Tenant Wins Compensation and Exemplary Damages for Compliance Issues

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5344361 1

[2026] NZTT 5344361

TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT AUCKLAND | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU

APPLICANT: [redacted]

Tenant

RESPONDENT: [redacted]

Landlord

TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/Flat 614, 10 Waterloo Quadrant, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010, The Quadrant on Waterloo

ORDER

1. [NAME] must pay [NAME] $328.00 immediately.

Description Landlord Tenant Compensation: loss of amenity $150.00 Exemplary damages: failure to provide [COMPANY] compliance records

$150.00

Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total award $328.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $328.00

Reasons:

Introduction

1. The hearing was held in person on 18 June 2026.

2. The tenant, [NAME], attended the hearing.

3. The landlord, [NAME], attended the hearing.

4. [NAME] attended the hearing and assisted [NAME] with maintenance and management matters relating to the tenancy.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5344361 2

5. [NAME] attended as the Tribunal-appointed Mandarin interpreter.

6. The hearing commenced in English but subsequently proceeded in Mandarin to enable the parties to give their evidence more comfortably. [NAME] remained available throughout the hearing to assist with interpretation where required.

Background

7. Prior to arriving in New Zealand, the tenant was seeking accommodation in Auckland while commencing postgraduate study.

8. The tenant's evidence was that he initially believed he would be renting Unit 2301, a unit owned by the landlord. He said viewing arrangements had been discussed before his arrival.

9. The landlord's evidence was that Unit 2301 remained under [COMPANY] and ultimately could not be made available at the time required. She said she explained this to the tenant and his agent and made considerable efforts to locate alternative accommodation in the same building.

10. Shortly before the tenant arrived in New Zealand, arrangements were made for him to occupy Unit 614.

11. The tenant arrived in Auckland on 9 August 2024 and took possession of Unit 614 that evening.

12. The tenancy agreement recorded weekly rent of $410. The agreement also provided for an additional payment of $30 per week for power and internet services.

13. A bond of $1,640 was lodged with Tenancy Services.

14. The tenant remained in Unit 614 until 15 October 2024, a period of approximately nine weeks and six days, before transferring to Unit 2301. He remained in Unit 2301 until the tenancy ended in August 2025.

15. During September 2024, the tenant raised concerns regarding the condition of Unit 614, including mould, insects, insect corpses, dust and a rusted microwave.

16. The parties subsequently exchanged numerous emails and messages regarding these issues.

The tenant’s claims

17. [NAME]'s application raises four principal issues;

a. The landlord failed to lodge the correct bond amount with Tenancy Services;

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5344361 3

b. The premises were not provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and were not adequately maintained;

c. The landlord failed to include a statement relating to the [COMPANY] in the tenancy agreement and failed to provide [COMPANY] compliance records upon request; and

d. Compensation should be awarded.

The tenant’s submissions

18. The tenant said that when he arrived in Auckland on 9 August 2024 he met [NAME] at Unit 614 and signed the tenancy agreement electronically.

19. He said that it was winter, the premises were viewed in the evening after dark, and he conducted only a brief inspection because he had recently arrived in New Zealand and was carrying multiple suitcases.

20. The tenant stated that after settling into the premises he discovered a number of problems which were not apparent during the initial inspection.

21. These included mould on curtains, visible black mould along the edge of a wall adjacent to a recessed surface, insect bodies, an insect (a spider), excessive dust, a rusted microwave, and general cleanliness concerns.

22. The tenant said he formally complained by email on 5 September 2024.

23. He disputed the landlord's assertion that he waited two months before complaining and pointed to the email correspondence showing that his complaint was made less than one month after taking possession.

24. The tenant produced photographs and a video recorded on 10 September 2024 showing mould, an insect, insect corpses, dust and the condition of the microwave.

25. He submitted that the mould could not have developed within a matter of days and that the rust visible in the microwave must have existed long before he moved into the premises.

26. The tenant argued that the landlord's pre-tenancy video failed to show important areas where mould was later identified, including behind curtains and certain corners of the room.

27. He said he had no reason to create or exaggerate the issues because he was living in the premises himself.

28. The tenant further submitted that the landlord consistently refused to acknowledge responsibility for any of the issues identified.

29. In relation to the bond, the tenant said that he paid a total of $440 per week and therefore believed the bond should have been calculated using that amount.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5344361 4

30. He accepted that the tenancy agreement referred to rent of $410 per week but maintained that he had paid a bond equivalent to four weeks at $440 per week.

31. The tenant also complained that the [COMPANY] and insurance sections of the tenancy agreement had been crossed out.

32. He said he was unfamiliar with New Zealand tenancy law when he arrived and did not understand the significance of those provisions.

33. He submitted that no [COMPANY] report or compliance records were ever provided for Unit 614 despite his request.

34. The tenant stated that the tenancy caused him considerable frustration and stress and that he sought recognition that the landlord had acted unlawfully.

The landlord’s submissions

35. The landlord said she became involved in assisting the tenant because he required accommodation shortly before arriving in New Zealand. Unit 2301 could not be made available because it remained under [COMPANY]. The landlord said she made extensive efforts to find alternative accommodation within the same building and ultimately arranged for the tenant to occupy Unit 614.

36. The landlord said that before the tenancy commenced, [NAME] attended the property with building management and recorded a video showing its condition. She submitted that the video demonstrated the apartment was reasonably clean and tidy immediately before commencement of the tenancy. The landlord disputed the tenant's suggestion that he was pressured into signing the tenancy agreement and said photographs and video footage had been provided beforehand.

37. The landlord initially stated that the tenant did not complain until approximately two months after moving into the premises. During the hearing she accepted that this was incorrect and corrected her evidence, acknowledging that the first formal complaint was made in early September 2024, approximately one month after the tenancy commenced.

38. The landlord submitted that mould can develop because of humidity, condensation and ventilation issues. She argued that the mould identified in September 2024 did not establish that the property was in that condition when possession was given. Similar submissions were made regarding the insect and insect corpses. The landlord said the apartment contained a large sliding door and balcony area and that insects entering the premises was not unusual.

39. The landlord accepted that the microwave was in an unsatisfactory condition. She said that once the issue was brought to her attention she contacted building management and sought a replacement. When the replacement

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5344361 5

microwave supplied by management was also unsatisfactory, she arranged for a new microwave to be purchased and delivered to the tenant. The landlord submitted that she responded promptly to the tenant's maintenance concerns and also offered pest treatment and replacement or cleaning of the curtains.

40. Regarding the bond, the landlord submitted that the tenancy agreement clearly separated rent from utility charges. She said the weekly rent was $410 and the additional $30 represented power and internet costs. Accordingly, she submitted that the bond was correctly lodged at $1,640.

41. In relation to [COMPANY] obligations, the landlord stated that she believed the apartment complied because it formed part of a hotel-style apartment complex operating under body corporate arrangements. She accepted that the [COMPANY] statement in the tenancy agreement had been crossed out but denied any intention to mislead the tenant or avoid legal obligations.

[NAME]’s evidence

42. [NAME] confirmed that he attended Unit 614 before commencement of the tenancy and recorded a video showing the condition of the premises. He believed the apartment complied with the [COMPANY] and acknowledged crossing out the [COMPANY] statement in the tenancy agreement because he considered the apartment already met the applicable requirements.

Discussions and findings

Bond lodgement

43. The tenant claims the landlord did not correctly lodge the bond with Tenancy Services within the required time.

44. A landlord must lodge a bond with Tenancy Services within 23 working days after receiving it. See s 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

45. The tenant submits that because he paid $440 per week, the bond should have been calculated using that amount.

46. I do not accept that submission.

47. The tenancy agreement clearly records weekly rent of $410. The agreement separately records a payment of $30 per week for power and internet services.

48. Section 19 of the Act permits a bond of up to four weeks' rent. Four weeks' rent at $410 per week equals $1,640.

49. The landlord lodged $1,640 with Tenancy Services.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5344361 6

50. Accordingly, the landlord complied with her obligations regarding bond lodgement.

51. The bond claim is dismissed.

Maintenance issues

52. The tenant claims that the landlord breached her obligations under s 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

53. Under s 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and comply with any relevant enactment relating to buildings, health and safety.

54. The tenant alleges that the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.

55. It is unfortunate that the landlord did not complete a written pre-tenancy inspection report. However, a video recorded on 8 August 2024 was produced.

56. Having viewed that video, I am satisfied that on its face the premises appeared reasonably clean and tidy immediately before commencement of the tenancy.

57. I accept the tenant's submission that the video does not show every area of the premises. I also accept that some of the mould identified by the tenant was located in places not clearly visible in the landlord's video.

58. However, there is approximately one month between the landlord's video and the tenant's video.

59. I cannot simply assume that mould, dust, insects or insect corpses present in September 2024 were necessarily present when possession was given in August 2024. Mould growth may result from a range of factors including humidity, condensation and inadequate ventilation. Curtains and corner wall areas are common locations where mould may develop and where dust may accumulate. Similarly, while the tenant's photographs demonstrate the presence of an insect and insect corpses in September 2024, I cannot conclude they were present when possession was given, nor can I exclude the possibility that they entered the premises after the tenancy commenced.

60. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the mould, insects, insect corpses or dust establish a breach of the landlord's obligations at the commencement of the tenancy.

61. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the tenant has discharged the burden of proving that the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.

62. The claims relating to mould, insects, insect corpses and dust are dismissed.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5344361 7

Microwave

63. The microwave requires separate consideration.

64. The photographs clearly show rust within the microwave. Unlike mould or insects, rust does not develop over a short period.

65. I infer that the rust was present well before the tenant took possession of the premises.

66. I accept that the landlord subsequently arranged replacement of the microwave.

67. However, the condition of the original microwave resulted in a loss of amenity to the tenant.

68. The tenant expressed genuine concerns regarding its safety and was unable to use it comfortably.

69. There is insufficient evidence to establish that the microwave was unsafe or that the landlord breached s 45(1)(c) of the Act. Nevertheless, compensation is appropriate for the loss of amenity experienced.

70. I assess that compensation at $150.

Failure to include a [COMPANY] statement in the tenancy agreement

71. The issue concerning the [COMPANY] statement relates to s 13A(1CA) of the Act.

72. It is common ground that the [COMPANY] statement in the tenancy agreement was completely crossed out. The landlord accepts this occurred.

73. The landlord relies on the fact that the apartment formed part of a hotel-style complex. However, no evidence was produced establishing that this relieved the landlord of her statutory obligations under the Act.

74. Section 13A(1CA) requires a tenancy agreement to contain a signed statement regarding [COMPANY] compliance.

75. The statutory language is mandatory. By crossing out the statement entirely, the landlord failed to comply with that requirement.

76. I therefore find that the landlord committed an unlawful act.

77. However, the tenant has not established any identifiable loss arising specifically from the omission of the statement.

78. Accordingly, no compensatory award is made for failure to provide a [COMPANY] statement.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5344361 8

Failure to provide [COMPANY] compliance records

79. The tenant claims that the landlord breached her obligations under s 45(1AC) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

80. Under s 45(1AC), a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, provide records or other documents relating to the landlord's compliance with the [COMPANY] within 21 days after receiving the request.

81. Breaching that obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750. See s 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A of the Act.

82. The landlord's position in relation to this claim is essentially the same as her position regarding the omission of the [COMPANY] statement. She says she believed the body corporate or [COMPANY] was responsible for [COMPANY] compliance. In my view, this explanation is not a reasonable excuse. Rather, it is ignorance of her statutory obligation.

83. Whether the landlord was correct about the compliance issue is not determinative. Section 45(1AC) required her to obtain the relevant information and provide it to the tenant upon request. She did not do so.

84. I therefore find that the landlord committed an unlawful act.

Exemplary damage

85. Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied it would be just to do so having regard to the factors set out in s 109(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

86. I have considered whether exemplary damages should be awarded in relation to the [COMPANY] issues.

87. I do not consider the landlord's failure to include a signed [COMPANY] statement in the tenancy agreement, as required by s 13A(1CA) of the Act, to have been intentional. It is a fact that the apartment was subject to a body corporate arrangement. If the body corporate was responsible for [COMPANY] compliance, that does not mean the landlord was not required to sign the statement. While the landlord’s failure was apparent, I am not satisfied that the omission was intentional.

88. The position is different in relation to the landlord's failure to provide [COMPANY] compliance records under s 45(1AC) of the Act.

89. Whether the body corporate, [COMPANY], or another entity had responsibility for compliance is beside the point. Section 45(1AC) requires a landlord to provide [COMPANY] compliance records when requested by a tenant.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5344361 9

90. The landlord did not do so. More importantly, it did not appear from the evidence that the landlord made any inquiry at all regarding the existence of those records. Instead, the landlord appears to have assumed that because the apartment formed part of a hotel-style complex, compliance existed and no further action was required.

91. In my view, that assumption was insufficient to discharge her statutory obligation. The landlord remained responsible for obtaining the relevant information and providing it to the tenant within the statutory timeframe.

92. I accept that the landlord may have genuinely believed the apartment complied with the [COMPANY]. However, the failure to make any inquiry regarding compliance records demonstrates a disregard of the obligations imposed by s 45(1AC) of the Act.

93. Taking into account the nature of the breach, the landlord's conduct, and the public interest in ensuring compliance with requests for [COMPANY] information, I consider an award of exemplary damages is justified.

94. I award exemplary damages of $150.

Filing fee

95. [NAME] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee

M Kan

18 June 2026

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5344361 10

Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.

Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.

You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf

Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals

Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order, or the failure to make an order, where the amount in dispute on appeal is

less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work, or the failure to make an order, where the value of the

work in dispute on appeal is less than $1000.

Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.

Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.

If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].

Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.

https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5344361 11

A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].

Reasons: