What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5108808?

The tribunal order states: Rent My Room Limited must pay Clément Léo Cardineau and Clara Sandrine

How much money was awarded in case 5108808?

Compensation: Loss Of Hot Water: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent Rebate- Mould: $1,165.71 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent Rebate- Oven: $415.71 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent Rebate- Trees: $437.14 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Windows that do not op…: $582.86 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5108808?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5108808?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11683761-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5108808?

The tribunal order states: Rent My Room Limited must pay Clément Léo Cardineau and Clara Sandrine

How much money was awarded in case 5108808?

Compensation: Loss Of Hot Water: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent Rebate- Mould: $1,165.71 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent Rebate- Oven: $415.71 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent Rebate- Trees: $437.14 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Windows that do not op…: $582.86 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5108808?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5108808?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11683761-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 3, 15 Warborough Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5108808 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5108808 — net $7,778.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Rent rebate- oven	$415.71	Rent rebate- oven
Compensation: Rent rebate- mould	$1,165.71	Rent rebate- mould
Compensation: Rent rebate- trees	$437.14	Rent rebate- trees
Compensation: Loss of hot water	$50.00	Loss of hot water
Compensation: Windows that do not open enough to meet legal requirements	$582.86	Windows that do not open enough to meet legal requirements
Exemplary damages: S66(1)(b) breaches	$3,600.00	S66(1)(b) breaches
Exemplary damages: S66G breach	$1,500.00	S66G breach
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,778.42
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,778.42

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5108808 — net $7,778.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Rent rebate- oven	$415.71	Rent rebate- oven
Compensation: Rent rebate- mould	$1,165.71	Rent rebate- mould
Compensation: Rent rebate- trees	$437.14	Rent rebate- trees
Compensation: Loss of hot water	$50.00	Loss of hot water
Compensation: Windows that do not open enough to meet legal requirements	$582.86	Windows that do not open enough to meet legal requirements
Exemplary damages: S66(1)(b) breaches	$3,600.00	S66(1)(b) breaches
Exemplary damages: S66G breach	$1,500.00	S66G breach
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,778.42
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,778.42

Order

Rent My Room Limited must pay Clément Léo Cardineau and Clara Sandrine Mousnier $7,778.42 immediately.
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 22 April 2024: a. All the inorganic waste/rubbish removed from under the terrace; b. the bushes cut back to balustrades in main entrance and the wooden stairs/are near room six; c. The female bathroom must be shut off from use until the mould issues are investigated and remedied by professional tradespeople. Moisture readings must be taken after the repairs are caried out to prove there is no further moisture and dampness; d. The tenants’ bedroom must be professionally treated for mould by a mould cleaning specialist; e. The landlord must prove to the tenants by 22 April 2025 that it has had the cracks investigated further and there are no structural issues to be addressed; f. The two windows in the living room, one kitchen window and one hallway window must be investigated and remediated so they open and close easily; and g. The landlord must drill a hole on the bottom part of the tenants’ bedroom window and attach a dowl to keep the window open by 22 April 2025.
The landlord has also agreed to continue to monitor bait stations and if there is an influx of cockroaches then to engage a professional pest control company to fumigate.
If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 2 or 3 above, then the tenants may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work and offset the expenses against rent payable.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 7 March 2025.
The tenants applied for compensation and exemplary damages for: a. Breaches of s66I(1)(b), (bb) and (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947; and b. Work Orders. Background
This is boarding house tenancy.
The tenants have boarded at this property since 30 July 2024 and the tenancy was renewed on 25 November 2024. There was a gap of 25 days between these tenancies.
The tenants rent room three and there have been up to 11 tenants in the property at any one time.
The tenants have confirmed that another tenant in room one has also brought similar claims in the Tribunal against the same landlord, which is yet to be heard, and they say this application support their claims.
The landlord in this proceeding is not the owner of the property but rents it from the owner and sub-lets rooms in a boarding house structure. This means that the landlord must work through the owner’s agent to get repair and maintenance issues remedied that are the responsibility of a landlord and the landlord follows up with tenants if they are responsible for any intentional or deliberate damage. On occasions the landlord pays for repairs themselves, but most repairs are dealt with by the owners’ contractors. If furnishings have been provided by the landlord, it retains responsibility for manging issues with these as they arise. Relevant Law
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached its section 66(1)(b) and (bb) obligations to the tenant?

The tenants say the landlord has breached its s66I(1)(b), (bb) and (c) of the RTA obligations to them.
Under section 66I(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 66I(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Section 66I(1)(c) of the RTA requires the landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment as far as they apply to the premises.
Breaching any of these s66I(1) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 66I(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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
The tenants say the landlord has failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. Oven
The tenants say the premise had two working ovens when they first moved into the house in July 2024. One of the ovens was smashed by one of the other tenants on 1 October 2024. Thereafter, the premise only had one working oven 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]. for 11 residents. This issue was reported to the landlord the same day and photographs were sent. The tenants followed this up on 3 December 2024.
The tenants produced evidence they were told the oven was not on the landlord’s maintenance list and it asked for more photographs, even though one of the other tenants had sent photographs already.
The tenants also raised concerns that the landlord often asks say other tenants about issues they have raised instead of coming back to them and they find this concerning. One such example given was on 19 December 2024 the landlord asking a different tenant if the oven had been fixed when this tenant had not complained about the oven and the landlord had not placed the oven door on its list of maintenance issues. They say this occurs frequently. The landlord explained to the Tribunal that sometimes it checks issues raised with several tenants to try to get an accurate picture of what is happening with concerns raised or maintenance issues addressed directly by the property owner’s agent as it has found individual tenant accounts are not always accurate.
The tenants proved they sent further communications about this ongoing issue with the oven on 4, 5, 11, 12 December 2024.
The tenants have submitted the lack of a second oven made it difficult for them to cook meals from 1 October 2024 to when the oven door was replaced on 6 January 2025.
The landlord says there was only ever one oven and a warming plate above the oven, and it was the warming plate part of the oven that stopped working. The landlord was not sure if the warming plate area could be used to cook in. The tenants have confirmed there is one unit with a larger and smaller oven, both can be used to bake or grill food.
The landlord submitted that the delay was due to it initially trying to get the tenant that broke the oven to pay to have it fixed. When the tenant, that broke the oven door, refused to get the oven fixed or pay for it to be fixed, the landlord raised the issue with the agent for the owner of the property. This landlord got a response from the agent on 20 December 2024 that the owner was going to send someone around to measure the oven up so they could get a new oven door. Because of the holiday season, and the door needing to be ordered, the door was not installed until 6 January 2025.
I am satisfied that the tenants have proven on the balance of probabilities that they suffered a loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience for the 13 week and 6 day period, between 1 October 2024 and 6 January 2025, that they did not have access to the amount of oven space they could reasonably expect to have in exchange for the full rent they were paying during this period.
I find the tenants should have received a rent rebate for this period of $30.00 per week $30.00 x 13 =$390.00.$30.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 6 is $25.71. The rent rebate ordered is $415.71. Pest control- cockroaches
The tenants reported seeing cockroaches in the bathroom on 28 and 29 December 2024 to the landlord by email. These emails contain photographic evidence of the pests.
The landlord responded to these emails on 29 December 2024 saying “I can inform the House Cleaner to get an insecticide on her next visit, however, it might be best if you or any of the other tenants, can get a cockroach bomb and use it across the house, and see how that goes, if that doesn't help we can connect with Pest Control professionals”.
The tenants say the cleaner comes every week, usually on a Sunday and it is not their responsibility to do pest control. They requested again that the landlord get professional pest control to address the issue throughout the house.
The parties confirmed the cleaner applied cockroach spray to the house on 26 January 2025. The tenants say she knocked on their door and asked them where to apply the spray and how to apply it.
The landlord says that the cleaner has confirmed to it by email that she applied insecticide spray to the house on 2 January 2025 and then applied cockroach bombs on 26 January 2025 after the tenants continued to raise concerns.
On 30 January 2025, the tenants emailed the landlord about the ongoing cockroach problem. They say they have had no response to this email and there are still cockroaches throughout the house.
The landlord says that the pictures emailed to it show a grasshopper or cicada and not a cockroach. It says it laid further cockroach traps on 12 February 2025 and again 6 March 2025 and none were found in these traps. It has also asked the other tenants if they had seen any cockroaches, and none had been seen by the other tenants.
The landlord confirmed has also called a pest control company after 12 February 2025 traps were laid. The contractor could find no evidence of cockroaches. The landlord then laid more traps and some bait on 6 March 2025 and has still found no evidence of cockroaches in the premise.
The landlord confirmed it had been unable to lay bait and traps in the tenant’s room as they were not home at the time the pest control measures were being applied. It is monitoring the situation and says it does not want to spend $500.00 on pest control if the cockroaches have gone. It says it has left bait and traps for the tenants to use if they wish to place some I their room or if they see any more elsewhere in the house.
The tenants say that the tenants in room eight have complained about having cockroaches in the house. The landlord stated that room eight had only reported an issue with fleas and not cockroaches.
The tenants have failed to produce enough evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities the pest control issue was not remedied in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances.
I dismiss this claim for lack of proof to support it on the balance of probabilities. Crack in ceiling
The tenants say another tenant reported a crack in the living room ceiling in August 2024 and that water leaked from it when it rained. They produced photographs that show cracks in the ceilings throughout the house. Specifically, that there are cracks in the hallway, living room and entrance way. They confirm that none of these current cracks have leaked.
The tenants say they reported cracks in the living room and hallway on 14 December 2024 and stated that this indicates a structural issue with the house. They confirmed they are worried about whether the house could safely seismic activity or significant wet weather events with such significant ceiling cracks throughout the house.
The landlord says it has investigated the cracks. The house is 90 to 100 years old. It is a wooden house with plaster ceilings. There are no structural issues that it has identified. It says the plaster is just old and has moved.
Further, the landlord says its builders, that assessed and fixed the leak in the skylight that caused the lounge leak, have investigated the ceilings and say there is no evidence of further leaks or structural issues with the ceilings.
The tenants have failed to produce enough evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities the pest control issue was not remedied in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances.
I dismiss this claim for lack of proof to support it on the balance of probabilities.
Mould
The tenants produced photographs that show there is considerable amounts of mould throughout the house. They confirmed they first reported the mould issue in the two bathrooms and their bedroom to the landlord by email on 25 November 2024. Photographs of the extensive mould in these rooms were attached to this email. The tenants also conveyed concerns about the health risks of living with this level of black mould.
The landlord’s initial response on 26 November 2024 was: “When you first moved in, there was not a mention of moulds in the room. It was not written on your tenancy agreement and the inspection of the room for the tenants before you and no moulds was noticed. You need to open windows and doors whenever you can and open the curtains during the day. Please clean your room. You may use vinegar Just dilute it with water. You may also use a bleach to remove it. For the bathroom, it is our part and we will ask the cleaner to do the same. Kindly advise us if you have done the cleaning and the results”.
The tenants replied that the mould has not developed because of the way they use the property, the window in their room doesn’t open sufficiently to fully ventilate the room and the ceilings were too high for them to reach.
On 27 November 2024, the landlord asked for further photographs of the mould and confirmed that the house has passed the ventilation standard. The tenants sent a video of the mould and the window that did not open enough to allow adequate ventilation of their bedroom. The tenants also provided additional photographs of the extensive mould in the female bathroom, the main bathroom and their bedroom.
On 5 December 2024, the tenants asked for the landlord to engage a professional to come and clean the mould.
The usual house cleaner came on 14 December 2024 and the landlord says it thought she had cleaned the mould.
On15 December 2024, the tenants sent more photographs of the mould. Having had no response, tenants emailed the landlord again on 16 December 2024 about the mould in their room and the other outstanding maintenance issues.
The landlord says that there has clearly been miscommunication within the landlord company about whether the mould issue had been full resolved and outlined the steps it had taken to address the issue as follows:
The landlord dropped off cleaning equipment, oxivance and spray and a ladder and expected the regular house cleaner to address the mould in the tenants bedroom and female bathroom. The cleaner told the landlord that she had sprayed the mould and wiped it down on 30 November 2024.
The landlord went to the house around 11 December 2024 and saw the issue was worse than it had thought. The head of the company offered to wipe it himself and to move the tenants somewhere else but says the tenants declined both offers.
The landlord contacted the agent for the owner on 11 December 2024. The agent told the landlord that it would send a contractor to address the mould that Friday.
On13 December 2024, the contractor asked if it could come and clean the mould at 6pm the same day. The tenants said no as they did not want chemicals sprayed in their bedroom at night just before they were going to bed.
The contractor came the next day, 14 December 2024. The contractor stated it had been asked to clean the ceilings. It cleaned the ceilings but did not address all the mouldy areas in the hallway, lounge, the bathroom vanity, toilet cistern, blinds and bedroom, lounge and bathroom walls.
On 15 December 2024, the tenants sent the landlord an email that showed the mould was still present in the tenants’ bedroom, living room, bathroom, hallways, and kitchen and blinds.
The landlord says the right-hand basin in the female bathroom is cracked and leaking into the vanity underneath and needs to be replaced and that the agent for the owner is going to have this addressed. It accepted the level of black mould in this area and behind the toilet is significant.
The landlord also confirmed that it has not had the mould and dampness issue investigated fully nor have there been any moisture meter readings taken.
I am satisfied that the tenants have proven on the balance of probabilities that they suffered a loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience for the 14 weeks and 4-day period, between 25 November 2024 and 7 March 2025, that they have had black mould in their living environment.
I find the tenants should have received a rent rebate for this period of $80.00 per week $80.00 x 14 =$1,120.00.$80.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 4 is $45.71. The rent rebate ordered is $1,165.71. Broken door to terrace
The tenants say the glass in the door between rooms three and four is cracked and there is a gap between the door frame and the glass that is getting worse.
The tenants say they noticed it was broken in July 2024. They say that Ashley (letting agent) was with them when they looked at the house and they all saw the broken door glass but the parties did not talk about this specifically, They say they first raised this issue with the landlord on 20 January 2025 as it had worsened.
The landlord says it is aware of the issue, it had not been a safety issue, was not letting in draughts and that it was being fixed on 8 March 2025.
The tenants have failed to produce enough evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities the door issue was not remedied in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances.
I dismiss this claim for lack of proof to support it on the balance of probabilities.
Obstruction by bushes in entrance way and exits
The tenants say the trees that are an issue are:
The trees that are completely obstructing the wooden stairs next to the deck from room 6.
The trees at the main entrance, which cover half the steps on the entrance way and had covered far more than half before they were trimmed.
The tenants say that because the trees next to the deck from room 6 is that are completely obstructing the wooden stairs next, it is a fire hazard. If there is a fire in the kitchen the tenants say they cannot get out of the house without using these terrace steps. They say the landlord has done nothing about these trees as it does not consider this not to be a main area but the entire area is overgrown.
The tenants submit other tenants reported this as a hazard to the landlord on 23 August 2024 and 30 September 2024 and nothing was done. The tenants have proven they reported this issue to the landlord on December 3,11,12,14 and 15.
The landlord says it had trimmed the main entrance trees on the 17 December 2024 to clear part of the pathway to the house itself. It says that the trees are quite large and to be cut right back would leave no leaves on the trees. Therefore, the landlord was reluctant to cut the trees back any further than it has. It also noted that these trees are over 1.5 metres tall and it needs to raise this issue with owners. Further, the landlord noted that this is an area the owner and the landlord can’t agree on whose responsibility the tree trimming is. The owner says it is the landlord’s responsibility. This has caused delays.
I am satisfied that the tenants have proven on the balance of probabilities that they suffered a loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience for the 14 weeks and 4-day period, between 25 November 2024 and 7 March 2025, that they have had unreasonable obstructions in the main entrance way and in a fire escape area on the deck off room 6.
I find the tenants should have received a rent rebate for this period of $30.00 per week $30.00 x 14 =$420.00.$30.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 4 is $17.14. The rent rebate ordered is $437.14.
Hot water cylinder
The tenants say the hot water cylinder leaked and they had no hot water for 3 weeks. They confirmed it had been leaking since 22 February 2025 and had been reported by other tenants, they first reported this issue on 26 February 2025, and it was repaired on 6 March 2025.
The landlord says there are two hot water cylinders at the property. One downstairs developed a leak and rupture and that services the men’s bathroom and shower and the kitchen. There were some issues with the plumber having to make several visits to get the correct hot water cylinder and install it. The landlord says the first time its system records this issue is 27 February 2025.
I am satisfied that the tenants have proven on the balance of probabilities that they suffered a loss of amenity, stress, and inconvenience for the 8-day period, between 6 February 2025 and 6 March 2025, that they went without hot water.
I find the tenants should have received compensatory sum of $50.00 for this inconvenience, loss of amenity and stress.
Windows that don’t close properly in the hallway, living room and kitchen
The tenants say the windows in the hallway, two in the living room and kitchen that cannot be opened and closed. They are not sure what the cause of this issue is. The tenants say they have not reported this, but it is in their claim and it has not been investigated by the landlord in a reasonable time frame.
The landlord says he is happy to investigate this issue but cannot investigate what is not raised.
The tenants have failed to produce enough evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities the window issues have not been remedied in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances.
I dismiss this claim for lack of proof to support it on the balance of probabilities.
Windows that don’t open enough to meet legal requirements
The tenants say the window in their room will not stay open beyond 12 cm after it has been pulled up, so it makes it hard to ventilate the room.
The landlord says it knew about this but did not think it needed to be fixed as it does open and close with the security stays.
Under section 21 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, the total openable area of windows, doors, or skylights in habitable rooms must be at least 5% of the floor area of that room.
Under the Building Code, push-up windows (also known as casement windows) must have a minimum opening of 450mm in height and a minimum opening area of 0.33 square meters for first-floor escape windows.
The tenants evidence proves that their bedroom window does not meet either of these requirements.
I am satisfied that the tenants have proven on the balance of probabilities that they suffered a loss of amenity, stress, and inconvenience for the 14 weeks 4 day period, between 25 November 2024 and 7 March 2025, that they have been unable to ventilate their room sufficiently and this has contributed to the mould issues they have experienced.
I find the tenants should have received compensatory sum of $40 per week for this inconvenience, loss of amenity and stress, being a total of $582.86.
Leak in ceiling in hallway that tenant’s fingers went through
The tenants say they reported this on 16 December 2024, about 20 minutes after she put her finger through the hole. The hole was fixed 24 February 2025 and the paintwork completed on 26 February 2025.
The landlord says this was reported and sent to the owner but because it was over the Christmas break, she did not look at her email and this caused a delay in having the repair undertaken.
The landlord sent a contractor to investigate the source of the leak, but they could not initially find the leak. It had to be located when it next rained, and being summer it took a few weeks to rain enough to highlight the issue. Once the leak was found, it was repaired.
The landlord says the leak was very close to the tenants’ bedroom and the landlord thinks this is likely to have been the source of the dampness and mould in the bedroom.
The landlord has produced enough evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities it investigated and remedied the source of the leak in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances.
I dismiss this claim for lack of proof to support it on the balance of probabilities. Healthy Homes Standards Compliance
The tenants claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 66I(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 the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy:
For private rentals
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
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.
All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021.
All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The first tenancy commenced on 30 July 2024. As such, the landlord was required to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards from the 120th day after the tenancy commenced, being 27 November 2024.
The most recent tenancy agreement commenced on 25 November 2024. As such, the landlord was required to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards from the 120th day after the tenancy commenced, being 25 March 2025.
The landlord commissioned a healthy homes assessment report, dated 10 November 2020. This report proves the premise complied all five of the healthy homes’ standards at the start of the tenancy and a certificate of compliance was issued. The tenants confirmed they did not receive this report at the start of the tenancy, and they do not believe the rental premise meets the healthy homes standards. Ventilation Standard
The tenants claim the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
The ventilation standard requires that a premise must have openable windows in the living room, dining room, kitchen, and bedrooms. Kitchens and bathrooms must have externally venting extractor fans or an acceptable continuous mechanical ventilation system that are externally vented.
The landlord’s 10 November 2020 healthy homes assessment report shows that when the report was done, the house met the ventilation standard.
The tenants have proven that the window in their bedroom will not stay open beyond 12 cm after it has been pulled up, so it makes it hard to ventilate the room.
The landlord says it knew about this but did not think it needed to be fixed as it does open and close with the security stays.
Under section 21 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, the total openable area of windows, doors, or skylights in habitable rooms must be at least 5% of the floor area of that room.
Under the Building Code, push-up windows (also known as casement windows) must have a minimum opening of 450mm in height and a minimum opening area of 0.33 square meters for first-floor escape windows.
The tenants evidence proves that their bedroom window does not meet either of these requirements.
I find the issues raised by the tenants relate to failure to repair and maintain the premise rather than breaches of the healthy homes’ standards.
I dismiss the tenants claim for breach of the ventilation standard and have addressed this claim under the failure to maintain head of claim section of this Order. Moisture ingress and drainage standard
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard as there were ongoing issues with leaks and mould.
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.
I find the moisture and drainage issues raised by the tenants relate to failure to repair and maintain the premise rather than breaches of the healthy homes’ standards.
I dismiss the tenants claim for breach of the moisture ingress and drainage standard and have addressed the moisture related claims under the failure to maintain head of claim section of this Order. Exemplary damages for s66I(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed five intentional breaches of s66I(1)(b) of the RTA. These breaches were prolonged and resulted in the tenants living in cold, damp and mouldy conditions without adequate access to the premise and emergency exits. Consequentially, they experienced considerable periods of stress, inconvenience, and loss of the amenities they are paying rent to enjoy.
Breaching any s66I(1) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 66I(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord has committed these five unlawful acts intentionally and compounded those breaches by, not only failing to offer the tenants a rent rebate for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity of having to monitor and manage leaks and mould issues and to repeatedly follow up the landlord to address issues raised by the tenants and other tenants in the boarding house.
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 it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches its s66(1) of the RTA obligations and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenants many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $3,600.00 exemplary damages to the tenants, being half of the maximum penalty available for s66(1) of the RTA breaches. Breach of quiet enjoyment
Section 66G of the RTA states: (1) Every tenant of a boarding house is entitled to the quiet enjoyment of the premises, without interruption by the landlord or another tenant of the boarding house. (2) The landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant. (3) The tenant must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other tenant on the premises. (4) Contravention of subsection (2) or (3) in circumstances that amount to harassment of a tenant is declared to be an unlawful act.
Breaching s66G(1) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $3,000.00. See section 66G(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.
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. Dangerous and in appropriate tenants Dangerous tenant
The tenants submitted that in September and October 2024, one tenant in room six, that moved to room four, smashed the oven, caused damage to tenants’ property and stole people’s belongings and food from the fridge. They complained to the landlord that this tenant used cannabis and other drugs and in a drugged state he went to the shared areas and stared at the walls and his behaviour became unpredictable. They produced evidence that supports their claim that at these times no one went into the shared areas as they were all scared of him.
The house rules prohibited drug use, and the tenants claim that despite them raising serious concerns about this tenant’s behaviour, he was only given a warning.
The tenants also produced evidence that they had to call the Police because the tenant they complained about damaged a table that belonged to the tenants in room five. They showed that this tenant took the table under the terrace and smashed it up for no reason and that it is still under the terrace under an old bed.
The tenants also proved that on 30 September 2024, another tenant, Candice, complained about this disruptive tenant and then further tenants also complained about the disruptive tenant in October when he was up all night on the terrace in a drugged and aggressive state. They say he harassed them to the point they were afraid to move out of their room or use the shared areas.
The landlord submitted that he has two options when having to address a disruptive tenant’s behaviour. They are to issue the disruptive tenant with a 28 days’ notice or to give the tenant an immediate notice. The one he chooses is dependent on the nature of the issue. The landlord proved he sent the disruptive tenant emails and other communications requiring him to follow the house rules and cease his disruptive conduct as he likes to give people a chance. He also stated that Candice is not a reliable witness as she has a propensity for exaggerating, so he considered that she may have been exaggerating to get rid of a person she did not like rather than him being disruptive.
The landlord proved he issued the disruptive tenant with warnings on 30 September and 4 October 2024, and evicted him on 8 October 2024 and that once the Police were involved, due to the smashed table, the tenant was evicted immediately. The landlord says he believed the disruptive tenant told when he told the landlord that the oven glass smashing was an accident. It was not until later that the landlord discovered the tenant had smashed the oven intentionally. Consequently, the disruptive tenant was left in the premise longer that what is reasonable in all the circumstances.
I am satisfied that the tenants were denied the quiet enjoyment of the premises, without interruption by another tenant of the boarding house in circumstances where it would have been reasonable for the landlord to issue a notice for immediate eviction when a number of the boarding house tenants informed it of the drug fuelled aggressive behavioural conduct of the disruptive tenant and the intentional damage he was doing to the premise that made all the other tenants to scared to enter or use common areas.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
I find it appropriate to award the tenants $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for this breach of quiet enjoyment, being half the maximum penalty available to the Tribunal to award. I do so because the landlord did address the tenants concerns in a timeframe it considered reasonable because it was not fully aware of the extent to which this tenant was creating a dangerous living environment for all the other boarding house tenants. As soon as it became aware of the full extent of the dangerous conduct and the impact on those living in the boarding house, it evicted the dangerous tenant. Inappropriate tenant
The tenants say the tenant from room five wanted to have sex with the tenant from room one and he became angry when he found out that she was an escort and would not have sex with him. He got mad and showed her profile and nudes to the whole house and scared everyone saying her clients would park in front of our windows and use our shower. They say he also sent her profile to rent my room. Further, when the tenants asked him to not show them the nude pictures of the other tenant, he continued to do so and this upset them and created an horrible tense atmosphere in the boarding house.
The landlord says this inappropriate tenant was removed from the house as soon as this issue was brought to its attention. The landlord confirmed this tenant had complained to the landlord that the house was being used as a base for prostitution and showed the landlord the room five tenants Facebook profile and nude photographs. The landlord confirmed that both tenants were then evicted.
I am satisfied the landlord took steps to address the issue in a reasonable timeframe, in all the circumstance and that the tenants’ quiet enjoyment was not breached by the landlord’s alleged inaction. Request for more rent than owed at the end of the first tenancy
Section 23(1) confirms a landlord shall not require the payment of any rent: (a) more than 2 weeks in advance; or (b) before the expiry of the period for which rent has been paid already.
Breaching s23(1) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $1,500.00. See section 23(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act
The tenants say the landlord breached its s23(1)(b) of the RTA obligations as when they enquired on 24 October 2024 how much they needed to pay to end the tenancy, they were told “As you move out on 1 November 2024, please continue to pay your rent every Thursday as usual”. The tenants proved that when they arrived at the property, they should have paid less for that week as it was mid-week and that overpayment needed to be deducted from their final rent due.
While the instruction was incorrect, I am satisfied that the evidence proves: a. This was a genuine administrative error made by the landlord’s staff and there had been no intention for the landlord to overcharge the tenants; b. The error was corrected by the letting agent, as soon as the tenants’ raised their concerns about being asked to pay more rent than they owed; c. The tenants confirmed they were never over charged, but say they found it concerning qualified property managers would make this kind of error.
The tenants claim for exemplary damages is dismissed as the landlord has disproven the tenants claim that the breach was intentional. No compliance statement provided on request
Section 66I(6) states that if the tenant requests the landlord provide information described in section 123A(1)(e) (relating to the healthy homes standards) to the tenant, the landlord must, within 21 days after the date of receiving the request, provide the information to the tenant.
The landlord says the tenants were provided with the healthy homes assessment report, dated 10 November 2020 after they requested it. This report states the premise complied all five of the healthy homes’ standards at the start of the tenancy and a certificate of compliance was issued.
The tenants confirmed they requested the compliance report on 11 December 2024 and received a copy of the 2020 healthy homes report on 26 December 2024. This was within the 21 days the landlord was required to provide the records or other documents that relate to the landlord’s compliance with the healthy homes standards and that are prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5).
The tenants claim is dismissed. The landlord was not required to provide the tenants with a separate compliance statement in the boarding house agreement and the tenants were provided proof the premise complied with the standards at the time it was last assessed. Work Orders
The tenants claims that the landlord has not met its obligations under section 66I(1)(b) of the RTA, to provide and maintain the premise in a reasonable standard. The tenants want the issues they have raised fixed.
Where the Tribunal finds, the landlord has failed to comply with this obligation, 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. Refer to Order 2 above.
A work order may also authorise the tenants 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 tenants against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Refer to Order 3 above. Rubbish under terrace
The tenants say there is broken glass, rubbish and decomposing mattresses under the terrace and it is creating a health and safety hazard for the occupants of the boarding house and for the children that come to visit the tenants, who want to play in the yard. The tenants say that the rotting mattress attracts pests such as rats and mice. The tenants want this rubbish removed.
The landlord says there are no health and safety risks caused by the rubbish, it is general household waste located well under the terrace and it has not seen any broken glass or evidence of rodent s nesting in the old mattress.
The landlord also says this area is used as a storage is for old stuff in between the local Council inorganic rubbish collections. It confirmed there was an inorganic collection coming up between 14-18 April 2025 and proved that it had booked a collection for those dates. It stated it was not fiscally practical to pay for Junk to Go to remove items as they were dumped by tenants under the terrace and that the landlord got rid of the accumulated rubbish twice a year to limit costs.
The landlord must have all the inorganic waste/rubbish removed from under the terrace by 22 April 2025. Bushes
The landlord agreed to have the bushes cut back to balustrades in main entrance and the wooden stairs/are near room six by the 14 March 2025. Mould
Then landlord agreed to the female bathroom off from use until the mould issues are investigated and remedied by professional tradespeople. Moisture readings must be taken after the repairs are caried out to prove there is no further moisture and dampness.
The tenants’ bedroom must be professionally treated for mould by 22 April 2025. Crack in the ceiling
The landlord proved this is an old house and it has had confirmation from the owners that there are no structural risks. The cracks are superficial and are not causing any health or safety risks to the occupants.
The landlord must prove to the tenants by 22 April 2025 that it has had the cracks investigated further and there are no structural issues to be addressed. Windows that won’t open and shut properly
The two windows in the living room, one kitchen window and one hallway window must be investigated and remediated so they open and close easily by 22 April 2025. Pest control
The landlord has agreed to continue to monitor bait stations and if there is an influx of cockroaches then to engage a professional pest control company to fumigate. Bedroom window that doesn’t open enough
The landlord has agreed to drill a hole on the bottom part of the tenants’ bedroom window and attach a dowl to keep the window open by 22 April 2025.

OTHER ORDERS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5108808 — Exemplary damages at Room 3, 15 Warborough Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5108808 — Exemplary damages at Room 3, 15 Warborough Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions