What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5034575 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5034575?

Compensation: Spa Pool: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034575?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034575?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11893355-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5034575 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5034575?

Compensation: Spa Pool: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034575?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034575?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11893355-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5034575 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5034575 — net $2,677.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Providing incorrect information in healthy homes statement	$150.00	Providing incorrect information in healthy homes statement
Exemplary damages: Failure to meet healthy homes standards	$2,400.00	22. I will award exemplary damages of $150.00.
Compensation: spa pool	$100.00	spa pool
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	68. I will award $100.00.
Net award	$2,677.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,677.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5034575 — net $2,677.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Providing incorrect information in healthy homes statement	$150.00	Providing incorrect information in healthy homes statement
Exemplary damages: Failure to meet healthy homes standards	$2,400.00	22. I will award exemplary damages of $150.00.
Compensation: spa pool	$100.00	spa pool
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	68. I will award $100.00.
Net award	$2,677.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,677.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
must pay immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 15 January 2024 and ended on 15 January 2025.
The tenant’s application seeks exemplary damages and compensation for failure to meet the healthy homes standards, failure to provide accurate healthy homes information, and failure to maintain.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 24 April 2025. Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Leane represented Barfoot & Thompson. Tenant’s application summary
[The tenant/s] helpfully provided a summarised breakdown of her claim, referencing the relevant sections of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Her claim seeks damages for: a. Failure to provide healthy homes information upon request. b. Inaccurate information in the healthy homes statement. c. Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair in respect of: i. the fireplace; and ii. the spa pool; and iii. the toilet and shower in the main bathroom. Healthy homes information
Landlords must: a. Provide certain information to the tenant upon request, including specified documents relating to the landlord’s compliance with the healthy homes standards (section 45(1AC RTA). b. Include a statement in the tenancy agreement that at the commencement of the tenancy the landlord has complied or will comply with the healthy homes standards (section 13A(1CA) RTA).
[The tenant/s]’s concern under these headings is that the written tenancy agreement states that the premises complied with healthy homes standards at the commencement of the tenancy. They did not.
The landlord obtained a healthy homes report in April 2024 which identified that the premises did not comply with the standards in several respects, as discussed in detail below.
It is important to note that the two healthy homes information obligations described above are different and separate.
Section 45(1AC) only applies if a tenant specifically requests for certain information, including healthy homes documents of a type that the landlord is legally required to retain. The landlord does not have a duty to provide the information if the tenant doesn’t ask. If the tenant does ask, the landlord only has a duty to provide documents that are in the category described by the relevant sections of the RTA and the regulations made under the RTA. 1
Section 13A(1CA) requires the landlord to have a healthy homes statement in the tenancy agreement whether the tenant asks for it or not. The healthy homes statement is just a statement – the landlord is not required to provide evidence of compliance, or healthy homes assessment reports. They must simply state that either the premises comply at the start of the tenancy, or they will comply by the compliance date (120 days from the start of the tenancy).
In this instance: a. There is no evidence that the tenant made a request for healthy homes documents that the landlord failed to respond to. b. There was a healthy homes statement in the tenancy agreement. c. There was inaccurate information in the healthy homes statement.
Ms Leane acknowledged that the healthy homes statement in the tenancy agreement was not correct. The property did not comply with the healthy homes standards at the start of the tenancy.
Ms Leane said that this was an error on her part. She simply ticked the wrong box in the tenancy agreement. She said that she did not know whether the premises were compliant, so she meant to tick the ‘will comply’ option.
Ms Leane’s actions after the start of the tenancy support this. In April she arranged for a healthy homes assessment of the property. This shows that Ms Leane was unsure whether or not the premises were compliant. The assessment identified some areas of non-compliance. She then took steps to bring the premises to compliance by the compliance date. Unfortunately, she did not succeed, as discussed in more detail below.
I accept that the incorrect healthy homes statement was a genuine error.
It is an unlawful act if the landlord’s healthy homes statement “includes anything that the landlord knows to be false or misleading”. 2 Exemplary damages of up to $900 can apply.
Although Ms Leane did not intentionally provide false information, she did unintentionally provide information that she knew was false. Therefore, I find 1 Section 123A(1)(e) RTA and Regulation 40, Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 2 Section 13A(1F)(b) RTA that it is appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages. However, the fact that this was a genuine error on Ms Leane’s part is a very relevant mitigating factor when considering an appropriate award of exemplary damages.
In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal is required to consider: 3 a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
The usual approach of the Tribunal to exemplary damages is to award one-third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 4
As noted above, the absence of intention to provide false information is a mitigating factor here.
I will award exemplary damages of $150.00. Failure to meet healthy homes standards
Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards. 5 A breach of this duty is an unlawful act. Exemplary damages of up to $7200 can apply.
The healthy homes compliance date for this tenancy was 14 May 2024.
The landlord obtained a healthy homes assessment report on 15 April 2024. I was provided with a copy of that report, prepared by [a healthy homes assessor].
The report states the house was compliant with the heating and draught stopping standards, but not compliant with the insulation, ventilation, and moisture & drainage standards.
The non-compliance issues were: a. The insulation in the ceiling was a maximum of 70mm thick and was in poor condition. Ceiling insulation must be a minimum of 120mm thick. b. The extraction fans in the ensuite and main bathroom did not vent to the outside. c. There was a build up of moss in the gutters. 3 Section 109 RTA 4 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781 5 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA
In response to the report, Ms Leane engaged relevant contractors to remedy the non-compliance issues.
The property was not healthy homes compliant by 14 May.
The landlord understood that they had achieved compliance by 18 July 2024.
The landlord’s submissions attribute the delay, at least in part, to difficulties with contacting the tenant and/or the tenant changing or cancelling appointments.
There is little evidence to support this submission, and it underplays the landlord’s responsibility in the failure to achieve compliance by the compliance date.
The landlord chose to enter into the tenancy not knowing whether the home was compliant. The landlord obtained an assessment report four weeks before the compliance date. Given the difficulties with access to tradespeople in the [Event location suppressed] area, there was always a risk that remedial work could not be done in time if it was required.
Barfoot & Thompson’s own timeline shows that they did not request a quote for topping up the insulation until 26 June.
The submissions made on behalf of the landlord display a concerningly “relaxed” attitude towards compliance with the healthy homes standards.
This is not reflected in the law. The law simply states that the landlord must meet the healthy homes standards and that failure to do so is an unlawful act, subject to exemplary damages of up to $7,200.
In this instance, the landlord did not comply with the healthy homes standards. It is appropriate to award exemplary damages.
I noted above that the Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. I also set out the particular considerations that the Tribunal is required to have regard to.
In this instance: a. The landlord did not intend to fail to meet the healthy homes standards, but they did not take timely steps to achieve compliance despite having the opportunity to do so and, as noted above, their approach to compliance was excessively casual. b. The house failed to meet three of the five standards, but the compliance issues were relatively minor. c. There is no evidence that the house was damp or cold. d. The house was substantially compliant by July, although it was not technically completely compliant until November. e. The situation was frustrating for [The tenant/s], particularly given that she entered into this tenancy on the understanding that the house was healthy homes compliant at the commencement. f. There is a legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords are held to their duty to meet the healthy homes standards. The standards have been in place for more than five years. The level of exemplary damages for breach indicates the seriousness of this requirement.
Having regard to these factors I will award exemplary damages of $2,400.00. Woodburner
The means of heating in the home is a woodburner in the lounge.
On 28 April, Barfoot & Thompson sent an email to its contractor to carry out a chimney sweep on all of its properties with fireplaces, including these premises.
The contractor came on 11 June 2024. It was then discovered that the woodburner needed some repairs before it could be safely used.
The repair work was completed on 27 June.
Landlords have a duty to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 6 This does not amount to a warranty by the landlord that every part of the property must be in perfect working order all of the time. 7 Rather, it is a duty to attend promptly and appropriately to maintenance issues that come to the landlord’s attention. 8
In this instance: a. The landlord was not aware of any problem with the woodburner at the beginning of the tenancy. b. It was reasonable for Barfoot & Thompson to initiate chimney sweeping / checking in late April, in preparation for winter. c. This is obviously the time of year when fireplace contractors are busiest, and the fact that the contractor did not attend to this property until 11 June is not an unreasonable or excessive delay. d. Once the problem came to the landlord’s attention, it was attended to and remedied promptly.
[The tenant/s] did suffer some loss of amenity over the period 11 June to 27 June, when she could not use the fireplace. However, given the relatively short 6 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 7 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762 8 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431 timeframe and the absence of any fault / breach by the landlord, I will not make an award of compensation. Bathroom
On 4 June [The tenant/s] informed Ms Leane about a problem with the toilet in the downstairs bathroom and also a problem with the shower in that same room.
Plumbers attended on 11 June and were able to fix the toilet but required parts to fix the shower.
They returned and completed the shower repair on 4 July.
The property has two bathrooms, but [The tenant/s] said that showering in the other bathroom is not ideal because the steam tends to set off the smoke alarm.
Applying the principles set out above, my findings are that: a. The landlord met its maintenance obligation by attending to the repair promptly and appropriately. b. The loss of amenity was minor.
I will not make an award of compensation or exemplary damages under this heading. Spa pool
On 5 June [The tenant/s] contacted Barfoot & Thompson about a problem with the spa pool, informing them that it was making a very loud noise.
Barfoot & Thompson contacted the owners. Mr Young replied to Barfoot & Thompson the same day stating: As per our original instructions when we agreed to the tenancy “the tenant is welcome to use the spa pool, however all expenses for maintaining the pool will be at the tenant’s cost”
The written tenancy agreement includes a clause relating to the spa pool. It states that the tenant is “liable for the day to day upkeep of the pool and will ensure that the pool is maintained in a clean and tidy condition”.
This clause reflects the usual allocation of costs and responsibilities per the Residential Tenancies Act – tenants are responsible for keeping the premises (including the pool) reasonably clean during the tenancy, and tenants pay any costs relating to their use of the pool (chemicals, etc). However, landlords remain responsible for maintenance.
If the owners intended to exclude the pool entirely from the property from their legal duty to maintain, the clause in the tenancy agreement does not achieve this.
Ms Leane’s timeline states that on 18 June they sent [The tenant/s] an email stating that she had asked the owners for approval for repairs to the spa and that she was awaiting their response. In fact, the owners had replied on 5 June clearly stating that they would not pay for maintenance of the spa pool.
On 25 June, [The tenant/s] sent Barfoot & Thompson a lengthy email about a number of issues, including the spa pool. In that email [The tenant/s] commented: I purchased over $100 worth of spa products. I logged a request for service, have sent at least three emails over a number of weeks to Jo and asked for it to be serviced – I am happy to arrange it, but the owner needs to pay for it.
Ultimately [The tenant/s] arranged for a contractor to repair the spa and Barfoot & Thompson paid for the work.
For the reasons discussed above, I am satisfied that the landlord was responsible for maintenance of the spa pool. The wording of the additional clause in the agreement did not transfer that responsibility to the tenant.
There was a delay from [The tenant/s]’s original complaint in early June to the repairs on or around 11 July. The delay was not caused by the owners. The owners responded promptly and clearly on 5 June. The delay seems to be because Barfoot & Thompson did not acknowledge the owner’s reply, and continued to tell [The tenant/s] that they were waiting to hear from the owner.
Barfoot & Thompson acted promptly after [The tenant/s]’s email on 25 June. They arranged for a meeting with [The tenant/s], and agreed that [The tenant/s] could arrange a repairer of her choosing and they paid the cost of that work.
The delay of several weeks was unfortunate and the spa pool could have been repaired more promptly – around 2-3 weeks sooner.
[The tenant/s] did suffer a loss of amenity over that period of being unable to use the spa pool due to the delay in repair. It was also frustrating for [The tenant/s] to have to follow up repeatedly about the spa pool.
It is appropriate to make a small award of compensation to reflect that minor loss of amenity.
I will award $100.00. Filing fee, name suppression
[The tenant/s] was partially successful in this application, and I will award her the filing fee of $27.00. 9
[The tenant/s] sought name suppression. I am satisfied that [The tenant/s] has been substantially successful in the proceedings. [The tenant/s] was successful in respect of the principal concern in her application, which related to healthy homes compliance. Name suppression is granted to the tenant. 10
The property manager and owner also sought name suppression. The Tribunal has a discretion to grant name suppression to any party “having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest”. 11
In support of its application, the landlord states: [name suppression is requested] on the basis that the issues that this case is about are not matters of public interest. This type of case is before the Tribunal each day, and as the landlord will present at the hearing, any oversights were not intentional and any issues were remedied. Having the owners or B&T published will have a negative impact on their reputation which outweighs any justification for publication
The proceedings of the Tenancy Tribunal are public. 12 Every final written decision of the Tribunal must be published on a public internet site. 13
The public interest consideration referred to in section 95A(4) RTA does not mean a particular public interest in unusual or precedent-setting decisions. It is a general public interest, and right of the general public to see, all of the proceedings and decisions of the Tenancy Tribunal.
In that context, section 95A(4) provides a limited discretion to the Tribunal to grant name suppression to a party if there are special reasons why it is appropriate to do so. Generally, those reasons relate to security concerns or decisions that contain private medical information about one of the parties. 14
Those considerations do not apply here. Barfoot & Thompson’s concerns about reputational damage and showing their efforts to promptly remedy “any oversights” is, in my view, adequately addressed in this decision.
The landlord’s request for name suppression is refused.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034575 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034575 — Healthy homes

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