What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5050049 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 5050049?

Compensation: HHS Breach: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5050049?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5050049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11848435-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5050049 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 5050049?

Compensation: HHS Breach: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5050049?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5050049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11848435-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3A Bryers Place, Bayview, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5050049 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5050049 — net $3,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: HHS Breach	$3,500.00	HHS Breach
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,527.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Hendo Holdings Limited T/As Quinovic Property Management - Takapuna As Agent For Hai Huang must pay [The tenant/s] $3,527.00 immediately, as per below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 24 March 2025.
The tenancy was from 21 April 2022 until 1 September 2024.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant applied to the Tribunal for the premises having not met the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) with issues with insulation, ventilation and the heating source. The tenant said that as a result, there was persistent black mould in the bathroom, as well as increased heating costs, discomfort and health risks.
The tenant also said that the landlord had misled them in relation to HHS compliance, failed to provide the necessary HHS information, failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, that the premises was not reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenant sought compensation for initial move-in cleaning, extra electricity spent to heat the premises due to lack of insulation as well as having to have windows open while cooking to prevent smoke build-up, and for significant psychological and emotional stress due to their health concerns, anxiety, inconvenience and loss of amenity.
The tenant said that also there had been a “rent reduction” that was not factored into the account summary and that the tenant had never been compensated for. Healthy Homes Standards
The landlord’s agent accepted that the premises did not comply with HHS within the required 90 days from the start of the tenancy.
The first HHS assessment of the premises took place on 20 April 2022. The premises complied with the drainage and guttering and moisture barrier but had failed on the heating, insulation, ventilation and draughts.
A second HHS assessment report was completed on 28 July 2022 where it was noted that the insulation needed topping up, and that ventilation and heating standards were still not met.
There had been a panel heater provided originally. There was a dispute between the parties as to whether a conversation had taken place previously regarding installation of another panel heater or a heat pump. The landlord’s agent said that the heat pump installation was always going to take longer to install than another panel heater and that the tenant had been told about it.
Regardless of whether that conversation took place or not, a heat pump was eventually installed in September 2022.
The insulation was finally topped up on 22 November 2023. This was some 19 months after the tenants have moved in. The landlord’s agent explained that there was a delay due to the landlord’s ill health situation in getting permissions to do the work.
Regarding the lack of ventilation in the kitchen, there were two assessments done on 6 May 2022 and on 25 May 2024 and both found that a rangehood could not be installed due to the structure of the house itself. Therefore, the kitchen ventilation was exempt for HHS.
In relation to the HHS compliance record, the landlord’s agent said that a hardcopy was provided in April 2022 but the tenant had an email from 6 November 2023 requesting a copy from the landlord. The tenant’s email seemed to support that they had not received a copy of it before November 2023.
Whether a copy of the HHS compliance record was provided in April 2022 or November 2023 or not does not change the fact that the premises was not compliant with HHS by the due date. It only became compliant after the insulation work had finished on 22 November 2023.
Failing to comply with the HHS is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
I find that the landlord has committed 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. See section 109(3) RTA.
HHS compliance is fundamental to a healthy tenancy. The landlord’s agent is a professional tenancy manager and should have ensured that the HHS was compliant by the due date.
With previous 2 HHS reports, I find that the failure was intentional and that it had significant impact on the tenant. There is public interest in denouncing this and awarding exemplary damages.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $3,500.00 in exemplary damages for failing to meet HHS. This includes the lack of HHS information provided to the tenant. Failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state
The tenant raised issues with the premises not having been provided in a clean state and said that the shower grouting was unreasonably mouldy.
The landlord’s agent provided entry inspection photos that showed that the premises was reasonably clean and that the shower grouting was free from mould at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenant had raised issues with the landlord’s agent multiple times regarding the shower grouting and it was replaced on 4 October 2023.
The tenant said that the grouting became mouldy again but accepted that the issue was not raised in writing again.
The grouting was replaced by the landlord again in September 2024 after the tenant moved out.
It seemed that the grouting was particularly prone to becoming mouldy as there was a shower dome on the shower.
I find that the landlord had attended to the grouting as required when the issue was raised properly in writing.
I do not find that these claims have been proven. Rent reduction
The tenant had sought a compensation of $3,214.29 for compensation for $45.00 per week rent reduction.
The landlord’s agent explained that it was a miscommunication and provided evidence that what was said was that the rent would not be increased by $45.00 per week due to the insulation and ventilation issues.
That was not a “rent reduction” of $45.00 per week.
There was never anything for compensation for unaccounted rent reduction.
Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Compensation for electricity, stress and loss of amenity
Although it is acknowledged that there would have been some extra electricity costs incurred due to the premises not meeting the HHS and there would have been psychological and emotional stress, I have factored these into account with the exemplary damages award above. Filing fee reimbursement
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the landlord to reimburse the tenant’s filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5050049 — net $3,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: HHS Breach	$3,500.00	HHS Breach
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,527.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Hendo Holdings Limited T/As Quinovic Property Management - Takapuna As Agent For Hai Huang must pay [The tenant/s] $3,527.00 immediately, as per below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 24 March 2025.
The tenancy was from 21 April 2022 until 1 September 2024.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant applied to the Tribunal for the premises having not met the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) with issues with insulation, ventilation and the heating source. The tenant said that as a result, there was persistent black mould in the bathroom, as well as increased heating costs, discomfort and health risks.
The tenant also said that the landlord had misled them in relation to HHS compliance, failed to provide the necessary HHS information, failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, that the premises was not reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenant sought compensation for initial move-in cleaning, extra electricity spent to heat the premises due to lack of insulation as well as having to have windows open while cooking to prevent smoke build-up, and for significant psychological and emotional stress due to their health concerns, anxiety, inconvenience and loss of amenity.
The tenant said that also there had been a “rent reduction” that was not factored into the account summary and that the tenant had never been compensated for. Healthy Homes Standards
The landlord’s agent accepted that the premises did not comply with HHS within the required 90 days from the start of the tenancy.
The first HHS assessment of the premises took place on 20 April 2022. The premises complied with the drainage and guttering and moisture barrier but had failed on the heating, insulation, ventilation and draughts.
A second HHS assessment report was completed on 28 July 2022 where it was noted that the insulation needed topping up, and that ventilation and heating standards were still not met.
There had been a panel heater provided originally. There was a dispute between the parties as to whether a conversation had taken place previously regarding installation of another panel heater or a heat pump. The landlord’s agent said that the heat pump installation was always going to take longer to install than another panel heater and that the tenant had been told about it.
Regardless of whether that conversation took place or not, a heat pump was eventually installed in September 2022.
The insulation was finally topped up on 22 November 2023. This was some 19 months after the tenants have moved in. The landlord’s agent explained that there was a delay due to the landlord’s ill health situation in getting permissions to do the work.
Regarding the lack of ventilation in the kitchen, there were two assessments done on 6 May 2022 and on 25 May 2024 and both found that a rangehood could not be installed due to the structure of the house itself. Therefore, the kitchen ventilation was exempt for HHS.
In relation to the HHS compliance record, the landlord’s agent said that a hardcopy was provided in April 2022 but the tenant had an email from 6 November 2023 requesting a copy from the landlord. The tenant’s email seemed to support that they had not received a copy of it before November 2023.
Whether a copy of the HHS compliance record was provided in April 2022 or November 2023 or not does not change the fact that the premises was not compliant with HHS by the due date. It only became compliant after the insulation work had finished on 22 November 2023.
Failing to comply with the HHS is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
I find that the landlord has committed 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. See section 109(3) RTA.
HHS compliance is fundamental to a healthy tenancy. The landlord’s agent is a professional tenancy manager and should have ensured that the HHS was compliant by the due date.
With previous 2 HHS reports, I find that the failure was intentional and that it had significant impact on the tenant. There is public interest in denouncing this and awarding exemplary damages.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $3,500.00 in exemplary damages for failing to meet HHS. This includes the lack of HHS information provided to the tenant. Failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state
The tenant raised issues with the premises not having been provided in a clean state and said that the shower grouting was unreasonably mouldy.
The landlord’s agent provided entry inspection photos that showed that the premises was reasonably clean and that the shower grouting was free from mould at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenant had raised issues with the landlord’s agent multiple times regarding the shower grouting and it was replaced on 4 October 2023.
The tenant said that the grouting became mouldy again but accepted that the issue was not raised in writing again.
The grouting was replaced by the landlord again in September 2024 after the tenant moved out.
It seemed that the grouting was particularly prone to becoming mouldy as there was a shower dome on the shower.
I find that the landlord had attended to the grouting as required when the issue was raised properly in writing.
I do not find that these claims have been proven. Rent reduction
The tenant had sought a compensation of $3,214.29 for compensation for $45.00 per week rent reduction.
The landlord’s agent explained that it was a miscommunication and provided evidence that what was said was that the rent would not be increased by $45.00 per week due to the insulation and ventilation issues.
That was not a “rent reduction” of $45.00 per week.
There was never anything for compensation for unaccounted rent reduction.
Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Compensation for electricity, stress and loss of amenity
Although it is acknowledged that there would have been some extra electricity costs incurred due to the premises not meeting the HHS and there would have been psychological and emotional stress, I have factored these into account with the exemplary damages award above. Filing fee reimbursement
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the landlord to reimburse the tenant’s filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5050049 — Healthy homes at 3A Bryers Place, Bayview, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5050049 — Healthy homes at 3A Bryers Place, Bayview, Auckland 0629

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