Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5417608 — Rent arrears at 1 Lyttelton Avenue, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620
Published 18 March 2026 · Application 5417608
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Pollak
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $13,728.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $10,128.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears to 19 March 2026 | $13,600.00 | Rent arrears to 19 March 2026 | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Exemplary damages | $100.00 | Exemplary damages | |
| Total award | $13,628.00 | $100.00 | |
| Net award | $10,128.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $10,128.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5417608 — net $10,128.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to 19 March 2026
- Amount
- $13,600.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears to 19 March 2026
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages
- Amount
- $100.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Exemplary damages
Total award
Landlord $13,628.00 · Tenant $100.00
Net award
Landlord $10,128.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $10,128.00
Dismissed claims
- Healthy Homes Standards — as the tenants have failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities and the landlord has produced evidence to disprove the cl…
- Smoke Alarms — as the tenants have failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities and the landlord has produced evidence to disprove the cl…
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- The tenancy of Ru Wang and Chien-Chi Lai at 1 Lyttelton Avenue, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620 is terminated, and possession is granted to Ideal Real Estate Limited As Agent For Sunga Nam Yang & Chae Hyuck Im, at 5:00pm on Thursday 19 March 2026.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 (00062779) to Ideal Real Estate Limited As Agent For Sunga Nam Yang & Chae Hyuck Im immediately.
- Ru Wang and Chien-Chi Lai must pay Ideal Real Estate Limited As Agent For Sunga Nam Yang & Chae Hyuck Im $10,128.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing on 30 January 2026.
- The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for abandonment, rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
- The tenants have applied to have the fixed term of their tenancy reduced, compensation, general damages, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
- The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
- 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.
- The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. Some evidence referred to may be summarised or paraphrased. 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. Section 109(2)(b) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act.
TENANTS CLAIMS
Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b), (ba) and (bb) obligations to the tenants?
- The tenants claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b), (ba) and (bb) of the RTA.
- Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
- There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
- A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 . 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].
- There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
- Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A.
- Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
- Breaching either of these s45(1) obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) 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. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premise
- Ru Wang and Chien-Chi Lai claims gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances.
- The tenants claimed the landlord failed to address the ongoing coldness, dampness and mould on the dining room ceiling issues during the tenancy and that these failures led to poor health outcomes for them and their child.
- The tenants claim they raised the coldness and dampness issues with the landlord on 28 November 2025, after receiving the healthy homes report. They did not provide evidence of having raised these issues with the landlord and the landlord denies it was raised with it. A landlord cannot address issues they do not know about.
- The tenants confirmed they raised the mould on the dining room ceiling with the landlord on 2 May 2025. The landlord produced evidence that proves the patch of the ceiling is an old stain and not active mould. The landlord has instructed the tenants to keep an eye on the stain and if it shows any sign of growing the landlord will address it promptly. The landlord confirms the tenants have not raised this issue with it since.
- The tenants have failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities, so I dismiss them accordingly. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. Smoke alarms- breach of TA and breach of regulations
- Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA states the landlord “shall comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A”.
- The tenants claim the rental premise had one working smoke alarm when the premise required two in order to comply with s45(1)9ba) of the RTA.
- The landlord denies this and says there were two smoke alarms in the premise and that the house complies with the s45(1)(ba) of the RTA requirement.
- The landlord produced a healthy homes assessment report from Panda Solutions that shows the premise had two smoke alarms and satisfies the requirements of Code NZS 4246: 2016. Panda also confirmed it tested these alarms and confirmed they were all working and were within 3 meters of every bedroom door.
- The healthy homes assessment report does not record the expiry date of the alarms, but the landlord proved they were new and were just before the 3 March 2025 report.
- The landlord has provided a healthy homes assessment report that proves the premise meets the smoke alarm requirements. Therefore, this claim is dismissed as the tenants have failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities and the landlord has produced evidence to disprove the claim. Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes’ standards?
- Ru Wang and Chien-Chi Lai claim 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).
- 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 18 April 2025. The landlord had until 1 July 2025 to comply with all the healthy homes standards. A. Heating
- Ru Wang and Chien-Chi Lai claim the landlord has failed to comply with the heating standard.
- The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
- The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
- There must be one or more fixed heaters that can directly heat the main living room.
- The main living room is the largest room that is used for general, everyday living – for example a lounge, family room or dining room.
- Heater(s) must be fixed (not portable) and must be at least 1.5 kW in heating capacity and meet the minimum heating capacity needed for the main living room. There are several options to calculate the heating capacity required for the main living room.
- The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
- A landlord can provide heating at eighty percent of the required capacity provided that the existing qualifying heaters (such as a heat pump or wood burner): a. Have a capacity greater than 2.4kW; b. Were installed before 1 July 2019; and c. Can heat the main living room to 18°C.
- This eighty percent threshold is a specific exemption, allowing older, large, fixed heaters to be used without immediate replacement. Once these older, lower- capacity heaters need to be replaced, they must be replaced with a unit that meets one hundred percent of the required capacity.
- If the main heater in the living room cannot heat the room to 18°C, the heater must be upgraded to one hundred percent.
- The landlord has provided a healthy homes assessment report that proves the heater in the main living room was installed prior to 2019 and meets the exemption requirements. Therefore, this claim is dismissed as the tenants have failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities and the landlord has produced evidence to disprove the claim. B. Insulation
- Ru Wang and Chien-Chi Lai claim that the landlord has failed to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
- From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
- Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
- There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
- The landlord has provided a healthy homes assessment report that proves the house is exempt from complying with the underfloor insulation requirements as the house is built on a concrete slab and it is not feasible to install underfloor insulation.
- The healthy homes assessment report proves the house complies with the ceiling insulation requirements as it has pink batts with a value of R3.6.
- Therefore, this claim is dismissed as the tenants have failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities and the landlord has produced evidence to disprove the claim. Did the landlord provide the statutorily required healthy homes, smoke alarm and insurance information in the tenancy agreement?
- The tenant claims that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 13A(1CA) of the RTA.
- Under s13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the five healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions. These five standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping. This provision also requires the landlord to record how many smoke alarms are in the premise, when the smoke alarms were last tested and when they expire.
- The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
- If the landlord is unable to provide some or all the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) of the RTA obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A of the RTA
- The tenant received a tenancy agreement, that did not contain the required smoke alarm information. It records there being one smoke alarm and does not say where that smoke alarm is located, when it was last tested and when it expires. The smoke alarms were installed in March 2025, before the tenancy commenced. This information was available to the landlord but was intentionally left out of the tenancy agreement.
- I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, pursuant to section 13A(1F)(a) of the RTA, the Tribunal may award up to a maximum of $750.00 in exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- I am satisfied the landlord failed to provide the tenant with the required smoke alarm information prescribed by sections 13A(1CA) of the RTA.
- I find the landlord intentionally breached 13A(1CA) of the RTA and that, an award of $100.00 exemplary damages should be awarded for this breach because: a. The landlord is represented by experienced property managers that should have reasonably known that it is required by to provide the tenants smoke alarm information within the written tenancy agreement b. The tenant is entitled to rely on his statutory right to receive smoke alarm information; c. t is in the interests of the tenants to receive compensation for the landlords’ breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations ensure the tenants have smoke alarm information given to them prior to the commencement of the tenancy so they can make an informed decision whether or not to rent a non-compliant premise.
Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?
- The tenants entered into a fixed term tenancy that commenced on 18 April 2025 and was due to end on 17 April 2026.
- The tenants moved out of the premise on 10 November 2025 and seek to have the fixed term tenancy reduced to that date. The law
- Parties enter into a fixed term tenancy for security. For tenants this is security of tenure; they can be sure they have a home for at least the agreed term. For landlords it is security of income; they can rely on a set amount of income from their investment.
- If a tenant wishes to default on that contract, and the landlord accepts the repudiation, then the tenancy ends on the terms agreed. In such a situation of surrender the landlord can stipulate the terms of early surrender, provided they are reasonable. Such reasonable terms can be to ensure the aggrieved party (here the landlord) be placed in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement.
- If the parties cannot agree to end the tenancy, it is open to that party to apply to the Tribunal to reduce the term pursuant to section 66(1) RTA.
- The Tribunal can reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced.
- Section 66 sets a high threshold for reducing fixed term tenancies. The jurisdiction in this section is an extension to the doctrine of frustration found in the general law of contract. In most cases, s66 is used to seek a balance between the competing interests of applicant tenants, for whom significant obligations under fixed term agreements can create severe hardship when circumstances unexpectedly turn against them, and landlords, who have financial obligations and expectations of their own arising from the same bargain.
- The term “unforeseen” is a legal term defined by reference to the reverse (“foreseeability”) in cases relating to negligence (in determining whether a duty of care is owed and what damages are reasonably foreseeable) and in cases assessing damages for breach of contract (also in assessing the remoteness of damage). In both contexts, there is a body of case law which has established that: a. Foreseeability must be assessed objectively through the eyes of a reasonable person who has taken all reasonable steps to inform themselves of the circumstances; b. An outcome is foreseeable in legal terms if it is “liable to result”, “not unlikely”, “quite likely”, a “real danger”, a “serious possibility” or a “real risk”; c. The term “unforeseen” has few if any direct dictionary definitions, but by thesaurus is aligned with such concepts as “unexpected” and “without warning”. In a legal context, it must also be taken as the reverse of what is “foreseen”, thus being “not liable to result”, “unlikely”, “not a real danger”, “not a serious possibility” or “not a real risk”.
- If the unforeseen circumstance test is met, the hardship test is what ultimately sets a high threshold for justifying the reduction of fixed term tenancies, as the Tribunal is tasked with balancing of the two parties competing interests. The foreseeability test is but one part of the overall test the Tribunal must apply. It is the part of the test that gets an applicant to the starting gate but is no guarantee that it will win them the race. Analysis & findings
- The parties here came to an agreement to end the tenancy early, dependent upon one of the parties finding a replacement tenant willing to rent the premise at $850.00 per week for the remainder of the fixed term period. The owners did not want to extend the term to attract a wider pool of potential tenants as they want to return to living in the premise at the end of the fixed term tenancy.
- The tenants claim they ended the tenancy early because the landlord’s alleged healthy and safety and repair and maintenance breaches made the premise unhealthy and unsafe for them and their family to continue to live in.
- I then turn to an application of s66 of the RTA to this situation.
- Having considered the facts, I find there has not been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances. The tenants were concerned about allegedly living in a damp premise that was causing the family health issues and made the decision to take the risk of moving out before new tenants were found.
- Many of these alleged breaches have not been proven and if they had been, the tenants would have had to give the landlord reasonable time to address the issues complained of and could have issued the landlord with 14-day notices to address these issues or made an application to the Tribunal for work orders. The evidence shows the tenants did none of these things.
- Alleged repair and maintenance or healthy homes issues are not considered unforeseen circumstances that would justify the Tribunal ending the fixed term early.
- Section 66 of the RTA is clear in requiring the Tribunal to establish an unforeseen change in circumstances before the respective hardships are weighed. I empathise with both parties’ circumstances. However, as an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances has not been established, I have no jurisdiction to end the tenancy, and this claim must be dismissed LANDLORD’S CLAIMS
Should the tenancy be terminated?
- The Tribunal may terminate the tenancy where the premises have been abandoned and rent is in arrear at the hearing date. See section 61 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. A tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse, not intending to return or to meet their obligations, and fails to notify the landlord.
- On 10 November 2025, the landlord became aware (or ought to have been aware) that the tenant had abandoned the premises.
- Because the premises have been abandoned, and rent is in arrear, the tenancy is terminated on Thursday 19 March 2026 at 5:00pm.
How much does the tenant owe?
- The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing on 19 March 2026. If the landlord is unable to find a tenant to take over the remainder of the fixed term lease, it may apply to the Tribunal for rent arrears to the end of the fixed term tenancy, being 17 April 2026. If the owners move back into the premise before 17 April 2026, they will be unable to claim any further rent from the date they move back in. 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 Ideal Real Estate Limited As Agent For Sunga Nam Yang & Chae Hyuck Im has wholly succeeded with its claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
- Because Ru Wang and Chien-Chi Lai has not wholly or substantially succeeded with their claim, there application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name suppression
- The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
- The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- The tenants have not substantially or wholly succeeded in these proceedings. I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct in abandoning the tenancy and not paying rent until the issues between the parties were concluded.
- The tenants’ non-publication application is dismissed.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s1, s102(4), s109(2), s109(3), s11, s13(1), s138A, s138B(5), s13A(11F), s13A(1B), s13A(1CA), s13A(1F), s2, s2016, s2019, s27, s4, s4246, s45(1), s45(1A), s61, s66, s66(1), s73
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5417608?
The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Ru Wang and Chien-Chi Lai at 1 Lyttelton Avenue, Forrest Hill,
How much money was awarded in case 5417608?
Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $13,600.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5417608?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5417608?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13306815-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.