Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5500443 — Rent arrears at 7 Dugh Place, Akina, Hastings 4122
Published 6 June 2026 · Application 5500443
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
Order
- Louise Catherine Hayllar-Johnston must pay Pardeep Kumar Dugh, Naresh Kumar Dugh and Joginder Ram Dugh as Trustees for Joginder and Sons Trust $3,410.00 immediately, calculated as:
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (BN-32607353) to Pardeep Kumar Dugh, Naresh Kumar Dugh and Joginder Ram Dugh as Trustees for Joginder and Sons Trust immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. The landlords were represented by Pardeep Kumar Dugh.
- The tenant brought this application to ask that the Tribunal address her concerns that: a. she was not provided with information about the premises’ Healthy Homes (“HH”) compliance, either in the agreement or when she asked for it; b.the premises did not comply with HH heating or draught stopping standards; and c.a Notice of Termination issued to her by the landlord on 30 April 2024 was retaliatory.
- The tenant’s application was filed on 4 May 2024, within the 28 working day period an application to set aside a retaliatory notice must be filed. 1 Background
- The parties participated in Tribunal mediation on 13 April 2026 (application 5468513).
- The mediator’s Order is dated 14 April 2026, it recorded that rent arrears of $7408.00 were owed to 20 April 2026. Weekly rent and the arrears were required to be paid by weekly payments of $710.00, starting on 21 April. The Order included a consequential clause that if any of the required weekly payments was missed within 2 working days of due date, the tenancy would immediately end.
- On 17 March the tenant obtained a Healthy Homes assessment for the premises. On the basis of the findings in that assessment, she issued the landlord a notice to remedy on 26 April requiring that the landlord add a second source of heating and fix the HRV system.
- On 30 March the landlord issued the tenant a 42-day notice of termination.
- Because she was upset about the termination notice, the tenant did not make the rent and arrears payment due on 5 May. The landlord applied for enforcement of the Mediator’s Order. An eviction notice was served on the tenant on 12 May requiring that she vacate by 15 May. She moved out on that date. 1 S.54(3) RTA
- At the hearing the tenant raised a concern that the landlord had improperly had her evicted before she had breached the Mediator’s Order. Rent
- The main issue at the hearing about the rent was whether the tenant made the rent and arrears payment due on 5 May. She thought she had and that therefore she hadn’t breached the mediator’s Order when the landlord asked for her eviction. After time was given at the hearing for the tenant to check her bank records and after the landlord provided his, the tenant agreed that she had been mistaken and that the payment had not been made.
- That being the case: a. the tenant did breach the Mediator’s Order and the landlord was entitled to ask for the possession order to be enforced; and b. the tenant owes rent for the period from 21 April to 15 May when she moved out, less the two payments of $710.00 she made after the date of the Mediator’s Order. The rent arrears owing for that period are calculated accordingly. Claims HH compliance
- A landlord must: a. include in the agreement a HH compliance statement 2 . Breach of that obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $750.00 may be awarded; b. provide HH compliance information to the tenant if requested. 3 Breach of that obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $750.00 may be awarded; and c. ensure the premises comply with HH standards 4 . Breach of that obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded.
- The landlord does not dispute that a HH compliance statement was not included in the agreement as required. The evidence also shows that after she had her own assessment done, which showed the premises were not HH compliant, the 2 S.13A(1CA) RTA 3 S.45(1AC) RTA 4 S.45(1)(bb) RTA tenant asked for a copy of the landlords’ HH assessment. The landlord did not provide it and responded that she should look for somewhere else to live.
- Each of those failures to provide the tenant with HH information she was entitled to about the premises’ HH compliance, is 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 interests of the other party, and the public interest. 5
- The breaches were intentional. The landlord consciously and intentionally committed those acts. It is not necessary that he intended to act unlawfully.
- The landlord says that he had a HH assessment done in late November 2025 but did not receive the report itself and certificate of compliance until 30 March 2026. Both the November 2025 report and the March 2026 certificate were provided in evidence – and were seen by the tenant for the first time at the hearing. The landlord says he told the tenant the premises were compliant, as shown by the assessment, and did not have the report to give her when she asked for it.
- My assessment of the evidence is that the landlord simply declined to provide the tenant with information about the premises’ HH compliance. When she asked for information, she was entitled to, the landlord made no effort to provide it and simply suggested she move somewhere else. There is no reasonable basis shown in the evidence on which the landlord should have withheld HH information the tenant was entitled to and had requested.
- That is a fundamental breach of the tenant’s right to be provided with available information about the HH compliance of premises she was occupying.
- The effect on the tenant, apart from having her rights disrespected, was to have to pay for her own HH assessment to be done.
- Both the failure to provide required HH information in the agreement and the failure to provide it later when the tenant asked for it, are facets of the same fundamental breach by the landlord to provide required compliance information to the tenant. For that reason, it would not be just to make separate awards of exemplary damages for each breach. It would be just to make one award of the maximum specified, to reflect the extent of the breach and that more than one unlawful act was committed. HH compliance
- The landlord’s HH assessment reports that that the premises complied with the HH heating standard because there is a heat pump installed with the required 5 S.109(3) RTA heating capacity. The tenant’s HH assessment suggests that the premises did not comply with the heating standard because the heat pump is older than 2019, meaning that additional heating is required.
- With respect, that is not how I interpret the HH hearing standard 6 which only requires that there be heating of the required capacity in the living space. I do not find it proved that the premises failed comply with the HH heating standard.
- The landlord’s HH assessment says that no unreasonable gaps or holes were found at the time of the assessment in November 2025. The assessment done for the for the tenant in March 2026 finds that there were.
- Neither of the assessors was called to give evidence so the Tribunal has no basis to prefer one assessment over the other. If both are taken at face value, they show that at the start of the tenancy the premises complied with the draught stopping standard but by March 2026 they did not.
- The tenant says that the assessor found that the internal ventilation system was not working properly but I can find no evidence about that in the report.
- I find it proved on balance that the premises did not meet the HH draught stopping standard when the March 2026 assessment was done. That means the landlord committed an unlawful act.
- No award of exemplary damages should be made. The landlord is entitled to rely on the HH assessment he had done in November 2025. His breach cannot be said to be intentional.
- Whether or not the breach was intentional, if the breach caused the tenant a loss in terms of her use and enjoyment of the premises, compensation ought to be paid.
- The issues raised by the tenant with the premises being very cold, which led her to ask the landlord about the premises HH compliance and get her own assessment done, are more likely than not to have been made worse by the premises’ failure to comply with the draught stopping standard. I find that compensation equal to 1 weeks’ rent would be fair for the effect on her use and enjoyment of the premises. Termination Notice
- The landlord issued the tenant a 42 notice of termination on 30 April 2026 requiring that she vacate by 14 June. 6 Reg 8-10 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019
- The tenant claims that the notice was retaliatory, having been motivated by her exercising her rights as a tenant by giving the landlord the notice to remedy she gave him a few days before, on 26 April.
- Mr S, an employee of the landlord gave evidence that his father had been intending to visit NZ for a year, so Mr S asked the landlord if he could rent the premises as his current accommodation was too small. The landlord says that is the reason he issued the termination notice to the tenant.
- Having heard that evidence I find that while the tenant’s suspicion that there was a connection between her notice to remedy and the landlord’s notice of termination is understandable, I do not find it proved that the landlord’s termination notice had that retaliatory motive.
- The notice was however unlawful.
- The notice stated that: 7 “the landlord customarily uses the premises, or has acquired the premises, for occupation by employees of the landlord or by contractors under contracts for services with the landlord, and—(i) that fact is clearly stated in the tenancy agreement; and (ii) the premises are required for that use.”
- First, as confirmed by Mr S’ evidence, these premises had never been used for accommodation of the landlord’s employees or contractors.
- Second, there is no mention of that in the agreement.
- A landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so 8 .
- Breaching that obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00.
- The landlord says that he was not aware that the notice was unlawful. With respect, the landlord signed a notice containing statements he knew not to be true. I find that the landlord committed an unlawful act by giving that termination notice. It was intentionally given.
- In deciding whether it would be just to make an award of exemplary damages I take into account: a. the flagrant misstatements in the notice; b. that the landlord was entitled to end the tenancy on 90 days’ notice anyway; c. that the effect of the unlawful notice was mitigated because that notice did not end the tenancy, it ended through the tenant’s breach of the Mediator’s Order; 7 Per s.51(2)(c) RTA 8 S. 60AA RTA d. there is a public interest in landlords not, “making up” circumstances to enable them to end tenancies with shorter notice than would otherwise be required.
- Balancing those considerations, I find that an award of exemplary damages of $1,000.00 would be just.
- The tenant has had claims upheld and I reimburse the filing fee.