What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5103748 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 5103748?

Compensation: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Refund HHS Report Fee: $150.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5103748?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5103748?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12082918-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5103748 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 5103748?

Compensation: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Refund HHS Report Fee: $150.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5103748?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5103748?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12082918-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 169 Fitzgerald Avenue, Christchurch Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5103748 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5103748 — net $4,577.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failure to comply with HHS (heating	$2,500.00	failure to comply with HHS (heating
Compensation for loss of enjoyment due to HHS non- compliance	$1,500.00	Compensation for loss of enjoyment due to HHS non- compliance
Compensation for loss of enjoyment due to repairs	$400.00	Compensation for loss of enjoyment due to repairs
Refund HHS report fee	$150.00	Refund HHS report fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,577.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,577.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5103748 — net $4,577.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failure to comply with HHS (heating	$2,500.00	failure to comply with HHS (heating
Compensation for loss of enjoyment due to HHS non- compliance	$1,500.00	Compensation for loss of enjoyment due to HHS non- compliance
Compensation for loss of enjoyment due to repairs	$400.00	Compensation for loss of enjoyment due to repairs
Refund HHS report fee	$150.00	Refund HHS report fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,577.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,577.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Good Girls Property Management Limited As Agent For Nour Family Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $3,777.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Morrell and Ms Courtney represented the landlord. Background
The tenancy started on 21 January 2022 and ended on 7 February 2025, so it lasted just over 3 years.
Well into the tenancy, the tenant became concerned that the premises were not compliant with the Health Homes Standards (HHS). He could not find any HHS compliance statement in the tenancy agreement he signed, other than a statement of intent to comply.
The tenant raised this with the landlord and served a 14-day compliance notice on the landlord. He arranged for his own HHS assessment. The assessor’s report confirmed areas of non-compliance with the heating and draught standards.
The landlord then arranged its own assessment. That assessment also confirms some non-compliant aspects.
The premises are in a body corporate development. The HHS and regulations provide for some exemptions when premises are located within body corporate developments. Sometimes, it is not possible to strictly comply, although landlords are expected to make efforts to ensure compliance when it can reasonably be achieved.
In August 2024, there was a flooding event. Water from an upstairs dwelling flooded down through the lounge/living room ceiling of the tenant’s premises.
The landlord acted promptly to have repairs completed, doing so even before the insurer had completed its assessment of the damage. That reduced the length of time for the repairs to be completed, although the tenant was considerably inconvenienced for a 6-week period.
The landlord offered some compensation for the period of the disruption and reimbursed the tenant for power costs when the premises were being dried.
The tenant made his application because he sought further compensation and exemplary damages.
The landlord cross applied.
I held a hearing with both parties present today. Withdrawn application
The landlord withdrew its application for exemplary damages ($1.00) for an abuse of process by the tenant and for reimbursement of the fee for the HHS report is obtained. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must decides are these: •Did the landlord commit any unlawful acts? If so, Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages? •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? •Should the Tribunal order the landlord to pay the cost of the HHS report the tenant obtained? Relevant law
Section 13A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out what is required to be contained in a tenancy agreement. Section 13(1CA) requires a landlord to sign a statement that on, or after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord with comply with the HHS, and a statement that includes the information prescribed by regulations made under section 138B(5) RTA – information relating to the HHS.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them is the requirement that a landlord comply with the HHS.
A failure by a landlord to comply with these requirements is an unlawful act in each case – section 13A(1F) RTA and section 45(1A) RTA.
Section 85 RTA provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Other legal considerations
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
The tenant’s compensation claims are for an actual loss (the cost of the HHS report) and for the loss of use of and therefore enjoyment of the tenancy (due to the flooding event and the repairs carried out, and because the premises were not HHS compliant).
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. Discussion Exemplary damages
The tenant states that the tenancy agreement at the start of the tenancy did not contain a HHS statement of compliance. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667
Because of the date of commencement of the tenancy, the agreement was required to have a statement of compliance with the HHS.
Ms Courtney said she would have provided that to the tenant because she was thorough. She produced a copy of the tenancy agreement with the HHS compliance statement.
When the tenant enquired about the HHS compliance statement on 3 July 2024, he just said ‘I don’t seem to have any record of having ever received it’.
While there is a statement of intent that has been signed by the landlord (required since 1 July 2019), the tenancy agreement the tenant produced contained no signed statement of compliance.
These statements are important as they allow a tenant to make an informed choice about whether to accept the tenancy.
Given the conflict in the evidence, even if the compliance statement was not provided at the start of the tenancy, I would not find that the landlord acted with intent. Ms Courtney was sure she would have provided it as is her practice. If she failed to, I find that that would have been a negligent rather than an intentional act. For exemplary damages, negligence is not sufficient.
I make no award of exemplary damages for this breach (if there was one).
The landlord accepted that the premises were not HHS compliant.
For the draught standard (for which there are no defined exemptions) and the ventilation standard (for which there are) there were body corporate restrictions about what work could be done. The door was considered a fire door. But that would not have prevented say a moveable draught stop being provided to use inside the premises.
Landlords must take all reasonable steps to get consent from a body corporate to ensure compliance, but exemptions are recognised. I am satisfied that the landlord made reasonable enquiries of the body corporate around HHS compliance issues for this tenancy.
The heating standard was not complied with. Ms Morrell accepted that. She submitted that for heating devices installed before 1 July 2019, it was sufficient if the appliance met 80% of the heating required.
The flaw in that submission is this. For the 80% level to be acceptable, the heating device must be greater than 2.4Kw. The heater in these premises was
4kW, not greater than that. If the heater has a capacity of 2.4Kw or less, then the full heating capacity is required – in this case 3Kw (according to the HHS report the tenant obtained) or 3.1Kw (according to the HHS report the landlord obtained).
The landlord was clearly alerted to this by its own assessor who said (correctly): The current heater in place does not provide sufficient heating for the area classed as the living room. Although this meets 80% of the required output, because it is an electric heater of 2.4Kw or less the full capacity of 3.1Kw is required. A top-up heating source that provides at least 0.7Kw can be installed to gain compliance.
Bearing in mind that the landlord signed a statement at the start of the tenancy that would it comply with the HHS, this was a clear breach. And even once alerted, nothing was done.
Parliament intended breaches of the HHS to be taken seriously by providing for exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 for this unlawful act – the highest amount of exemplary damages. Parliament’s intention when enacting the HHS was to ensure that rental premises were warm, ventilated, and draught free.
I find that the section 109 RTA criteria are met in this case. The premises over a 3-year period did not comply with the HHS. That was an intentional act given the information available to the landlord (and its presumed knowledge of the HHS requirements); it was against the tenant’s interests; it had an effect on the tenant; and it was against the public interest. Landlords are expected to comply with their statutory responsibilities as a matter of public interest. For this unlawful act I award the tenant exemplary damages of $2,500.00. Compensation
As I have mentioned, compensation, unlike exemplary damages, is not punitive; it recognises loss.
The tenant seeks the cost of the HHS assessment he had done. Were this obtained solely as evidence for the hearing, the Tribunal would not reimburse the cost. Each party bears the cost of providing evidence. However, the report was obtained because the tenant was not assured that the premises were HHS compliant, despite the signed statement of intent.
While the RTA does not require a landlord to have premises professionally assessed for HHS compliance if they undertake their own assessments they do so at their own risk.
It was the tenant’s report that brought the issue to light, following which the landlord obtained its own assessment. That report, like the tenant’s, confirmed HHS non-compliance especially with the heating standard.
I find that the tenant should be reimbursed the cost of the report he obtained. Had the premises been HHS compliant he would not have needed to fund an assessment. I award him the $150.00 report fee.
The tenant gave evidence that the premises were very cold. That is not surprising given that the heating was less than the HHS required. He said he paid full rent on the assumption that the premises were compliant, but he had suffered a loss of enjoyment especially due to the inadequate heating standard.
Mr Morrell said that the tenant made no complaint until July 2024 when he issued a 14-day notice. Even if that were the case, the tenant still suffered a loss due to the landlord’s breach. And even once the breach was identified by the landlord’s HHS assessor, still nothing was done to remedy it.
When pressed, Ms Morrell accepted that the tenant should receive some compensation.
The tenant sought a 20% rent abatement for his loss of enjoyment of the tenancy. That would amount to more than $12,000.00 for the term of the tenancy.
Rent can only abate when the premises are destroyed or are so seriously damaged that they become uninhabitable. That was not the case here.
By comparison, following the Canterbury earthquake sequence, cases on appeal where premises were uninhabitable generally found that a 50% rent abatement was reasonable in the worst cases.
Here, the circumstances are quite different. There was some loss of enjoyment, but not such as to prompt the tenant to earlier action. For his loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the landlord’s failure to comply with the HHS, I award the tenant compensation of $1,500.00.
Finally, the tenant seeks a full rent refund for 3 weeks for a 6-week period of disruption following the flooding event.
As I have noted, compensation follows a breach by a party of their statutory responsibilities. Here, there was no breach by the landlord. The flooding event just happened. The landlord’s response was rapid and appropriate, something the tenant acknowledged.
On a strict view, applying contract law principles, the tenant is not entitled to compensation. However, section 85 RTA can apply to remedy situations like this.
The premises were small. For about 6 weeks the tenant lost the use of (for some of the period) and then had a reduced use of (for the remainder of the period) his whole living room/lounge area.
The landlord recognised this and gave him a $200.00 rent credit. In compensation terms that amounts to about $33.50 per week. I find that is a bit low for the loss of enjoyment the tenant experienced during this time.
By considering the substantial merits and justice of the case – a section 85 RTA imperative – I find that a further award of compensation is justified. I award the tenant $400.00. For the 6-week period in question that means he will be compensated at approximately $100.00 per week taking account of what he has already received.
The tenant acknowledged that the landlord had compensated him for power use while the repair work was done. Result
The landlord will pay the tenant $4,577.00 comprising exemplary damages of $2,500.00, compensation of $2,050.00, and the filing fee of $27.00. Name suppression
The tenant sought, and is entitled to, a name suppression order as his application is successful. The landlord sought, but is not entitled to, name suppression as its defence to the application is unsuccessful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5103748 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 1, 169 Fitzgerald Avenue, Christchurch Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5103748 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 1, 169 Fitzgerald Avenue, Christchurch Central,

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