What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5342753?

The tribunal order states: Both parties have been found in breach of their obligations. The grounds for

How much money was awarded in case 5342753?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5342753?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342753?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13387549-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5342753?

The tribunal order states: Both parties have been found in breach of their obligations. The grounds for

How much money was awarded in case 5342753?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5342753?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342753?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13387549-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

44 Chambers Street, Havelock North, Havelock North 4130 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5342753 — Property damage

Order

Both parties have been found in breach of their obligations. The grounds for suppression are not made out and no suppression Order is made.
Nicole Parahi must pay David John Hislop $5,724.78 immediately, calculated below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented but chose not to attend herself. Options for attending remotely were offered to her. Background
The parties entered into a periodic tenancy agreement. It was signed on 18 December 2024 and provided for a start date of 16 December 2024. The tenant says that she moved in earlier than that, around 8 December. That is not material to this decision.
The agreement stated that “No pets are permitted at this rental property”
The agreement included a Healthy Homes (“HH”) compliance statement, signed by the landlord and dated 17 December 2024 that “I, David Hislop already comply with the healthy homes standards as required by s.45(1)(bb)) of the Residential Tenancies Act” (“RTA”).
An Order was made in respect of this tenancy on 19 September 2025 in application 5328146 (“September Order”).
The September Order found that the tenant abandoned the premises on 6 September 2025. It granted immediate possession to the landlord and ordered that the tenant pay the landlord $7,781.57 in rent arrears and exemplary damages. The bond of $2,175.00 was paid to the landlord, leaving a balance to pay of $5,606.57.
An application for rehearing o the September Order by the tenant was dismissed. The sum payable by the tenant under the September Order has not been paid and is incorporated into his Order.
The September hearing was scheduled only to hear the landlord’s urgent abandonment application. All other claims were deferred and were the subject of this hearing. The Claims
The tenant claims a total of $39,803.57 (plus the filing fee) made up as follows: Exemplary damages: incorrect HH statement $7,000.00 Exemplary damages: breach HH standards $9,500.00 Exemplary damages: fail to lodge bond $1,500.00 Compensation: unlawful entry/ harassment $6,000.00 Exemplary damages: retaliatory notice $3,000.00 Compensation: distress $5,500.00 Compensation: loss of amenity $3,000.00 Compensation: relocation and moving costs $1,500.00 Compensation: advocate fees $2,803.57
The landlord filed a counter claim for a total of $11,351.44 (plus filing fee) made up as follows: Compensation: replace carpet Compensation: remove and rehang doors $2,334.50 $250.00 Compensation: repair wall damage Compensation: replace hose$16.98 Compensation: missing oven pan$120.18 Compensation: repair firebox door/ outdoor furniture $905.05 Compensation: missing net curtains$123.05 Compensation: repair electrical sockets$273.02 Compensation: replace sensor lights$363.40 Compensation: repair kitchen drawer$162.50 Compensation: replace dishwasher$400.00 Compensation: replace waste disposal$634.14 Compensation: landlord labour charges$750.00 Compensation: replacer padlock and key$20.08 Compensation: cleaning charges$180.00
The landlord also claims exemplary damages for the tenant’s refusal to allow entry for an inspection and for allowing more than the maximum number of occupants at the premises. Approach to deciding the claims
The first thing the Tribunal has to do is determine whether the parties breached their obligations in the ways claimed.
The party bringing the claim is required to provide evidence that proves the facts on which the claims are based, on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not).
If breaches of obligations are proved, the Tribunal must then assess whether loss has been caused. That loss may be represented by financial loss or loss of amenity in the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises. If loss is proved the party would generally be entitled to compensation for that loss. In some circumstances, where a breach has caused harm that is difficult to quantify, the Tribunal can award general damages. 1 1 S.77(2)(n) RTA – see also Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 177667 at para [34]
If the breach is of a type which the RTA classes as an unlawful act, the Tribunal then needs to consider whether it would be just to make an award of exemplary damages. The purpose of exemplary damages is not to compensate for loss but to punish unlawful behaviour. Exemplary damages may be awarded in addition to compensation, up to the maximum amount specified in Schedule 1A RTA.
In deciding whether to award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the breach was intentional, which means that what was done, was done consciously. It does not require that the party intended to act unlawfully. 2
The Tribunal then needs to consider the intent behind the breach, the effect of the breach, the interests of the other party and the public interest. 3
Where more than one related unlawful act has been committed, the Tribunal needs to be careful to ensure that multiple “punishments” are not awarded for what are, in substance, the same breach of the party’s obligations. 4 Tenant Claims Healthy Homes
A landlord must provide in the agreement an insulation statement and Healthy Homes compliance statement. 5
Providing information the landlord knows to be false or misleading is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $900.00 may be awarded. 6
A landlord must ensure the premises comply with Healthy Homes Standards. Breach of that obligation in relation to any of the required standards is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded. 7
This tenancy began on 16 December 2024. The premises were required to be Healthy Homes compliant within 120 days after that date. 8 That is 15 April 2025.
The landlord’s evidence is that he had his daughter and an acquaintance of hers help with the assessment of required heating capacity and of compliance with other HH standards.
He says that: 2 See for example TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 at para [37] 3 S.109(3) RTA 4 Eg. Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited DC Wellington CIV-2014-085-13, 27 August 2014 at paras [28] [29] 5 S.13A(1A) and (1CA) RTA 6 S.13A(1F) and Schedule 1A RTA 7 S.45(1)(bb) and Schedule 1A RTA 8 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 a. compliant insulation had been installed in 2019, which is proved by the certificate provided; b. the need for a kitchen extractor was overlooked c. an assessment was made that a ground moisture barrier was not required; d. there were no undue gaps or draughts.
It was on that basis that the statement of existing HH compliance was made.
The statement was wrong. To be compliant: a. the kitchen needed an extractor; b. a ground moisture barrier needed to be installed c. further draught stopping was required. 9
By providing an incorrect HH compliance statement, the landlord committed an unlawful act.
The landlord arranged for a kitchen extractor to be installed in late July 2025 (invoice dated 23 July 2025). Further draught sealing work was done following the inspection by Housing People in mid-July 2025.
The landlord arranged for a compliance inspection on 22 July 2025 by Brightr, who have provided a statement saying that on 25 July they were refused entry to the premises by the tenant.
The landlord gave the tenant 90 days’ notice of termination and because of the tenant’s refusal to allow access, decided to wait until the tenancy ended before going ahead with that inspection.
After the tenant vacated, an inspection determined that a ground moisture barrier was required. A barrier was then installed and a HH assessment report dated 17 September 2025 confirmed that the premises were HH compliant on that date.
The evidence shows that the landlord breached his obligations because the premises: a. did not meet the HH ventilation standard from compliance date 15 April 2025 to late July when the extractor was installed b. did not meet the HH draught stopping standard from compliance date 15 April 2025 until late July when further draft stopping work was done c. did not meet the HH moisture ingress standard from compliance date 15 April 2025 until the end of the tenancy.
The landlord thereby committed unlawful acts.
I find it proved that: a. the landlord’s statement that the premises complied with HH standards when the agreement was signed, was wrong; and b. the premises did not comply with HH ventilation, draught stopping and moisture ingress standards by compliance date.

Should compensation and/ or exemplary damages be awarded?

A tenant is entitled to rely on the content of the HH compliance statement provided with the tenancy agreement. That is its’ purpose.
It was fair that the landlord relied on the independent certification of the insurance installed in 2019. He chose to make his own assessment of other aspects of the premises HH compliance and made errors in that assessment. He is not entitled to claim ignorance of his obligations because he made that choice.
I take into account that installation of the kitchen extractor and additional draft stopping was not done until after the tenant’s advocate issued a series of notices to remedy on 15 July 2025.
The evidence shows that the landlord had previously spoken to his electrician about installation of an extractor in the kitchen at 44a on 4 May 2025 when work was being done at that property. The evidence does not show any plans to install an extractor at 44. Even if it did, that was not until after: a. the landlord had certified existing compliance at the start of the tenancy; and b. compliance date (15 April 2025) had passed. 38 The notices to remedy issued by the tenant on 15 July 2025 specifically reference concerns about draughts and dampness, consistent with the premises non-compliance. It is however difficult to assess the effect of the breaches on the amenity of the premises without evidence about that from the tenant, who is the only person able to give it.
I also take into account the evidence that the tenant prevented access to the premises to inspect for compliance, with is not consistent with the tenant’s obligation to take all reasonable steps to mitigate the consequences of the breaches she is claiming redress for. 10
Weighing all those considerations, my findings are that: 10 S.49 RTA a. the tenant should be compensated for the effects of the premises non compliance with HH standards by an award of compensatory damages equal to 2 weeks’ rent; b. an award of exemplary damages should me made for the landlord’s provision of an incorrect and misleading HH compliance statement and for failing to ensure the premises were compliant with HH draught stopping, moisture ingress and ventilation standards from 15 April 2025 to late July 2025. Separate awards should not be made because those breaches resulted from the same omissions on the landlord’s part. c. in the circumstances I consider an award of $1,000.00 would be just to note the multiple breaches, but their relatively short duration. Bond
The landlord has provided records that prove that the bond was lodged within 23 working days of it having been received by him. No breach is proved. That claim is dismissed. Unlawful entry/ harassment
The tenant did not attend the hearing and provided no evidence in support of the allegations made.
The claims are not proved and are dismissed. Retaliatory Notice
The landlord issued a 90 day notice of termination on 24 July 2025.
I consider it more likely than not that the notice was at least partly motivated by the complaints raised and remedy notices issued by her through her advocate Mr Thorne and was therefore retaliatory in nature. A termination notice was issued to the tenant of 44a Chambers St two days earlier, when Mr Thorne began advocating on her behalf in the same ways.
In its Order considering that termination notice, 11 the Tribunal noted that, “The proximity between [the tenant’s] s notice to remedy and Mr Hislop’s termination notice provides a very strong inference that the two were linked, at least partly.”
The Tribunal nevertheless found that despite the strong inferences to the contrary, there was no basis not to accept the direct evidence given by Mr 11 application 5312364 19 November 2025 Hislop’s daughter, that she required the premises for her own occupation and the notice of termination had been given for that reason.
There is no such alternative reason for this termination notice having been given. Rent was not significantly in arrears when the notice was issued.
However, no Order can be made setting the termination notice aside as being retaliatory, or awarding compensation for exemplary damages. Such an application can only be brought within 28 working days from the date the notice is received. 12
The Tribunal does not have the discretion to extend that mandatory time limit. In Realty House Whakatane Ltd v Eschbank 13 the District Court said this: “In my view, s 54 is jurisdictional, and absent an application made within the time limit I consider that the Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain any application for a declaration that notice is of a retaliatory nature. While I accept that the Tribunal does have the power to extend time limits, it seems to me that those provisions should not ordinarily be used in relation to consideration of issues arising under s 54, with the possible exception of a very short overrun of a day or two caused by circumstances beyond a tenant's control, such as documents being lost in the post or computer or internet outage or inaccessibility.”
The 28 working day period for bringing an application to challenge the notice ended on 1 September 2025.
The tenant, through Mr Thorne, challenged the validity of the notice immediately it was received, giving the landlord a 14 day notice to withdraw it on 24 July 2025. This application though was not brought until 9 September 2025, after the tenant had abandoned the premises.
That is not the kind of short overrun outside a tenant’s control contemplated by the Court in Eschbankank. Because the application was not brought within the mandatory time period, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider it and the application is dismissed. Distress and Loss of Amenity
These are not causes of action in themselves but factors that can be taken into account in considering a remedy, where a breach is proved.
The claims raised by the tenant to which those considerations may be relevant, are that: a. the water supply provided was inadequate; and 12 S.54(3) RTA 13 Realty House Whakatane Ltd v Eschbank [2020] NZDC 16081 b. safe gas supply was not provided. Hot water
The tenant issued the landlord a 14 day notice to remedy on 23 July 2025 stating that , “The current hot water cylinder is undersized and fails to supply a reasonable and continuous amount of hot water for the household’s daily needs. The water runs cold after minimal usage and the recovery time is slow, which causes daily disruption and discomfort. This issue has been ongoing and is inconsistent with modern expectations for essential services in rental homes”
The hot water cylinder in the premises has a 135 Litre capacity. The agreement provides for 6 occupants to be able to live at the premises. Rent is set accordingly.
A very quick online search shows that the recommended cylinder capacity for a house with 6 occupants is 300 litres, more than twice the capacity of the cylinder provided.
Clause G12.1 of the Building Code has the objective (among other things) to, “...safeguard people from lack of amenity arising from – a lack of hot water for personal hygiene 14 ...” It requires that buildings supplied with water outlets sanitary fixtures or sanitary appliances must have safe and adequate hot water supplies.
The large discrepancy between the recommended cylinder capacity for the number of occupants in the premises and the actual cylinder size, coupled with the tenants expressed concern at the adequacy of the hot water supply, persuade me, on balance, that the hot water supply provided at the premises was not adequate, as required by the building code.
The landlord was therefore in breach of his obligation to ensure that the premises “...comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises” 15
The landlord thereby committed an unlawful act.
The tenant alleges that the gas bottles supplied with the premises were out of their certification period and could not safely be used.
The landlord’s evidence is that two gas bottles were supplied with the tenancy, one of them filled by the landlord at commencement. When one of the bottles couldn’t be filled because it was out of certification, the landlord loaned the tenant a smaller bottle to use until the larger bottles were recertified and filled. The landlord was told by the gas supplier that there was a slight delay in recertification but that the bottles would be filled and returned 14 G12.1(c) 15 S.45(1)(c) to the tenant. The landlord has provided evidence of the recertification and a gas bottle return to the tenant.
The evidence does not prove a breach of the landlord’s obligations. That claim is dismissed. Should compensation and/ or exemplary damages be awarded for breach of the landlord’s obligations under s.45(1)(c)?
The evidence shows that the tenant considered the hot water supply to be inadequate and had a negative impact on her use and enjoyment of the premises.
The Tribunal has found the breach proved. The tenant should be compensated for that breach.
The Building Code shows that an adequate hot water supply is considered important for safe and healthy living.
Assessing the day to day effect of the breach on the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises, beyond it having been sufficient to raise in a 14 day notice to remedy, is difficult without hearing from the tenant.
Without that evidence, I make a conservative award of 1 week’s rent as compensation.
The landlord says that concern about the adequacy of the hot water supply had never been raised by previous occupants. I accept that evidence.
Nevertheless, the landlord was formally put on notice about the issue through the tenant’s 14 day notice, which is the mechanism provided by the RTA to for tenants to raise such issues. Instead of that issue being looked into, the tenant was given a 14 day notice of termination.
That is an exacerbating factor, on top of the landlord having simply dismissed the tenant’s legitimate concerns.
I take into account that the duration of the breach was limited as the tenant wrongfully abandoned the premises.
The public interest requires that when tenants properly raise concerns, using the processes provided in the RTA, landlords should respond appropriately.
I find that it would be just to make a modest award of exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to do so. Moving Costs
The Tribunal has found that the tenant wrongly abandoned the premises. It follows that there is no basis for her to be compensated by the landlord for her moving costs.

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

At the end of the tenancy a 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. 16
Exit inspection photographs provided by the landlord show that in some respects the premises were not left in reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord paid $180.00 for professional cleaning of appliances and to eliminate graffiti. He should be compensated that cost which is proved by the invoice provided.
The landlord claims compensation for time spent by him and other family repainting a toilet roll holder, cleaning curtains and papering for the hearing. Those are not actual losses for which it is appropriate to award compensation.

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. 17 .
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. 18
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. 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. 19
Betterment and depreciation need to be considered. The landlord should be returned to the position he would have been in had the tenant not breached her 16 . 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA 17 S. 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA 18 S.49B(3)(a) RTA. 19 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, guidance from the IRD depreciation tables as well as available evidence about the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan should be taken into account. Carpet Damage
The exit photos show that at the end of the tenancy, some areas of the carpet were badly damaged to the point the required replacement. Replacement cost was $2,584.50 (including the cost of removing and rehanging doors to lay the carpet).
The evidence suggest a probable cause to be damage by a cat or cats at the premises, which were not permitted by the agreement.
To the extent that the tenant allowed that situation to continue, the damage should be regarded as intentional.
The landlord should be compensated for the cost of replacing the carpet. IRD depreciation tables give an expected useful life for carpet in residential rental premises of 8 years. I award 3/8th of the replacement cost. Wall Damage
There was significant wall damage caused to the premises. The photos show screw and nail holes in walls. Other holes that had been filled, but poorly, come on textured surfaces leaving obvious patches. Some areas of wallpaper were damaged. There was paint on some walls. That damage must be considered intentional.
The photos also show that the wall surfaces appear very dated and in need of refurbishment.
The invoice provided by the landlord in evidence simply charges: “Materials $818.54 Labour 4,000.00.”
The evidence suggests that: a. breach of the tenant’s obligations meant that work was required to repair the wall surfaces for painting/ papering; but b. any painting/ papering work itself will have resulted in a significant betterment in the interior condition of the premises, which the landlord will have benefitted from.
Without more detailed evidence from the landlord about how those costs were applied, I assess $1,200.00 as fair compensation for the cost of repairing the damaged surfaces. Missing Chattels
Having considered the landlord’s evidence and in the absence of contrary evidence from the tenant, I find it proved on balance that the following chattels, provided with the tenancy, were not returned when the tenancy ended. The landlord should be compensated for replacement cost as follows: a. garden hose - $16.98 b. oven tray – 120.18 c. padlock and key - $20.08
The claim for the cost of the net curtains is dismissed. They were not there at the start of the tenancy but were installed at the tenant’s request. The evidence does not show they will be replaced, causing a loss to the landlord.
The exit photos also prove that other damage was caused to the premises: a. a firebox door was damaged b. outdoor wooden furniture was damaged c. sensor lights were broken d. a kitchen drawer required repair e. electrical sockets were damaged.
I am satisfied that damage occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The evidence does not prove that damage to have been intentional.
The landlord has proved the cost of the repairs with invoices provided. The landlord should be compensated for those costs.
The evidence shows that the outdoor furniture was well used and somewhat worn at the start of the tenancy. It is more likely than not to have been improved by the work carried out. I allow $100.00 for betterment value. Otherwise, these are simply repair costs so no further allowance for depreciation or betterment is made.
At the end of the tenancy both the dishwasher and waste disposal were replaced.
The landlord’s evidence is that he recalls the tradesperson saying that a part was required for the dishwasher. The evidence does not prove that the need for its replacement was other than wear and tear. That claim is dismissed.
The landlord’s evidence is that material was found in the waste disposal which showed that it had been inappropriately used. waste disposal
I find it proved on balance that the damage to the waste disposal was more than normal wear and tear. The landlord should be compensated for the depreciated replacement cost as proved by the invoice provided.
I understand the waste disposal to have been around 5 years old at the end of the tenancy. IRD tables do not provide a specific guide to the expected useful life for a waste disposal. I use the guidance for similar chattels at 6.66 years. I allow 2/7th of the replacement cost. Exemplary damages claims Maximum occupants
It is unlawful act for the tenant to allow more than the maximum number of occupants to reside in the premises. If that provision is breached, exemplary damages of up to $1,000.00 may be awarded. 20
The agreement allows for a maximum number of 6 occupants.
Until their relationship ended in June 2025, the tenant’s partner lived in the premises with the tenant and her 5 children. So, during that period, 7 persons lived there.
Accordingly, the tenant breached her obligations and committed an unlawful act.
Given that the additional occupant was the tenant’s partner and considering the young age of the tenant’s children, It is unlikely I would have considered it just to award exemplary damages for that breach.
Fundamentally too, the landlord’s evidence shows that the landlord was well aware that the tenant’s partner was living there, welcomed him being there as a contributor to the rent and got on well with him. It did not become an issue until well after the tenant’s partner had moved out in June 2025.
With that tacit approval of the tenant’s partner living at the premises at the time, it would not be just for the landlord, now that circumstances have changed, to claim exemplary damages for that breach. Refusing entry
It is an unlawful act for a tenant to refuse entry to the premises without reasonable excuse, to allow the landlord to enter when the landlord is 20 S.40(3) and Schedule 1A RTA entitled to. If that provision is breached exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 may be awarded. 21
For the purposes of that provision, “landlord” includes the landlord’s agents.
The evidence proves that the tenant refused to allow the landlord’s inspector to enter the premises for an inspection on 25 July 2025.
The notice of intended entry provided by the landlord said that the entry would be on 22 July 2025.
It may be that other arrangements were later made but before considering making an award of exemplary damages for breach of that obligation, the Tribunal would need evidence of a notice, meeting the requirements of s.48 RTA which gave the landlord a clear right of entry at the time the tenant denied it.
Without that evidence, the claim is dismissed.
Both parties have had claims upheld. No Order is made regarding the filing fee.
Each party has had claims upheld and dismissed. There is no obvious reason to depart from the usual position that no costs award should be made 22

Tenancy Tribunal case 5342753 — Property damage at 44 Chambers Street, Havelock North, Havelock North 4130

Tenancy Tribunal case 5342753 — Property damage at 44 Chambers Street, Havelock North, Havelock North 4130

Order

Reasons

Should compensation and/ or exemplary damages be awarded?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

Should compensation and/ or exemplary damages be awarded?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?