What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5098708 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 5098708?

Compensation: Maintenance Issues: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $360.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5098708?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5098708?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11813744-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5098708 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 5098708?

Compensation: Maintenance Issues: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $360.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5098708?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5098708?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11813744-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5098708 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5098708 — net $587.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Maintenance issues	$200.00	Maintenance issues
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy homes standard for moisture ingress and drainage	$360.00	Failure to comply with healthy homes standard for moisture ingress and drainage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$587.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$587.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Penny Mckay must pay [The tenant/s] $587.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 8 March 2024 and ended on 30 November 2024.
The tenant’s application seeks compensation / exemplary damages in respect of: a. Failure to meet the healthy homes standards (drainage). b. Breach of quiet enjoyment / unlawful entry. c. Failure to maintain. d. Unlawful / retaliatory termination of the tenancy.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 2 May 2025. Both parties participated in the hearing. Healthy homes standards
At the beginning of the tenancy [The tenant/s] noted that there was a ‘gap’ in part of the guttering where the gutter had separated at a join. Ms Mckay put some tape over the gap as a temporary repair.
In or around May 2024, [The tenant/s] discovered that the downpipes discharged directly onto the ground underneath the house.
Ms Mckay instructed a plumber to address these issues. Unfortunately, they were not addressed until the end of [The tenant/s]’s tenancy.
Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards. 1 The compliance date for this tenancy was 6 July 2024.
The healthy homes standard for moisture ingress and drainage requires (amongst other things) that the property has efficient drainage for the removal of storm water, surface water, and ground water.
Ms Mckay was not aware of that the downpipes discharged onto the ground underneath the house. The outlets of the downpipes are not visible from the exterior of the property and Ms Mckay never had a reason to go underneath the house. Ms Mckay purchased the property in 2020 with a sitting tenant, and she said that the tenant never raised any issues with flooding or dampness.
[The tenant/s] only discovered the issue when she did a healthy homes audit on the house as part of the property manager training that she was undertaking at that time.
[The tenant/s] said that she did experience some pooling of water around the house / driveway during the winter that she lived there.
The healthy homes standards do not specify a particular type of drainage system, only that the system much achieve a particular outcome. The standards require that the downpipes direct water to an “appropriate outfall”.
My finding is that the property did not meet the standard for drainage. Discharge of the downpipes onto the ground underneath the house is not an “appropriate outfall”. The purpose of the stormwater drainage requirements is to reduce the risk of water pooling underneath and around the house. 1 Section 45(1)(bb) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)
Failure to meet the healthy homes standards is an unlawful act. Exemplary damages of up to $7,200 can apply. 2
In considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to: 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.
In this instance, there is no aspect of negligence or disregard by Ms Mckay. Ms Mckay reasonably understood that the premises were healthy homes compliant in all respects at the beginning of the tenancy. When the issue was brought to her attention, she promptly engaged a plumber. The delay in getting the work completed was due to inaction and poor communication by the plumber.
This does not remove Ms Mckay’s legal duty to meet the standard, and the fact that she did not justifies an award of exemplary damages, but it is a very significant mitigating factor.
It is also relevant that this is the only aspect of non-compliance (the minor gap in the guttering on its own would not amount to non-compliance) and there is little evidence about the impact that non-compliance had on [The tenant/s]’s use of the premises.
Having regard to those factors I will award exemplary damages of $360.00. Breach of quiet enjoyment / unlawful entry
Ms Mckay entered the premises on 25 September 2004 to replace the laundry light.
The laundry is in an extension on the house, so it is not necessary to go into the ‘main’ part of the house to access it.
Ms Mckay found that to replace the light she also needed to get to the main switchboard. She paused at that point and sent [The tenant/s] a message stating: I wasn’t able to finish the light in the laundry as it was connected to the mains in the house – which I would have needed to enter and turn power off Will your boyfriend be home tomorrow morning – I could come early before he goes to work: [...] 2 Section 45(1A) RTA 3 Section 109 RTA The message goes on to ask [The tenant/s] to leave the light switched off. [The tenant/s] replied: Hey Penny thank you for that, yes will do
[The tenant/s] said that she agreed to Ms Mckay entering the laundry, but she did not understand that Ms Mckay was going to go inside the house. The fact that Ms Mckay did enter the house, and subsequently made a comment about something that she saw there, was an invasion of her privacy.
I accept the principle that the landlord’s right to enter the premises to do maintenance is limited to the extent of access necessary to carry out the work.
However, in this instance I think that Ms Mckay acted appropriately by pausing the job and sending [The tenant/s] a message when it became apparent that she needed to go beyond the laundry room to carry out the job.
There was no unlawful entry or unreasonable interference with [The tenant/s]’s peace, comfort and privacy. Maintenance
Landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. 4
In practice this means that landlords must promptly and effectively address repair issues that are brought to their attention.
[The tenant/s] raised three issues under this heading: a. The laundry light. b. The shower mixer. c. The gardens. Laundry light
[The tenant/s] said that: a. The laundry light did not work from the beginning of the tenancy. b. This was brought to Ms Mckay’s attention at the start of the tenancy, and Ms Mckay said that she would fix it. c. She followed up on it several times. d. It was not resolved until late September. 4 Section 45(1)(b) RTA
Ms Mckay said that she has no memory of the tenant mentioning this at the beginning of the tenancy. She said that she was told about it in May.
Given the limited and conflicting evidence I cannot make a positive finding that the landlord was informed of this issue at the beginning of the tenancy.
The timeframe for replacing the laundry light, from May to September, was unduly long. I acknowledge some of the reasons for that delay, which Ms Mckay explained at the hearing.
There is no reasonable basis for an award of exemplary damages.
There is a basis for a small award of compensation for loss of amenity. Shower mixer
[The tenant/s] explained that the hot / cold mix on the shower mixer was faulty, so that the water temperature did not gradually increase but went from very cold to very hot. This meant that the mixer had to be set precisely to be at a comfortable temperature.
The timeframe for notification and resolution of this issue is similar to the laundry light, set out above.
Again, whilst acknowledging that Ms Mckay was let down by her plumber, the timeframe for resolution was excessively long and a small award of compensation for less of amenity is justified. Gardens
The gardens were somewhat overgrown at the beginning of the tenancy, although the parties disagree to some extent about how bad they were.
Upkeep of the lawns and gardens is the tenant’s responsibility per the terms of the tenancy agreement.
[The tenant/s] said that Ms Mckay told her that she was going to do a big tidy up of the gardens, so that she ([The tenant/s]) only had to maintenance / upkeep after that.
Ms Mckay said that she mentioned in passing that she wanted to do an overhaul of the garden, but she was not able to do it during the tenancy. Ms Mckay said that [The tenant/s] did not raise any concerns about this during the tenancy.
Given that the tenant was responsible for upkeep of the gardens under the terms of the tenancy agreement, I could only hold the landlord responsible if there was sufficient evidence to clearly show that the landlord agreed to do it. There was some talk about Ms Mckay doing a tidy-up of the gardens but it is not clear that this amounted to a promise or undertaking by Ms McKay.
Therefore, I will not make any award of compensation under this heading. Maintenance - compensation
I will award compensation of $200 (total) for the failure to maintain in respect of the laundry light and shower mixer. Termination
On 22 September 2024, [The tenant/s] sent Ms Mckay an email following up on several maintenance issues.
Ms Mckay replied the next day, responding to the maintenance issues but also stating that she had decided to move back into the house and that she would be giving [The tenant/s] 63-days’ notice to terminate the tenancy.
Ms Mckay gave notice, and the tenancy terminated on 30 November 2024 pursuant to that notice.
[The tenant/s] then discovered that Ms Mckay advertised the property for rent the next day, and it is now tenanted.
It is an unlawful act for a landlord to give a retaliatory notice 5 , or to give notice knowing that they do not have grounds to terminate the tenancy. 6
The fact that Ms Mckay gave the notice immediately after [The tenant/s] followed up on maintenance issues, and then did not move back into the house when [The tenant/s] vacated even though that was the stated basis for termination, clearly raises an inference that the notice was unlawful and retaliatory.
However, having heard Ms Mckay’s clear, detailed, and forthright oral evidence about her personal circumstances at the time, I am satisfied that: a. In giving the notice, she was not motivated by [The tenant/s] exercising her right to request maintenance on the property. There were several reasons why Ms Mckay decided that moving into the house was the best course of action for her at that time. One of those reasons was wanting to shed the stress of being a landlord, but this motivation does not render the notice retaliatory. Landlords are not obliged to continue being landlords, and the retaliatory notice provision is not intended to prevent landlords from making that decision. 5 Section 54(6) RTA 6 Section 60AA RTA b. At the time that she gave the notice, Ms Mckay genuinely intended to move into the property after [The tenant/s] moved out. The reasons why she did not pertain to her personal circumstances, and it is not necessary to detail them out in this decision. Suffice to say that there was genuine change in circumstances.
I acknowledge [The tenant/s]’s genuine and reasonable concerns about the lawfulness of the notice, and I also acknowledge the stress and inconvenience that she incurred due to having to move out.
My finding is that the notice was not unlawful or retaliatory, and therefore I will not make an award of exemplary damages. Filing fee, name suppression
[The tenant/s] sought name suppression.
Name suppression is granted on the grounds that the applicant was substantially successful in the proceedings. 7 On the same grounds, I will also award [The tenant/s] the filing fee for the application. 8

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5098708 — net $587.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Maintenance issues	$200.00	Maintenance issues
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy homes standard for moisture ingress and drainage	$360.00	Failure to comply with healthy homes standard for moisture ingress and drainage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$587.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$587.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Penny Mckay must pay [The tenant/s] $587.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 8 March 2024 and ended on 30 November 2024.
The tenant’s application seeks compensation / exemplary damages in respect of: a. Failure to meet the healthy homes standards (drainage). b. Breach of quiet enjoyment / unlawful entry. c. Failure to maintain. d. Unlawful / retaliatory termination of the tenancy.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 2 May 2025. Both parties participated in the hearing. Healthy homes standards
At the beginning of the tenancy [The tenant/s] noted that there was a ‘gap’ in part of the guttering where the gutter had separated at a join. Ms Mckay put some tape over the gap as a temporary repair.
In or around May 2024, [The tenant/s] discovered that the downpipes discharged directly onto the ground underneath the house.
Ms Mckay instructed a plumber to address these issues. Unfortunately, they were not addressed until the end of [The tenant/s]’s tenancy.
Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards. 1 The compliance date for this tenancy was 6 July 2024.
The healthy homes standard for moisture ingress and drainage requires (amongst other things) that the property has efficient drainage for the removal of storm water, surface water, and ground water.
Ms Mckay was not aware of that the downpipes discharged onto the ground underneath the house. The outlets of the downpipes are not visible from the exterior of the property and Ms Mckay never had a reason to go underneath the house. Ms Mckay purchased the property in 2020 with a sitting tenant, and she said that the tenant never raised any issues with flooding or dampness.
[The tenant/s] only discovered the issue when she did a healthy homes audit on the house as part of the property manager training that she was undertaking at that time.
[The tenant/s] said that she did experience some pooling of water around the house / driveway during the winter that she lived there.
The healthy homes standards do not specify a particular type of drainage system, only that the system much achieve a particular outcome. The standards require that the downpipes direct water to an “appropriate outfall”.
My finding is that the property did not meet the standard for drainage. Discharge of the downpipes onto the ground underneath the house is not an “appropriate outfall”. The purpose of the stormwater drainage requirements is to reduce the risk of water pooling underneath and around the house. 1 Section 45(1)(bb) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)
Failure to meet the healthy homes standards is an unlawful act. Exemplary damages of up to $7,200 can apply. 2
In considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to: 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.
In this instance, there is no aspect of negligence or disregard by Ms Mckay. Ms Mckay reasonably understood that the premises were healthy homes compliant in all respects at the beginning of the tenancy. When the issue was brought to her attention, she promptly engaged a plumber. The delay in getting the work completed was due to inaction and poor communication by the plumber.
This does not remove Ms Mckay’s legal duty to meet the standard, and the fact that she did not justifies an award of exemplary damages, but it is a very significant mitigating factor.
It is also relevant that this is the only aspect of non-compliance (the minor gap in the guttering on its own would not amount to non-compliance) and there is little evidence about the impact that non-compliance had on [The tenant/s]’s use of the premises.
Having regard to those factors I will award exemplary damages of $360.00. Breach of quiet enjoyment / unlawful entry
Ms Mckay entered the premises on 25 September 2004 to replace the laundry light.
The laundry is in an extension on the house, so it is not necessary to go into the ‘main’ part of the house to access it.
Ms Mckay found that to replace the light she also needed to get to the main switchboard. She paused at that point and sent [The tenant/s] a message stating: I wasn’t able to finish the light in the laundry as it was connected to the mains in the house – which I would have needed to enter and turn power off Will your boyfriend be home tomorrow morning – I could come early before he goes to work: [...] 2 Section 45(1A) RTA 3 Section 109 RTA The message goes on to ask [The tenant/s] to leave the light switched off. [The tenant/s] replied: Hey Penny thank you for that, yes will do
[The tenant/s] said that she agreed to Ms Mckay entering the laundry, but she did not understand that Ms Mckay was going to go inside the house. The fact that Ms Mckay did enter the house, and subsequently made a comment about something that she saw there, was an invasion of her privacy.
I accept the principle that the landlord’s right to enter the premises to do maintenance is limited to the extent of access necessary to carry out the work.
However, in this instance I think that Ms Mckay acted appropriately by pausing the job and sending [The tenant/s] a message when it became apparent that she needed to go beyond the laundry room to carry out the job.
There was no unlawful entry or unreasonable interference with [The tenant/s]’s peace, comfort and privacy. Maintenance
Landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. 4
In practice this means that landlords must promptly and effectively address repair issues that are brought to their attention.
[The tenant/s] raised three issues under this heading: a. The laundry light. b. The shower mixer. c. The gardens. Laundry light
[The tenant/s] said that: a. The laundry light did not work from the beginning of the tenancy. b. This was brought to Ms Mckay’s attention at the start of the tenancy, and Ms Mckay said that she would fix it. c. She followed up on it several times. d. It was not resolved until late September. 4 Section 45(1)(b) RTA
Ms Mckay said that she has no memory of the tenant mentioning this at the beginning of the tenancy. She said that she was told about it in May.
Given the limited and conflicting evidence I cannot make a positive finding that the landlord was informed of this issue at the beginning of the tenancy.
The timeframe for replacing the laundry light, from May to September, was unduly long. I acknowledge some of the reasons for that delay, which Ms Mckay explained at the hearing.
There is no reasonable basis for an award of exemplary damages.
There is a basis for a small award of compensation for loss of amenity. Shower mixer
[The tenant/s] explained that the hot / cold mix on the shower mixer was faulty, so that the water temperature did not gradually increase but went from very cold to very hot. This meant that the mixer had to be set precisely to be at a comfortable temperature.
The timeframe for notification and resolution of this issue is similar to the laundry light, set out above.
Again, whilst acknowledging that Ms Mckay was let down by her plumber, the timeframe for resolution was excessively long and a small award of compensation for less of amenity is justified. Gardens
The gardens were somewhat overgrown at the beginning of the tenancy, although the parties disagree to some extent about how bad they were.
Upkeep of the lawns and gardens is the tenant’s responsibility per the terms of the tenancy agreement.
[The tenant/s] said that Ms Mckay told her that she was going to do a big tidy up of the gardens, so that she ([The tenant/s]) only had to maintenance / upkeep after that.
Ms Mckay said that she mentioned in passing that she wanted to do an overhaul of the garden, but she was not able to do it during the tenancy. Ms Mckay said that [The tenant/s] did not raise any concerns about this during the tenancy.
Given that the tenant was responsible for upkeep of the gardens under the terms of the tenancy agreement, I could only hold the landlord responsible if there was sufficient evidence to clearly show that the landlord agreed to do it. There was some talk about Ms Mckay doing a tidy-up of the gardens but it is not clear that this amounted to a promise or undertaking by Ms McKay.
Therefore, I will not make any award of compensation under this heading. Maintenance - compensation
I will award compensation of $200 (total) for the failure to maintain in respect of the laundry light and shower mixer. Termination
On 22 September 2024, [The tenant/s] sent Ms Mckay an email following up on several maintenance issues.
Ms Mckay replied the next day, responding to the maintenance issues but also stating that she had decided to move back into the house and that she would be giving [The tenant/s] 63-days’ notice to terminate the tenancy.
Ms Mckay gave notice, and the tenancy terminated on 30 November 2024 pursuant to that notice.
[The tenant/s] then discovered that Ms Mckay advertised the property for rent the next day, and it is now tenanted.
It is an unlawful act for a landlord to give a retaliatory notice 5 , or to give notice knowing that they do not have grounds to terminate the tenancy. 6
The fact that Ms Mckay gave the notice immediately after [The tenant/s] followed up on maintenance issues, and then did not move back into the house when [The tenant/s] vacated even though that was the stated basis for termination, clearly raises an inference that the notice was unlawful and retaliatory.
However, having heard Ms Mckay’s clear, detailed, and forthright oral evidence about her personal circumstances at the time, I am satisfied that: a. In giving the notice, she was not motivated by [The tenant/s] exercising her right to request maintenance on the property. There were several reasons why Ms Mckay decided that moving into the house was the best course of action for her at that time. One of those reasons was wanting to shed the stress of being a landlord, but this motivation does not render the notice retaliatory. Landlords are not obliged to continue being landlords, and the retaliatory notice provision is not intended to prevent landlords from making that decision. 5 Section 54(6) RTA 6 Section 60AA RTA b. At the time that she gave the notice, Ms Mckay genuinely intended to move into the property after [The tenant/s] moved out. The reasons why she did not pertain to her personal circumstances, and it is not necessary to detail them out in this decision. Suffice to say that there was genuine change in circumstances.
I acknowledge [The tenant/s]’s genuine and reasonable concerns about the lawfulness of the notice, and I also acknowledge the stress and inconvenience that she incurred due to having to move out.
My finding is that the notice was not unlawful or retaliatory, and therefore I will not make an award of exemplary damages. Filing fee, name suppression
[The tenant/s] sought name suppression.
Name suppression is granted on the grounds that the applicant was substantially successful in the proceedings. 7 On the same grounds, I will also award [The tenant/s] the filing fee for the application. 8

Tenancy Tribunal case 5098708 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5098708 — 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