What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5445397?

The tribunal order states: Logan Walter Harris must pay Vicky Margaret Paulin $457.42 by 1 May 2026,

How much money was awarded in case 5445397?

Property Damage: $2,100.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,642.58 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5445397?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5445397?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13495976-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5445397?

The tribunal order states: Logan Walter Harris must pay Vicky Margaret Paulin $457.42 by 1 May 2026,

How much money was awarded in case 5445397?

Property Damage: $2,100.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,642.58 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5445397?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5445397?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13495976-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

31 Paddington Street, Northcote, Christchurch 8052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5445397 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5445397 — net $457.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 30 March 2026	$1,642.58		Rent arrears to 30 March 2026
Exemplary damages		$2,100.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$1,642.58	$2,100.00
Net award		$457.42
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$457.42

Order

Logan Walter Harris must pay Vicky Margaret Paulin $457.42 by 1 May 2026, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
The parties’ requests for name suppression are declined.
The file will remain open until 1 May 2026 when the Tribunal will consider making an order in relation to the bond depending on whether the landlord has filed another application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims compensation and exemplary damages for breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations and Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
The landlord claims rent arrears. Background
The landlord has owned the premises since 2010, and he lived in them for a time before they were rented.
This tenancy began in June 2016 and ended on 30 March 2026 by agreement.
The tenancy was periodic, and it remained so for its duration. There were no renewals.
The tenant says that the premises were deficient in various respects and that the landlord has failed to remedy the defects timeously or at all.
She says that she served a breach notice on the landlord in 2018 that raised various issues, the landlord addressed some promptly, some belatedly and some not at all. The landlord says that he has no recollection of receiving the notice.
There is no dispute that the tenant served a breach notice on 28 January 2026. That notice included HHS defects. Relevant Law
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety and comply with HHS.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
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.
One HHS is the moisture ingress and drainage standard which 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.
For private rentals compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on when the tenancy started and if it was renewed. Tenancies that commenced before 1 July 2021 and were not renewed must comply by 1 July 2025.
The Limitation Act 2010 provides that it is a defence to money claims if the claim is filed more than six years after the claim arose. Preliminary Findings
Because this tenancy began before 1 July 2021 and it was not renewed, the HHS applied to the tenancy from 1 July 2025. Therefore, they applied for the last 9 months of the tenancy.
The insulation requirements applied from 1 July 2019.
The tenant’s application was filed 18 February 2026. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot consider any claim that predates 18 February 2020. Any breach that predates that date but continued past it, can be considered for the period after that date. Rent
The landlord produced a rent statement showing rent arrears in the sum of $1,828.29 to the end of the tenancy. The tenant does not dispute the accuracy of the statement, but she points out that the landlord increased the rent on 13 September 2024 by $20 per week. He had increased the rent on 17 November 2023 which means that the later increase was within 12 months of the earlier increase contrary to the Act.
The view I take in these cases is that the notice of rent increase is valid as an increase from the earliest date that is permitted rather than being altogether invalid and of no effect. It follows that the increase for the 64 days that it was premature if of no effect. That equates to $185.71 and that must be deducted from the arrears according to the statement. I have therefore awarded $1,642.58 rent arrears. Healthy Homes Standards
The landlord accepts that there was no Ground Vapour Barrier (GVB) under the floor of the premises until one was installed on 14 March 2026. That should have been there from 1 July 2025.
The landlord said that he installed a GVB well before the tenancy began. He thinks that it must have been removed during earthquake repairs after the 2010 Canterbury earthquakes when piles were replaced. He did not check it before the 1 July 2025 date.
Plainly this was a breach of the HHS for moisture ingress. The 1 July date was widely known, and the landlord should have carried out a full inspection of the premises well before then and ensured that the premises complied with the standards. I find that there should be an award of exemplary damages in the circumstances.
The tenant claims that the premises did not comply with the insulation standard. She produced a photograph of the roof space taken in March 2021 showing part of the roof space without any effective insulation.
The landlord said that the area shown in the photograph is above the covered entranceway and is therefore outside the habitable area of the premises. He produced a report from 2010 stating, with supporting photographs, that there was ceiling insulation consisting of batts with an R Value of 3.2 and underfloor insulation with an R Value of 1.4.
R3.2 is slightly below the current minimum of 3.3 but the landlord said that there was other insulation below the batts that would increase the R Value.
After considering all the relevant evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has been in breach of the insulation standard.
The tenant claims that the guttering was not compliant. She said that there were times when the guttering was blocked with vegetation causing water to overflow the guttering adding to the dampness of the ground below. She produced photographs taken in July 2023 showing sections of guttering with plants growing out of them.
The tenant also said that the guttering was in poor condition and leaked but there was no good evidence produced to support that.
The state of the guttering is one of the defects stated in the 2018 breach notice. I found the tenant to be an honest and straightforward witness who made concessions without hesitation. I accept her evidence that her daughter handed the notice to the landlord and his then wife in 2018 at their home. The landlord may not recall it, but the landlord attended to at least some of the issues in that notice which suggests that it was served.
To the extent that those issues were addressed by February 2020 (and did not recur) I must ignore them. But I am satisfied that the landlord did not fully comply with his obligation to keep the guttering clear of obstructions and that resulted in the ground receiving more water than should have been the case. I accept that the landlord did clear the guttering on occasions. Maintenance Generally
The tenant claims that there were roof leaks, and that the landlord did not attend to them appropriately.
The landlord said that he personally fixed the leaks when they were drawn to his attention, and he did so promptly. There is no hard evidence to contradict that, and I accept his evidence on this point.
The tenant claims that the bath was not properly sealed, and water penetrated through the gaps. The landlord denied that and said that he was not made aware of any problem until the 2026 notice.
The tenant claims that trees and large shrubs close to the house were overgrown and the landlord failed to keep them trimmed. The result was that the premises received less light and were colder and damper as a result.
I accept that the landlord did trim the vegetation from time to time, but the tenant’s photographs show that there were times when they reached the stage when they were almost completely blocking light to some windows of the premises. I find that the landlord did not comply fully with his obligation to keep the vegetation close to the house adequately trimmed.
I am not persuaded that the same applies to the larger trees around the boundary of the property. The landlord’s obligation to trim those trees as necessary exists but I would need better evidence before I could find a breach in relation to them.
The faulty stove in the 2018 notice was replaced before 2020 and so no claim lies in respect of that.
The evidence in relation to the heat pump in the living area was conflicting. On balance I am not satisfied that there was a fault that the landlord was obliged to address. It may have stopped cycling after it had been running for a long time - the tenant ran it overnight – but that may be due to an expected de-icing mode.
The evidence was not enough for me to find that the fans in the kitchen and bathroom did not operate properly. I note that they were mentioned in the 2026 notice which was served immediately after the landlord served a 90-day termination notice.
There were some other minor complaints, but I find that they were not proved, or they are trivial and do not warrant any intervention by the Tribunal. Remedy
The lack of the GVB is the most serious breach in my view. I must consider that the breach was for nine months which included the summer period. I find that an award in the sum of $900 is appropriate.
In relation to the vegetation and the guttering I must consider that these breaches would have contributed to cold and damp in the premises, but they were partial breaches. The landlord did not ignore his responsibilities, but he did not meet them fully. I must also consider that they occurred, albeit intermittently, over a longer period than HHS breach. I find that together an award of $1,200 is appropriate.
I have considered the effect on the tenant and so there is no need for a separate award of compensation.
I make no award of the filing fees. Result
After setting off the awards the result is that the landlord must pay the tenant $457.42. Bond
The tenancy has not long ended, and the landlord may have end of tenancy claims. I therefore make no order in respect of the bond at this stage. I will review the situation on 1 May. If the landlord has not filed an application by then I will order the bond to be paid to the tenant. Filing Fees
I make no award of the filing fees. Suppression
The parties have had mixed success, and I see no compelling reason to grant either party name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5445397 — net $457.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 30 March 2026	$1,642.58		Rent arrears to 30 March 2026
Exemplary damages		$2,100.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$1,642.58	$2,100.00
Net award		$457.42
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$457.42

Order

Logan Walter Harris must pay Vicky Margaret Paulin $457.42 by 1 May 2026, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
The parties’ requests for name suppression are declined.
The file will remain open until 1 May 2026 when the Tribunal will consider making an order in relation to the bond depending on whether the landlord has filed another application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims compensation and exemplary damages for breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations and Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
The landlord claims rent arrears. Background
The landlord has owned the premises since 2010, and he lived in them for a time before they were rented.
This tenancy began in June 2016 and ended on 30 March 2026 by agreement.
The tenancy was periodic, and it remained so for its duration. There were no renewals.
The tenant says that the premises were deficient in various respects and that the landlord has failed to remedy the defects timeously or at all.
She says that she served a breach notice on the landlord in 2018 that raised various issues, the landlord addressed some promptly, some belatedly and some not at all. The landlord says that he has no recollection of receiving the notice.
There is no dispute that the tenant served a breach notice on 28 January 2026. That notice included HHS defects. Relevant Law
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety and comply with HHS.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
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.
One HHS is the moisture ingress and drainage standard which 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.
For private rentals compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on when the tenancy started and if it was renewed. Tenancies that commenced before 1 July 2021 and were not renewed must comply by 1 July 2025.
The Limitation Act 2010 provides that it is a defence to money claims if the claim is filed more than six years after the claim arose. Preliminary Findings
Because this tenancy began before 1 July 2021 and it was not renewed, the HHS applied to the tenancy from 1 July 2025. Therefore, they applied for the last 9 months of the tenancy.
The insulation requirements applied from 1 July 2019.
The tenant’s application was filed 18 February 2026. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot consider any claim that predates 18 February 2020. Any breach that predates that date but continued past it, can be considered for the period after that date. Rent
The landlord produced a rent statement showing rent arrears in the sum of $1,828.29 to the end of the tenancy. The tenant does not dispute the accuracy of the statement, but she points out that the landlord increased the rent on 13 September 2024 by $20 per week. He had increased the rent on 17 November 2023 which means that the later increase was within 12 months of the earlier increase contrary to the Act.
The view I take in these cases is that the notice of rent increase is valid as an increase from the earliest date that is permitted rather than being altogether invalid and of no effect. It follows that the increase for the 64 days that it was premature if of no effect. That equates to $185.71 and that must be deducted from the arrears according to the statement. I have therefore awarded $1,642.58 rent arrears. Healthy Homes Standards
The landlord accepts that there was no Ground Vapour Barrier (GVB) under the floor of the premises until one was installed on 14 March 2026. That should have been there from 1 July 2025.
The landlord said that he installed a GVB well before the tenancy began. He thinks that it must have been removed during earthquake repairs after the 2010 Canterbury earthquakes when piles were replaced. He did not check it before the 1 July 2025 date.
Plainly this was a breach of the HHS for moisture ingress. The 1 July date was widely known, and the landlord should have carried out a full inspection of the premises well before then and ensured that the premises complied with the standards. I find that there should be an award of exemplary damages in the circumstances.
The tenant claims that the premises did not comply with the insulation standard. She produced a photograph of the roof space taken in March 2021 showing part of the roof space without any effective insulation.
The landlord said that the area shown in the photograph is above the covered entranceway and is therefore outside the habitable area of the premises. He produced a report from 2010 stating, with supporting photographs, that there was ceiling insulation consisting of batts with an R Value of 3.2 and underfloor insulation with an R Value of 1.4.
R3.2 is slightly below the current minimum of 3.3 but the landlord said that there was other insulation below the batts that would increase the R Value.
After considering all the relevant evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has been in breach of the insulation standard.
The tenant claims that the guttering was not compliant. She said that there were times when the guttering was blocked with vegetation causing water to overflow the guttering adding to the dampness of the ground below. She produced photographs taken in July 2023 showing sections of guttering with plants growing out of them.
The tenant also said that the guttering was in poor condition and leaked but there was no good evidence produced to support that.
The state of the guttering is one of the defects stated in the 2018 breach notice. I found the tenant to be an honest and straightforward witness who made concessions without hesitation. I accept her evidence that her daughter handed the notice to the landlord and his then wife in 2018 at their home. The landlord may not recall it, but the landlord attended to at least some of the issues in that notice which suggests that it was served.
To the extent that those issues were addressed by February 2020 (and did not recur) I must ignore them. But I am satisfied that the landlord did not fully comply with his obligation to keep the guttering clear of obstructions and that resulted in the ground receiving more water than should have been the case. I accept that the landlord did clear the guttering on occasions. Maintenance Generally
The tenant claims that there were roof leaks, and that the landlord did not attend to them appropriately.
The landlord said that he personally fixed the leaks when they were drawn to his attention, and he did so promptly. There is no hard evidence to contradict that, and I accept his evidence on this point.
The tenant claims that the bath was not properly sealed, and water penetrated through the gaps. The landlord denied that and said that he was not made aware of any problem until the 2026 notice.
The tenant claims that trees and large shrubs close to the house were overgrown and the landlord failed to keep them trimmed. The result was that the premises received less light and were colder and damper as a result.
I accept that the landlord did trim the vegetation from time to time, but the tenant’s photographs show that there were times when they reached the stage when they were almost completely blocking light to some windows of the premises. I find that the landlord did not comply fully with his obligation to keep the vegetation close to the house adequately trimmed.
I am not persuaded that the same applies to the larger trees around the boundary of the property. The landlord’s obligation to trim those trees as necessary exists but I would need better evidence before I could find a breach in relation to them.
The faulty stove in the 2018 notice was replaced before 2020 and so no claim lies in respect of that.
The evidence in relation to the heat pump in the living area was conflicting. On balance I am not satisfied that there was a fault that the landlord was obliged to address. It may have stopped cycling after it had been running for a long time - the tenant ran it overnight – but that may be due to an expected de-icing mode.
The evidence was not enough for me to find that the fans in the kitchen and bathroom did not operate properly. I note that they were mentioned in the 2026 notice which was served immediately after the landlord served a 90-day termination notice.
There were some other minor complaints, but I find that they were not proved, or they are trivial and do not warrant any intervention by the Tribunal. Remedy
The lack of the GVB is the most serious breach in my view. I must consider that the breach was for nine months which included the summer period. I find that an award in the sum of $900 is appropriate.
In relation to the vegetation and the guttering I must consider that these breaches would have contributed to cold and damp in the premises, but they were partial breaches. The landlord did not ignore his responsibilities, but he did not meet them fully. I must also consider that they occurred, albeit intermittently, over a longer period than HHS breach. I find that together an award of $1,200 is appropriate.
I have considered the effect on the tenant and so there is no need for a separate award of compensation.
I make no award of the filing fees. Result
After setting off the awards the result is that the landlord must pay the tenant $457.42. Bond
The tenancy has not long ended, and the landlord may have end of tenancy claims. I therefore make no order in respect of the bond at this stage. I will review the situation on 1 May. If the landlord has not filed an application by then I will order the bond to be paid to the tenant. Filing Fees
I make no award of the filing fees. Suppression
The parties have had mixed success, and I see no compelling reason to grant either party name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5445397 — Exemplary damages at 31 Paddington Street, Northcote, Christchurch 8052

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5445397 — Exemplary damages at 31 Paddington Street, Northcote, Christchurch 8052

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions