What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4856621?

The tribunal order states: This order amends the previous order dated 18 December 2024 by correcting

How much money was awarded in case 4856621?

Cleaning: $1,397.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $335.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $61.19 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $20.88 awarded to landlord; Repainting Bedroom Walls: $293.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4856621?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4856621?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11236782-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4856621?

The tribunal order states: This order amends the previous order dated 18 December 2024 by correcting

How much money was awarded in case 4856621?

Cleaning: $1,397.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $335.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $61.19 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $20.88 awarded to landlord; Repainting Bedroom Walls: $293.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4856621?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4856621?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11236782-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

28 Revans Street, Miramar, Wellington 6022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4856621 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4856621 — net $41.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$1,397.50		Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$61.19		Lock/key replacement
Compensation for damaged carpet	$250.00		Compensation for damaged carpet
Replacement of curtain hooks and glides	$20.88		Replacement of curtain hooks and glides
Repainting bedroom walls	$293.90		Repainting bedroom walls
Compensation for removing waste disposal	$335.00		Compensation for removing waste disposal
Exemplary damages: Failing to comply with HHS heating		$2,400.00	Failing to comply with HHS heating
Total award	$2,358.47	$2,400.00
Net award		$41.53
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$41.53

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4856621 — net $41.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$1,397.50		Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$61.19		Lock/key replacement
Compensation for damaged carpet	$250.00		Compensation for damaged carpet
Replacement of curtain hooks and glides	$20.88		Replacement of curtain hooks and glides
Repainting bedroom walls	$293.90		Repainting bedroom walls
Compensation for removing waste disposal	$335.00		Compensation for removing waste disposal
Exemplary damages: Failing to comply with HHS heating		$2,400.00	Failing to comply with HHS heating
Total award	$2,358.47	$2,400.00
Net award		$41.53
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$41.53

Order

This order amends the previous order dated 18 December 2024 by correcting an error and including compensation awarded to the landlord of $250 for carpet damage in the table below, as provided in paragraph 28 of the

Reasons

, and correcting the total award payable by the landlord to the tenants to $41.53. All other terms of the order and the Reasons remain the same.

Jane Margaret Blackwell and Alvin Graham Relph as Trustee for the AG Relph Family Trust must pay Lisa Morunga and Kiri Williams $41.53 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. The amount due may be paid by way of offset against any balance owed by the tenants to the landlord pursuant to the order of this Tribunal dated 15 February 2024 under application 4767957.
All other claims are dismissed. DescriptionLandlordTenant Cleaning$1,397.50 Lock/key replacement$61.19 Compensation for damaged carpet$250.00 Replacement of curtain hooks and glides$20.88 Repainting bedroom walls$293.90 Compensation for removing waste disposal$335.00 Exemplary damages: Failing to comply with HHS heating standard $2,400.00 Total award$2,358.47$2,400.00 Net award $41.53 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $41.53 Reasons:
Both parties attended the hearing with the tenants represented by counsel, Ms Roznawska.
The landlord applied for compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal; various damage to carpets, kitchen bench and sink, bathroom handbasin and other repairs; loss of rent; and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s application for exemplary damages on grounds that the tenants caused damage and did not notify the landlord about it is dismissed. Damage caused by tenants and failing to notify a landlord of damage is not an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be considered under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenants filed a cross application seeking exemplary damages for breaches of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS) in respect of heating and ventilation; compensation for power bills unlawfully charged; compensation for repairs to sink; and exemplary damages for unlawful entry and breach of quiet enjoyment. In response to the landlord’s claims, counsel for the tenants raised a suggestion in her submissions that the premises may not have a code compliance certificate following division of the property into two separate units. However, no specific claim was raised in the cross application lodged on the tenants’ behalf and nor was their sufficient evidence before the Tribunal to enable it to determine whether the premises might be unlawful residential premises under s78A RTA. Therefore, I have not considered this issue. If the tenants wish to pursue this matter, they must file a further separate application. Landlord claims

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish and belongings at the end of the tenancy as shown in the photos taken after the tenancy ended. The landlord also produced photos taken before the tenancy started showing that the premises were in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The pre-tenancy inspection report attached to the tenancy agreement and signed by both parties also recorded that the premises were in overall good condition at the start of the tenancy. Ms Morunga acknowledged at the hearing that the premises were in immaculate condition at the start. However, other than signing the property inspection report, the tenants did not review the report in any detail, and they did not complete the tenant column for recording whether each area in the premises was in acceptable condition. They said this is because they had just come out of Emergency Housing and were just relieved to have a roof over their heads.
Ms Roznawska submitted that the tenants were only given 16 hours’ notice to vacate the property and therefore did not have time to properly clean it and remove all their rubbish and belongings before they were evicted. The tenancy was terminated by a previous Tribunal order dated 15 February 2024 under application 4767957 (“the previous Tribunal proceedings”). Unfortunately, where a termination order is made requiring tenants to vacate, the fact that they may not have sufficient time to remove their belongings and clean the premises properly before the termination takes effect is not a relevant consideration. It is a consequence of the tenants’ breach (in this case rent arrears) which triggered the termination. No doubt the tenants were also notified of the termination application well in advance of the hearing at which termination was granted.
Submissions were made challenging whether the landlord could invoice for cleaning and rubbish removal work when the landlord completed the work themselves and invoiced it under a related business entity name, “Cleaning Services”. Counsel suggested that in those circumstances the landlord has not suffered a loss. However, a landlord is entitled to do work themselves and charge for it, provided the costs are reasonable. The tenants claim the number of hours and rate charged for the cleaning work was unreasonable and questioned the removal costs because they saw some of their furniture being used by the neighbouring tenant. There was no evidence to corroborate that claim such as photos or a statement from the neighbour.
Based on all the available evidence, I am satisfied that the invoice is reasonable for the work required evidenced in the photos. However, I have deducted the amount of $75 claimed for travel which I consider cannot be claimed by the landlords when they are doing the work themselves.
The landlord had to change the locks. The tenants say they left the keys in the mailbox as instructed. However, the landlord says they were not there, and the tenants were unable to provide evidence that they left them in the mailbox, such as a photo.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. In this case the landlord has insurance cover with an excess of $1250.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Where items damaged are replaced, I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord claims that the tenant caused damage during the tenancy. In some cases, the landlord seeks compensation for replacement costs and remedial work based on quotes but has not had the work done. Therefore, I must decide whether and on what basis the landlord is entitled to compensation. Law on damages and compensation
The Tribunal has jurisdiction under section 77(2)(n) RTA to order a party “to pay to the other party such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any express or implied provision of the tenancy agreement or any provision of this Act” .
Section 78(1) RTA provides: “Without limiting the generality of s77 or the nature or extent of orders that the Tribunal may make in the exercise of its jurisdiction, the Tribunal may, in respect of any claim within its jurisdiction ........ make 1 or more of the following orders:......(d) an order that a party pay money to any other party.”
Judge Tompkins in Gardiner v Upland Investments Limited 1 stated that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to order a payment “by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess” is discretionary. Even if a breach is established, there is no entitlement to an award as of right.
In Leisure Investments NZ Ltd Partnership v Grace 2 the Court of Appeal, after a review of relevant authorities, summarised the principles relating to the proper measure of damages. The principles included: a. Damages should reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the claimant. b. Where a court is required to choose between alternative measures of damages (such as cost of repairs and diminution in value), the court must decide whether in the circumstances of the case, the higher yielding measure is reasonable. c. One of the key factors in determining reasonableness is whether the plaintiff genuinely intends or desires to pursue the course which involves the higher cost. d. The absence of such an intention or desire is likely to undermine the reasonableness of the higher cost measure. e. Compelling circumstances will be required before the higher cost measure will be awarded in the absence of such an intention.
The Court of Appeal found in the above case that the evidence did not establish an intention to rebuild a seawall and, in the absence of compelling circumstances to award that cost, the basis of quantifying the loss would be the diminution in value. There was no evidence of that, so the award was a nominal $10.
I deal with each of the landlord’s claims for damages in turn. Damaged carpet in bedrooms 1 and 2
There is no dispute that there were several stains in bedroom 2 which the tenant confirmed was coffee. Mr Relph says that the stains could not be removed by cleaning, and he seeks the cost of replacing the carpet, for which he has a quote of $822.73. He has not replaced the carpet yet and has re-let the premises for $10 less rent per week because of the staining.
The landlord also claims there were cigarette burns on the carpet in bedroom 3. The landlord says the burn marks are quite small and it is not worth replacing the carpet. However, they seek compensation of $250 for deferred maintenance 1 Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, CIV-2014-085-37, DC Wellington, 27 August 2014 2 Leisure Investments NZ Ltd Partnership v Grace [2023] NZCA 89 on the basis that the carpet will be replaced at some stage. The tenants deny smoking at the premises and said the marks are oil spots from a bicycle chain.
Mr Relph gave evidence that the carpets were replaced before the last tenancy in May 2020, as evidenced by a copy of the property inspection report produced for that tenancy stating that the carpets were new.
I accept on the evidence that the damage to the carpets occurred during the tenancy; the damage is beyond fair wear and tear and was caused by the tenants carelessly. However, I am not satisfied that the landlord intends to replace the carpets any time soon such that they are incurring a loss of the amount claimed, even taking depreciation into account. Mr Relph indicated that they would probably replace the carpets at the next change of tenancy. Currently the premises have been re-let through to 19 June 2025, but the tenancy could continue beyond that date. So, there is a lack of certainty about when there will be a change of tenancy.
Bearing in mind the principles in the Leisure Investments case, I consider that the compensation claimed by the landlord is unreasonable when they have no intention of replacing the carpet for some time. The landlord has established that they are receiving $10 less rent per week for the premises (as evidenced by the tenancy agreement produced in evidence), which they say is because of the carpet damage, but it could be for a variety of reasons. Overall, I find there are no compelling circumstances for awarding the higher costs sought and I award nominal compensation of $250 towards diminution in value and/or as a contribution to deferred maintenance costs for the carpets in both bedrooms. I consider the award is fair and reasonable. Damaged handbasin in the bathroom
The landlords claim that the handbasin was cracked during the tenancy, likely from something being dropped on it. They discovered the damage at an inspection on 9 November 2023. They seek the costs to replace the basin and obtained a quote of $1,758.58 for the work. However, they have not replaced the basin despite re-letting the premises and say they will look to replace it when the tenancy changes. The basin is probably original dating from the 1970s.
The tenants say they did not notice any crack either at the start of or during the tenancy, and they have no knowledge as to how it may’ve happened. While the property inspection report attached to the tenancy agreement did not record any damage, there were no photos of the basin at the start of the tenancy.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the handbasin was damaged carelessly or intentionally by the tenants. If something fell on it to cause a crack, it may have been accidental. Tenants are not liable for accidental damage.
Even if I am wrong, the landlord has not replaced the basin before letting the premises again and I am not satisfied that the landlord intends to do so any time soon. Therefore, based on the Leisure Investments case principles, I find that it would not be reasonable to award the replacement cost. Furthermore, the basin is at least 50 years old. I accept that a handbasin would be expected to last at least 50 years. In that regard, even if careless or intentional damage had been proved, the replacement costs should be fully depreciated.
For those reasons, the claim is dismissed. Damaged kitchen sinks and benchtop
At an inspection on 9 November 2023, the landlord noticed several issues of concern that caused him to later send the tenants a 14-day breach notice. However, before doing so he sent the tenants an email on 9 November 2023 highlighting the matters. In the email, he also recorded observing a container in the kitchen which appeared to be the means of washing dishes and water in the bath. He asked if the kitchen sink and the bath drains were blocked. If so, he said he would fix them. The tenants did not reply to his query. Once the tenancy ended, the landlord discovered substantial damage to the kitchen sinks and bench. Mr Relph claims that the tenants removed the waste disposal unit, and four aluminium supports under the main sink and the adjoining waste disposal sink. He says this caused the sink to drop and pull away from the bench which in turn caused the Formica to split and the bench structure to break down. The landlord claims the bench top had to be replaced. The landlord also decided it was more economic not to replace the waste disposal and to replace the double sink unit with one sink.
Mr Relph produced photos taken after the tenancy ended. The photos are taken close-up and show the sink detaching from the bench. One photo shows the disconnected waste disposal unit lying in the cupboard. The photo also shows that the connecting pipe between the main sink and the waste disposal has been cut off and capped. There is no photo to show a split in the bench top. There is also no photo showing that the aluminium supports had been removed and/or where they were found at the end of the tenancy. The landlord produced a photo of the aluminium supports lying on the bench with the connecting sink pipe. However, the photo was taken after the plumber installed the replacement sink. The evidence is that the landlord removed the sinks and benchtop. When asked where he had found the aluminium supports at the end of the tenancy, Mr Relph was unable to recall.
The landlord seeks the costs incurred to replace the benchtop and sink of $2,092.38 detailed in an invoice from a related entity in which Mr Relph has an interest, Tradecorp Marketing Ltd. The Tradecorp invoice includes the costs set out in supporting invoices from various suppliers. All the invoices include GST. However, GST has been added to these amounts again in the Tradecorp invoice. Therefore, an adjustment would be required to correct the error. The landlord also submitted an additional invoice from Tradecorp for removing the stainless-steel sinks and benchtop of $180 plus GST and an invoice for the replacement sink of $209.98 plus GST.
The tenants claim that there were issues with the waste disposal from the start of the tenancy and they reported a drain blockage to Mr Relph in September 2023, but he did nothing to fix it. For that reason, they engaged their own plumber and then a drain specialist to address the matters. They were unable to provide evidence of their written requests to the landlord about the waste/drain issues. Ms Morunga says that she no longer has text messages sent to the landlord. Mr Relph denies receiving any messages about the drains or the waste disposal.
The tenants deny receiving Mr Relph’s email of 9 November asking them about the sink and drain until much later, and after they engaged a plumber. However, Mr Relph’s email was sent to the correct email address for service in the tenancy agreement. Mr Relph also provided a copy of the 14-day notice emailed to the tenants on 16 November 2023 which records that he attached a further copy of his 9 November email to the notice.
The tenants’ plumber advised that the waste disposal was faulty and needed replacement, although he did not provide his opinion in writing. Therefore, Mr Williams decided to pull out the waste disposal with the plumber’s help. The plumber also recommended that they contact the Drain Doctor to unblock the drains. They did so and the drain was unblocked in early December 2023.
While the tenants accept that they removed the waste disposal without the landlord’s knowledge or consent, they deny removing the aluminium supports. They also claim that the sink unit was already coming away from the bench at the start of the tenancy as shown in the landlord’s pre-tenancy photos and in a video taken by Ms Morunga when the tenancy started. I accept that the photo and video evidence, while taken at a distance, show a gap forming between the sink and the bench top.
Mr Relph says that the Formica bench top was replaced 26-30 years ago.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenants or their plumber removed the aluminium sink supports. Mr Relph was unable to confirm where he found the supports and nor was there a photo to show where they were found lying at the end of the tenancy. The one photograph that was produced showed the supports and the main sink pipe placed on the bench after the landlord’s plumber installed the new sink. There were also no photos to show the condition of the bench itself at the end of the tenancy. I am not certain that the bench and/or the sinks could not be re-used and repaired. I also accept that the bench top and sinks were at least 30 years old or more and the evidence shows signs of deterioration at the start of the tenancy. Finally, there is no evidence from a suitably qualified plumber about the cause of the damage and what was required to remediate.
After carefully considering all the evidence, I find that the landlord has not proved that the tenants caused damage to the sinks and the benchtop by removing the waste disposal unit. There is insufficient evidence to prove the tenants are responsible for removal of the aluminium supports and that disconnecting the waste disposal alone would cause the damage. There is also evidence of wear and tear over a lengthy period. Even, if the tenants were responsible for the damage, the sinks and benchtop were at least 30 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that a stainless-steel sink will last 30- 40 years, and a Formica/laminate benchtop will last 12-18 years. Therefore, both items should be fully depreciated.
However, the landlords should be compensated for the cost of reinstating the removed waste disposal unit. The landlord chose not to reinstate the unit but incurred plumbing costs of $334.56 to install a new sink, which is a similar cost. Therefore, I award $335 as appropriate compensation. Nicotine damage to walls in bedroom 1
The landlord claims that the tenants were smoking inside one of the bedrooms. They provided photos of cigarette butts found in the room. The nicotine smell penetrated the walls. After cleaning with sugar soap, the walls required repainting because the nicotine had been absorbed into previous plaster patches, as shown in a photo taken after cleaning. The tenants deny smoking inside the house. However, the photos of cigarette butts strongly suggest that either they, or someone at the premises with their permission, was smoking. I am satisfied that this damaged the walls during the tenancy and the tenants are liable for the damage caused intentionally.
The property inspection report for the previous tenancy which started in May 2020 records that the walls in the bedroom had been newly painted. Therefore, the painted walls were approximately 4 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that painted walls in a bedroom should last at least 10 years. The painting costs claimed by the landlord total $489.84 for labour, paint, and brushes. I reduce the cost by 40% to allow for depreciation and award $293.90. Door frame damage
The landlord claims that the tenants cracked the trim around the main door frame through use of force. They seek $120.75 for labour and materials to repair and repaint the frame. The tenants deny causing the crack though force and claim it occurred through normal wear and tear.
The photo of the damage looks minor, and I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved it was caused other than by fair wear and tear. For that reason, the claim is dismissed. Miscellaneous repairs
The landlord claimed various other repair costs and provided invoices for a total claim of $335.10. The claims are dealt with as follows: ItemCostDecision Door handle, paint brushes$20.39Allowed and included in the above awards Kitchen cupboard hook$2.70Dismissed—No photo of missing or broken hook Cupboard catches and mould killer for curtains $12.71Dismissed—No photo of missing or broken catches. No photos showing mould on curtains and nets Curtain hooks and glides-several invoices $20.88Allowed—Evidence that curtains damaged carelessly/ intentionally Replacement sink, electrical socket, bulbs, cupboard catches $227.15Dismissed—Sink cost dismissed above; No evidence of broken socket or cupboard catches; Bulbs already claimed in cleaning invoice Mould killer, glue, and cupboard catches $24.61Dismissed as above. Glue claim also dismissed. Accept picture glued to sliding door detached from wear and tear Plywood and duct tape for ranch slider temporary cover $21.72Dismissed—Ranch slider claim already dealt with in previous application 4767957 Wood screws for replacement bench back $4.96Claim for bench replacement work dismissed above Loss of rent
The landlord claims 9 weeks loss of rent due to the time taken to replace the kitchen sink and bench. Given that I dismissed that claim, it follows that I must also dismiss the claim for loss of rent. The tenant claims

Is the landlord liable to reimburse the tenants for unblocking the drain?

Under Section 45(1)(d) RTA the landlord must compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where— a. the state of disrepair has arisen otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant and is likely to cause injury to persons or property or is otherwise serious and urgent; and b. the tenant has given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so.
The tenants seek recovery of $322 from the landlord which they paid to have the drain unblocked. However, I accept that there is insufficient evidence to prove that they notified the landlord of the problem under s45(1)(d) such that they were entitled to arrange the repairs because of a failure by the landlord to respond. Therefore, the claim is dismissed. Is the landlord liable to reimburse electricity bills paid by the tenants during the tenancy?
Section 39(3) RTA provides that tenants are responsible for all outgoings exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises or their use of the facilities.
In this case the tenants share power with the flat next door. There is no check meter. When the power bills arrive, the landlord calculates the tenants’ share based on the number of people living in each house.
In the previous Tribunal proceedings, the landlord’s claim for unpaid power owed to the end of the tenancy was dismissed. This is because the Tribunal found that the power use was not exclusively attributable to the tenants.
The tenants now bring an application for reimbursement of the power bills they have paid during the tenancy based on the strict application of s39(3) RTA. The District Court in Geraghty and Jones v Raui 3 has held that section 85 RTA should be considered when deciding whether to strictly apply s39(3) and order a full refund of utilities paid by the tenant. It was found in that case that a strict application of s39(3) would produce an unfair result.
The tenants advised that they paid several electricity bills in cash to the neighbouring tenant. There is also evidence to suggest that WINZ paid some 3 Geraghty and Jones v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813 power bills. However, the tenants were unable to produce any evidence of the payments they made in support of their claim for reimbursement.
The landlord claims that the tenants only paid three months of power bills during the entire tenancy, thereby receiving a significant benefit given that the landlord’s claim for unpaid power bills was dismissed in the previous Tribunal proceedings. The landlords therefore suggest, in line with the Geraghty and Jones approach, that any reimbursement of the power bills paid would produce an unfair result because the tenants have only paid for a fraction of the power they used.
In the absence of any evidence produced by the tenants, I am unable to determine the claim and it is dismissed. Did the landlord interfere with the tenants’ privacy or enter the premises unlawfully?
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, repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA. 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 RTA.
A landlord must also not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA. 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.
Entering the premises without notice, could be a breach of both sections 38 and
However, the District Court has confirmed that where there could be several exemplary damages orders made for the same underlying event, only one order should be made. 4
The tenants claim that they found the landlord in the premises on 10 January 2024 fixing the draught stop without the landlord giving prior notice of the visit. Mr Relph says that Mr Williams became angry and abusive towards him.
Mr Relph provided evidence of an email exchange with Ms Morunga at her email address for service. On 31 December 2023 Mr Relph advised that he would be at the property on 4 January 2024 to conduct a re-inspection and fit a replacement draught stop at the bottom of the front door. Ms Morunga replied 4 See Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Ltd, n1 above. on 3 January asking for the visit to be rescheduled. Mr Relph replied and agreed to reschedule the visit to 10 January.
I am satisfied that the landlord gave the required notice before entering the premises on 10 January 2024. Accordingly, no breach of s48 or 38 has been proved and the claim is dismissed.

Has the landlord complied with Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) RTA which requires compliance with HHS. The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating and ventilation standards. Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) RTA.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For this tenancy which commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the property must comply within 120 days of the commencement date. The tenancy started on 20 May 2023. Therefore, the HHS compliance date was 17 September 2023. However, the landlord completed the HHS compliance statement attached to the tenancy agreement recording that the premises complied with HHS as of 20 May 2023. Heating
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.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
On or about 8 August 2023, Mr Williams was hospitalised with pneumonia following a period of illness while living at the property. A pre-existing diabetes condition also worsened. The tenants believe this occurred as a direct result of the condition of the premises. Therefore, the tenants commissioned a report to assess the property’s compliance with HHS.
An assessor from Well Homes inspected the premises and prepared a report dated 30 November 2023 (the Well Homes report). The report recorded that the living room was fitted with 2 Eco panels and an Airlec branded convection heater attached to the wall. The power cable for the Airlec heater was not long enough to plug into the socket below without an extension cord. The report concluded that the property did not comply with the HHS heating requirements and stated that a heat pump should be fitted.
The tenants say they sent a copy of the Well Homes report to the landlords, but the landlords did nothing to address the heating before the tenancy ended. However, I am satisfied that the report was sent to an incorrect email address and was not received by the landlords.
The landlord completed the compliance statement in the tenancy agreement to record that the required heating capacity for the main living room is 2.6kW. The heaters supplied were described as 2 Eco panels, each with a heating capacity of 0.4kW and a fan wall heater with a heating capacity of 2kw. All heaters were permanently attached to the walls. Mr Relph says that he used the online heating calculator to determine the required heating capacity.
Mr Relph gave evidence that he advised the tenants at the time of the signing the tenancy agreement that he intended to install a 4.8kW heat pump once it was brought down to Wellington from storage in Whanganui. In the interim, he offered the tenants two 2.4kW free-standing heaters. He advised them to email him if at any stage they wanted the extra heaters dropped off and says they never asked for extra heating. There is no written record of this advice from the landlord to the tenants.
Mr Relph says that the heat pump was transported to Wellington in December 2023 and in January 2024 he advertised the installation job on Builders Crack. After the incident at the premises on 10 January 2024, when Mr Williams verbally abused Mr Relph, the landlord made the decision to defer installation until after the pending Tenancy Tribunal hearing at the time because of safety concerns over Mr William’s aggressive behaviour. The landlord maintains that delaying the installation in those circumstances was entirely justified.
Regulation 8 HHS provides that the main living room must have one or more qualifying heaters with a total heating capacity of at least the required heating capacity for the room. The heating provided had a combined heating capacity of
8kW which exceeds the required capacity of 2.6kW. However, the issue is whether the heaters supplied were “qualifying heaters”.
Regulation 9(1) HHS provides that a heater is a qualifying heater if: (a) it is installed as a fixture to the premises; and (b) either— (i ) the heater (or if it is a fixed heat pump, the indoor unit) is in the living room; or (ii) the heater supplies heat directly into the living room (for example, through a duct or vent located in the living room); and (c) it has a heating capacity of at least 1.5 kW; and (d) if it is an electric heater or a fixed heat pump, it has a thermostat; and (e) it is not an unacceptable heater. And the definition of an unacceptable heater in reg 9(2) HHS includes: (c) if the required heating capacity for the living room is greater than 2.4 kW, an electric heater. And reg 9 (3) HHS provides: In this regulation,— electric heater means an electric heater that is not a fixed heat pump. fixed heat pump means a heat pump that is permanently wired into the premises’ electrical system.
In this case, I have determined that all three heaters supplied by the landlord are not qualifying heaters under regulation 9 HHS. The eco panels do not have the minimum capacity required of 1.5kW. Because the required heating capacity for the living room exceeds 2.4 kW, the electric heaters are also unacceptable heaters.
Failure by the landlord to comply with the heating standard is an unlawful act, for which the tenants seek an award of exemplary damages.
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, the public interest and whether it is just to make the award. See section 109(3) RTA.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 5 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
The District Court has said the requirement of intention is not about whether the party was aware they were breaching the RTA. Rather, it is about whether they acted intentionally i.e. whether they intended to do whatever it was they did or did not do. 6
It is not open to the landlord to plead confusion, lack of knowledge, or ignorance of the law. In TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl 7 , where the landlord claimed not to be fully aware of his obligations, the District Court held: 5 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 6 Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00, DC Auckland,1/5/2001 7 TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 “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 for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.”
I am satisfied that the matter of intention is proved, and the landlords knew (or ought to have known) that the heating did not comply with the HHS at the tenancy start date, nor by the latest compliance date that could have applied, being 17 September 2023. I am not persuaded that the landlords’ advice that they intended to supply a heat pump and took steps towards doing so by January 2024 (almost 8 months after the tenancy started and almost 4 months after the latest possible compliance date) in any way mitigates their failure to comply with the heating standard by the compliance date. The decision to delay installation in December because of the tenant’s behaviour also does not mitigate the failure to install compliant heating when it should have been done earlier. It is also clear that the compliance statement attached to the tenancy agreement represents that the premises complied with the heating standard at the start of the tenancy, when in fact the premises did not comply at all.
It is of significant interest to tenants and the Public that landlords comply with their HHS obligations. The HHS was a major piece of legislation designed to address a well-documented lack of healthy, warm, dry rental houses. The legislation was well publicised over a long period with the initial provisions regarding insulation coming into force from 1 July 2019. Mr Relph is, by his own admission, an experienced landlord who has been operating for the last 50 years as a landlord.
The landlord commented that they were only awarded $800 exemplary damages for the tenants’ act of removing smoke detectors in the previous Tribunal proceedings compared to the maximum penalty of $4,000. They submit that similar constraints should be exercised in this case. However, it is not relevant to compare two different unlawful acts by two different parties. If anything, the landlord’s experience operating a rental business and multiple tenancies suggests that there is less excuse for the landlords’ breach.
After considering all the relevant factors in s109, I have determined that an award of $2,400 exemplary damages is appropriate which is one third of the maximum. I have made an award at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware that the landlord has committed a similar breach previously. However, the award also reflects that an experienced landlord who is in the business of managing multiple tenancies ought to know and ensure compliance with all residential tenancy legal requirements. Ventilation
The tenants also claim that the landlord 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 tenants claim that the kitchen extractor fan was broken from the start of the tenancy; a window in the kitchen did not open and close properly and was fixed in a position that leaves a draught; and the bathroom extractor fan often did not work because of the power board short circuiting. The Well Homes report also recorded these issues. However, as already found above, this report was not sent to the landlord’s correct email address, and they did not receive a copy of it until these proceedings were filed. When asked if they reported these issues to the landlord during the tenancy and prior to obtaining the Well Homes report, the tenants said they reported the power shorting by text or email though the neighbouring tenant who was also affected, but they could not remember if they reported the other issues.
Mr Relph says that the tenants did not report these problems during the tenancy. If they had, he says he would have looked at them and arranged any necessary repairs. Mr Relph also produced two videos taken in September 2024 (well after this tenancy ended) which shows the extractor fans working. He says they were also operating when the tenancy ended in February 2024.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the premises had compliant extractor fans and there is insufficient evidence to prove that the tenants advised the landlord that the extractor fans were not working properly or that the kitchen window was fixed open and could not be closed. A landlord cannot be held liable for a failure to maintain if the tenants do not report the problem and give the landlord an opportunity to investigate and remedy the problem. For that reason, the tenants’ claim that the landlord has failed to maintain the property in accordance with the ventilation standards is dismissed.
As neither party has wholly succeeded with their claims, I have not awarded reimbursement of the filing fee to either party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4856621 — Healthy homes at 28 Revans Street, Miramar, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4856621 — Healthy homes at 28 Revans Street, Miramar, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the landlord liable to reimburse the tenants for unblocking the drain?

Has the landlord complied with Healthy Homes Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the landlord liable to reimburse the tenants for unblocking the drain?

Has the landlord complied with Healthy Homes Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions