Most of us are fully aware that one of the hallmark obligations of being a landlord is to provide our tenants with a safe and healthy home. However, there
isn’t a lot of instructive authority beyond the wordings of s45 of the Residential Tenancies Act.  Amongst other things, s45 requires landlords
to: 

…

(b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which
the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; and

…

(c) comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises; and

…

The general nature of the language used in subsections (b) and (c) can be problematic for landlords. What is reasonable for one can be entirely
ludicrous to another.  ‘Any enactment’ comes across like a cynical catch-all that overwhelms even the most experienced investor (especially in
the post-Perry era). On top of which, health-and-safety has been de rigueur
in New Zealand for quite some time, the scope of these obligations will only continue to grow.  

For the time being, at least, Tribunal decisions such as Bosley v ETB Realty Limited [2017] NZTT Rotorua 4099875 give landlords ample guidance as to what it takes to provide a safe and healthy rental. 

The tenants in Bosley applied for the Tribunal to consider three s45 infringements. Specifically, the complaint relates to dampness, lack of hot water,
and leaky garage. The dampness claim collapsed due to insufficient proof and the evidence on hand suggesting the root cause to be the way of living