What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5226136?

The tribunal order states: Sunshine Property Group Limited As Agent For Sac Develop Group Ltd must

How much money was awarded in case 5226136?

Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5226136?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5226136?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12127787-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5226136?

The tribunal order states: Sunshine Property Group Limited As Agent For Sac Develop Group Ltd must

How much money was awarded in case 5226136?

Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5226136?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5226136?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12127787-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Gunson Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5226136 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5226136 — net $3,627.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Breach of healthy homes standards- moisture ingress and drainage	$3,600.00	Breach of healthy homes standards- moisture ingress and drainage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,627.00
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,627.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5226136 — net $3,627.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Breach of healthy homes standards- moisture ingress and drainage	$3,600.00	Breach of healthy homes standards- moisture ingress and drainage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,627.00
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,627.00

Order

Sunshine Property Group Limited As Agent For Sac Develop Group Ltd must pay Conor Morris and Michael Raimondo Di Leva $3,627.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (3605777-005) to Conor Morris and Michael Raimondo Di Leva immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The property manager and owner of the property had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter.
On 25 February 2025, under application 5024828, the Tribunal ordered the landlord to reimburse the tenants filing fee and refund the tenants $2,302.57 rent for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience they had suffered because of the water ingress in the entranceway foyer since the tenancy commenced on 26 July 2025 and ordered that the tenants be given a $75.00 per week rent reduction from 26 February 2025 until the water ingress issue was fully resolved.
The water ingress that pooled at the bottom of the carpeted stairs in the foyer entranceway was evident to the property manager on the first day of the tenancy when he walked the tenants through the premise. This cause of this water ingress issue was never investigated or remediated by the landlord until after the 25 February 2025 Order that required the landlord to have the water ingress issue investigated by a licenced plumber or drain layer and remediated fully by 31 March 2025.
The tenants claim the water ingress issue was not investigated and fully remediated until 23 March 2025, when Suns Plumbing and Gasffting Ltd came to investigate the causes of the continued water ingress issue and found that the window above the area where the water pooled was not properly sealed and was letting water into the foyer entranceway during periods of heavy rain.
The tenants have applied for exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of the moisture ingress and drainage healthy homes standard, reimbursement of the filing fee and refund of the bond.
The landlord did not make a cross application but at the hearing stated it refused to refund the bond to the tenants as it claims the tenants owed it rent arrears of $225.00, reimbursement of the $207.00 cost of having the locks on two doors replaced and $400.00 plus GST for replacement of a blind in the garden shed that it says the tenants damaged.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Evidential burden

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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA.

LANDLORD CLAIMS AGAINST THE BOND

How much is owed for rent?

The parties confirmed the tenancy ended on 25 April 2025. The landlord provided rent records that showed the tenants owed $225.00 rent arrears, because they had continued to pay the reduced rent from 26 February 2025 until the end of the tenancy.
The landlord stated the water ingress issue was resolved on 15 March 2025, when JDI Construction Limited had applied waterproofing to the wall surface and added a permeable drainage pipe at the base of the wall nearest the area where the water ingress was evident.
The tenants produced photographs that prove the water ingress continued during heavy rains on 4 April 2025 and that the issue had not been fully resolved.
The owner confirmed that it asked its contractor to go back to the premise on 8 April 2025 to investigate the cause of the 4 April 2025 leak in the foyer entranceway. A plumber from Suns Plumbing and Gasffting Ltd was sent to investigate the issue and found that the window above the entrance way was not fully sealed and that when he ran the garden hose over the window there was evidence that the sealant around the window was failing and letting water through that pooled at the bottom of the stairs in the foyer entranceway.
The parties confirmed the plumber from Suns Plumbing and Gasffting Ltd came back to seal the window above the entrance way on 23 April 2025 and that appeared to have fully resolved the water ingress issue.
The owner says JDI Construction Ltd (that was in liquidation when it was engaged to carry out the investigation and remediation work) was sent photographs of the premise, and that it identified the issue from the photographs in conjunction with conversations with the owner about what the tenants thought may be causing the water ingress. JDI Construction Ltd then carried out the remediation work on 15 March 2025, based on its photograph- based investigation and discussion with the property owner. When cross examined further on this evidential point, the owner stated that Austin Liu from JDI Construction Ltd has also gone to the premise to investigate. I have two issues with that evidence. The first is that the tenants were never given any notice that Austin Liu was going to access the house to carry out a full investigation of the water ingress issue and would have needed to enter the inside of the house to carry out the full investigation. The second issue is that the 20 March 2025 JDI Construction Ltd report records that the problem was identified “according to the client description that rainwater seeps into the retaining wall next to the main entrance part. Especially in rainy or humid weather”. It makes no mention of having undertaken any other investigation to identify the problem.
The landlord says it should have been able to rely in its contractors to have fully investigated and resolved all the causes of the water ingress issues before the 31 March 2025 deadline given by the Tribunal and that as soon as it found out the issue had not ben resolved that it took steps to have the additional cause of the issue identified and remedied in a timely manner. It states it is entitled to full rent for the three weeks after the wall was waterproofed and the permeable drainpipe installed.
Paragraph [5] of the Tribunal’s 25 February 2025 Order clearly states “the weekly rent is reduced by $75.00 from the date of the hearing until the repairs are completed”. The evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that the repairs were not fully competed until 23 April 2025.
I am satisfied that the issue was not resolved fully until 23 April 2025 and that the tenants were entitled to rely on the rent rebate ordered in the Tribunal’s 25 February 2025 Order until that date. The landlord’s claim for rent arrears of $225.00 is dismissed as it has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove its claim on the balance of probabilities and the tenants have successfully disproved the landlord’s claim.

Did the tenant 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says the tenants returned the keys but the keys were useless as the tenants had exited the premise through the garage, leaving the front and back doors locked from inside thereby making them unable to be opened with a key from the outside. The landlord proved it called one of the tenant’s a short time before the locksmith came to replace the two locks and received a text response stating that he was unable to talk at that time. By the time the tenant called the landlord back, the locks had been changed.
The landlord seeks $207.00 from the bond to compensate it for the cost it incurred getting these two locks replaced.
The tenants confirmed they had locked the back door from inside but had let themselves out the garage, they had not locked the front door from inside and had it not been faulty, the landlord would have been able to use the key to enter the premise.
The tenants produced a video from the day they moved into the house. The video is date stamped 26 July 2024 at 11:58am. It shows the property manager with the tenants doing a walk through and in this video the tenant is showing the property manager how the front door lock is old and faulty and is hard to unlock and is unreliable as it doesn’t always retract when you try to open it. The tenants say the landlord never had this lock investigated or remediated and it remained very hard to use. They say they had to jiggle the key in it for some time to get the lock to open and they should not be charged for a lock that was not locked from inside. They also stated that if the landlord had given them more than one hours’ notice they could have come around and shown him how to jiggle the key until the lock opened.
I prefer the tenants video evidence that clearly shows there was an issue with the front door lock and am satisfied based on this evidence that it was the damaged lock that prevented the landlord entering the premise. I am also satisfied that the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities the tenants had not left the inside lock on the front door locked. Even if the evidence showed they had done so, which it does not, there was no need to replace the front and back door locks for the landlord to gain entry.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for $207.00 compensation to be deducted from the bond to compensate it for the two new locks.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
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.
The landlord says the tenants damaged the roller blind in the garden shed during the tenancy.
The landlord produced photographs it says were taken before the tenancy that shows the rod was broken off the blind and the blind was hung directly on the three nails. These photographs had no meta data on them, and the tenants say the blind was not as pictured at the start of the tenancy and was old and in bad condition, did not roll and was always balanced on the three nails. Further, they stated they had taken the blind down so that it removed any temptation for persons to break into the shed as it was clear there was nothing but a lawn mower stored in the garden shed.
The tenants also produced evidence that the landlord has had a demolition order on the house as he intends to demolish it and develop the land. Consequently he does not want to invest in replacing a blind that needed replacing at the beginning of the tenancy and is well past its expected lifespan at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord confirmed it had not replaced the blind. It produced a quote for $400.00 plus GST and wanted the Tribunal to award it compensation for that amount from the bond.
The parties also confirmed the premise has been re-rented for six months without the blind being replaced. In addition, the property manager and the owner could not confirm the age of the broken blind.
I find that the tenants have disproved liability for the damage because the blind was likely past its useful lifespan at the start of the tenancy, it appears from the photographic evidence to be past the IRD depreciation timeframe for blinds and the landlord has not incurred any loss from replacing it and has re rented the premise without it. For all these reasons I dismiss the landlord’s claim against the bond.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord breach the healthy homes standards?

Conor Morris and Michael Raimondo Di Leva claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Specifically, Conor Morris and Michael Raimondo Di Leva 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: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 26 July 2024. The landlord had to have the premise to a compliant standard 120 days after the tenancy commenced, being Saturday, 23 November 2024. Moisture ingress and drainage standard
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The landlord provided a healthy homes report from Yoke Insulation Ltd dated 29 March 2022 that states the premise is fully healthy homes compliant. It is good practice to have a new healthy homes assessment completed every two years to ensure that things like insulation and drainage have not deteriorated to the point the premise no longer complies with the healthy homes standards.
The landlord sought to rely on an assessment report that was well over two years old when it was clear from the video and photographic evidence produced during this hearing, as well as the JDI Construction and JDI Drainage Ltd reports that the premise did not comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard because it required waterproofing to the retaining wall surface and a new permeable drainage pipe to be installed at the base of the wall to help stop water ingress into the foyer entranceway.
In this case I have determined that the landlord knew about the water ingress issue, as it is evident on the entry inspection video produced by the tenants. This video shows the property manager was present when they enter the foyer and see a significant puddle of water pooled at the base of the carpeted stairs.
The owner says the property manager did not inform him of the water ingress issue until after the 25 February 2025 Order and he fixed the moisture ingress and drainage issue by 15 March 2025. He therefore claims e should not be held liable for the failure to comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard because his chosen agent did not inform him of the issue. Further, he says if the property manager had informed him earlier, he would have had the issue fixed. There was no evidence produced that shows when the property manager informed the owner of the water ingress issue, but that is an issue for them to address between them. I am satisfied that the tenants have proven on the balance of probabilities the landlord knew about the moisture ingress and drainage breach and intentionally chose not to have it investigated or remediated by 23 November 2024. The evidence shows it intentionally ignored the issue, the tenants had raised on the first day of their tenancy, until after the 25 February 2025 Order required them to address the issue. Even then, it was not fully investigated and resolved until 23 April 2025.
I find Sunshine Property Group Limited As Agent For Sac Develop Group Ltd committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that the landlord intentionally failed to meet the moisture ingress and drainage standard, and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $3,600.00 of exemplary damages (half of the maximum penalty available), because: a. The owner engaged an experienced property management company that should have reasonably known the landlord had to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and Smoke Alarm Regulations and intentionally did not; b. The impact on the tenants of the landlord fully complying with the moisture ingress and drainage healthy homes’ standards was that the tenants loved in a damp and cold premise that constantly experienced moisture ingress issues for the majority of the tenancy and led them to have to break their fixed term lease early as they could not live in the damp and cold environment any longer; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to ensure the premise met all the healthy homes standards by the statutorily required date; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to comply fully with the healthy homes’ standards.
I have awarded a quantum of 50% of the maximum penalty available because of the lengthy period the breach continued and the landlord’s indifference to the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants because of the breach. In addition, it offered the tenants any compensation nor did it take action to remediate the breach in a reasonable time frame. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because Conor Morris, Michael Raimondo Di Leva has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5226136 — Healthy homes at 15 Gunson Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5226136 — Healthy homes at 15 Gunson Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORD CLAIMS AGAINST THE BOND

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord breach the healthy homes standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORD CLAIMS AGAINST THE BOND

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord breach the healthy homes standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions