy due to insufficient drainage
I find Goodhome Holding Ltd, Rishav Gupta 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
I am satisfied the evidence proves that the landlord intentionally failed to meet the draught stopping standard. Did the landlord breach s45(1)(c) of the RTA?
Under section 45(1)(c) of the RTA, a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises, including but not limited to the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (“HIR”).
Section 7 of the HIR confirms that every kitchen must have an approved sink with a tap connected to an adequate supply of potable water that is safe to drink and meets the requirements of the Water Services Act 2021.
Section 9 of the HIR confirms every bathroom shall contain an approved bath or shower with an adequate supply of wholesome water.
The parties confirmed the pump that fed water to the unit and the main house was behind the unit and had a timer on it that stopped the water being pumped to the house and unit after 20 minutes of continuous water use.
The tenant confirmed she had to wait a further 20 minutes for the pump to restart or she had to go outside and around the back of the barn to manually restart the water pump each time it cut off.
The landlord stated the previous owner had alpacas put on a timer so that the continuous flow of water was restricted to approximately 20 minutes in case one of the stock damaged a water troughs on the property so that the most water the property could lose was 20 minutes’ worth because the water would shut off completely. The landlord confirmed that the tenant was required to wait 20 minutes for the water to come back on or get it to restart the pump manually as she had never been shown how to do this.
The landlord says it told the tenant about the timer on the pump before she took the tenancy but the tenant says she was not told about the timer at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord says the tenant asked it to switch back on the water around 3 or 4 times during the tenancy. The tenant said she had the water cut off nearly every day due to showering and running the bath for her son at the same time around the time she was preparing dinner and she just waited for the water to come back on. She did say that she was left with shampoo in her hair or a soapy body and had to just stand there and wait for the water to come back on.
I am satisfied that the tenant has met the evidential burden of proof that the landlord was in breach of its obligations to ensure adequate water supply to the tenants kitchen, bathroom and toilet for the duration of the tenancy, that the landlord was aware of the breach and intentionally did nothing to address the issue by removing the timer and setting up a separate water source for live stock.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. the landlord failed to provide a consistent supply of water to the tenant’s kitchen, bathroom and toilet in breach of its obligations set out in the RTA and the HIR; b. the tenant was suffered the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience of a sporadic water supply to the unit; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to provide an adequate and consistent water supply to the tenant.
The quantum of exemplary damages to be awarded to the tenant will be addressed at the end of the section 45(1) of the RTA breaches by the landlord section of this decision as a maximum of $7,200.00 can be awarded for all the section 45(1)(b),(ba),(bb) and (c) breaches. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed four intentional breaches of s45(1)(b) of the RTA, four of s45(1)(bb) of the RTA, one of s45(1)(ba) of the RTA and one of s45(1)(c) of the RTA and two of the HIR . These breaches were prolonged and resulted in the tenant and her family living in cold, damp and mouldy conditions and experiencing considerable periods of stress, inconvenience and loss of the amenities she was paying rent to enjoy.
I find the landlord has committed twelve unlawful acts intentionally and compounded those breaches by, not only failing to offer the tenant a rent rebate for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity but outing her to the time and cost of having to bring her issues to the Tribunal for resolution.
Where a party has committed any unlawful acts 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.
I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenant many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $5,400.00 exemplary damages to the tenant, being 75% of the maximum penalty available. Did the landlord provide the tenant with healthy homes standards information in the tenancy agreement?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 13A(1CA) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not provide the tenant with detailed healthy homes information in the tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement commenced on 25 August 2022, and the landlord was legally required to ensure the tenancy agreement contained healthy homes statements on all five of the healthy homes standards, being insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, draught stopping and heating and it also was required to provide smoke alarm numbers, where they are located, when they were last tested and date they are due for replacement. The tenant’s tenancy agreement did not contain any of this information.
I find the landlord has 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.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements, prescribed by sections 13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in the nature of $750.00 of exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available), because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known it had to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and intentionally did not. The evidence the landlord intentionally omitted this information even though it used a Tenancy Services template agreement that specified this information was required to be recorded. The landlord says this was his first tenancy in New Zealand and he did not know he had to complete the entire template agreement. The website he got the template from is clear that this information must be included in all tenancy agreements that are entered into after 1 July 2021. b. The impact on the tenant of the landlord not providing this information is that she took on the tenancy for a premise that did not meet most of the HHS. The tenant may not have taken the tenancy if she had known the premise did not comply with so many of the healthy homes’ standards, but was denied that opportunity; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide signed proof to the tenant that the rental premises meet all of the healthy homes standards; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide signed healthy homes standards statements that meet the requirements set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premise?

Georgia Emily Lyes claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant say that one night, just prior to the end of her tenancy, she came home to find the light fitting in the lounge had moved and changed from warm light to cool light and that the light fitting had moved before and she thought someone was coming into the unit when she was out and moving the light fitting so they could spy on her through the gap in the ceiling.
The tenant says she contacted the landlord and he said he was going to call the police and report it and get finger printing as there were finger marks around the light fitting, proven by a photograph produced by the tenant.
The landlord confirmed fitting had moved in the past and it assumed it could be a rat or the tenant’s cat getting into the ceiling from the barn.
The landlord also confirmed the light fittings in the unit can change from warm to cool without changing the bulb due to a switch in the fitting. It also confirmed that you have to pull the bulb out of the fitting to switch the light from warm to cool.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven that the landlord unlawfully entered the unit without giving her notice nor that it was responsible for the issue complained of. In addition, the tenant could have called the Police herself and did not need to rely on the landlord to do this for her if she was concerned her unit had been unlawfully entered and she wanted finger printing done on the ceiling.
I dismiss this claim because the tenant has not met the evidential burden of proof that the landlord unlawfully entered the unit and moved the light fitiing. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and privacy?
Georgia Emily Lyes claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenants says the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment of the unit and her privacy by: a. Failing to ensure the lounge blind rail was functional when it kept falling off the wall as it was not screwed into a stud. This left her having to put canvass pictures over the ranch slider to preserve her privacy; b. Bringing her mail to her door to give to her or leaving it on the front door step if she was not home; c. Knocking on her door for reasons unknown to the tenant without any prior notice or warning; d. The landlord’s director’s son parked his car in the barn and it was loud when it started up and caused disturbance to the tenant and her son; e. The landlord’s director’s son and his friends played with balls in th barn throwing them up against the wall between the unit and the barn and disturbing her peace and quiet; and f. The landlord, the children from the main house and their friends or the landlord’s contractors walking past the front of the tenant’s unit, including the exposed ranch slider and her bedroom window to get to the barn.
The parties confirmed that one of the Directors of the landlord’s business lived with his family in the main house that was less than 200 metres from the tenant’s unit.
The Director confirmed: a. His elder son did park in the barn from time to time but more often parked in front of the main house so as not to disturb the tenant and her son; b. His younger son had on the odd occasion played with a ball in the barn for a short time before taking the ball outside and he had been instructed not to do this but may have on a few occasions not done as he was asked; c. He walked past the tenant’s unit on shared ground to turn back on the water pump; and d. He, his family and his contractors sometimes took the fasted route to the barn, and as such sometimes walked past the front of the tenant’s unit on shared ground. Oher times they went the long way to try not to upset the tenant unnecessarily.
A landlord and its contractors are permitted to access the grounds around a rental premise without notice Refer to section 48(7) of the RTA that expressly states “premises” does not include land or facilities. In addition, the landlord has taken steps to try to preserve the tenant’s privacy and quiet enjoyment of the unit, but they shared the yard and the water tanks/pumps, lived in close proximity and the tenant was aware the landlord was going to use the barn for storage when she rented the premise.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has met the evidential burden of proof that the landlord intentionally breached her quiet enjoyment and/or her privacy.
The landlord tried to be neighbourly by bringing the tenant her mail and knocking on the door to see if she was there to talk to her about any issues or concerns or to tell her when contractors were going to be at the premise.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for the reasons set out above. Failure to lodge the bond
Georgia Emily Lyes claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has never lodged the bond, either during the tenancy or as at the date of today’s hearing. The landlord has been aware since the tenant’s lodged their Tribunal application on 2 January 2024, that this was one of their claims, but she still made no attempt to remedy her breach.
At of today, the landlord has not lodged the bond for 60 weeks and 2 days after receiving it on 15 July 2023. I find she has 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.
Landlord’s are required to understand their responsibilities to tenants and I am satisfied the landlord should have reasonably known that the bond had to be submitted to the Bond Centre within 23 days after her receipt of it. The landlord had got the tenancy agreement from the Tenancy Services website and that website contains bond forms and other such resources that she could have used to inform her of what to do with the bond. The obligations placed on a landlord to put the bond into the Bond centre on trust for the tenant is an obligation the Tribunal takes seriously. The bond is owned by the tenant, until the parties agree that all or part of the bond can be paid to the landlord to cover proven debts.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay exemplary damages because: a. The landlord intentionally held on to the bond and did not submit it to the Bond Centre for over 60 weeks and 2 days; b. The tenants are entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting the bond money that has been placed in it on trust for the tenant’s benefit, unless it is proven the tenant owes the landlord a debt that both parties agree can be paid by the Bond Centre to the landlord or on order from the Tribunal. The tenants’ money has not been protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for a period of 60 weeks and 2 days and it should have been. In addition, it is still not protected by the Bond Centre and remains in the hands of the landlord that has made 11 commitments over WeChat to refund the bond from 20 December 2023, has given the tenants numerous excuses why she has not done it yet and continues to unlawfully withhold it when she has recorded in the WeChat messages that the premise was left reasonably clean and tidy and there was no other reason not to refund the tenants the full $2,400.00 bond and $1,000.00 rent paid in advance; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s continuing breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations pay the bond received into the Bond Centre promptly for the protection of both parties’ interests.
The landlord still holds the bond and must pay the bond back to the tenant pursuant to the Order section of this decision. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because Georgia Emily Lyes has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4747989 — Leaks at 59B Newman Road, Stillwater, RD 3, Silverdale 0993

Tenancy Tribunal case 4747989 — Leaks at 59B Newman Road, Stillwater, RD 3, Silverdale 0993

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach the insulation standard?

Did the landlord breach the heating standard?

Did the landlord breach the ventilation standard?

Did the landlord breach the draught stopping standard?

Did the landlord breach the moisture ingress and drainage standard?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premise?

Property management

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach the insulation standard?

Did the landlord breach the heating standard?

Did the landlord breach the ventilation standard?

Did the landlord breach the draught stopping standard?

Did the landlord breach the moisture ingress and drainage standard?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premise?

Property management