How much money was awarded in case 5108130?

Compensation: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failed to maintain bat…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failed to maintain car…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failed to maintain din…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failed To Maintain HRV: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failed to maintain lau…: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failed to maintain sho…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failed to meet HHS ins…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Less Electricity Charges Owing By Te…: $2,407.18 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5108130?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5108130?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12446087-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5108130?

Compensation: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failed to maintain bat…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failed to maintain car…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failed to maintain din…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failed To Maintain HRV: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failed to maintain lau…: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failed to maintain sho…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failed to meet HHS ins…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Less Electricity Charges Owing By Te…: $2,407.18 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5108130?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5108130?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12446087-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5108130 — Healthy homes

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5108130 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5108130 — net $969.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Less electricity charges owing by tenant to 30 June 2025

$2,407.18

Less electricity charges owing by tenant to 30 June 2025

Compensation breach quiet enjoyment 14 June 2024

$250.00

Compensation breach quiet enjoyment 14 June 2024

Compensation: failed to maintain laundry

$50.00

failed to maintain laundry

Compensation: failed to maintain shower mixer

$150.00

failed to maintain shower mixer

Compensation: failed to maintain bathroom taps

$150.00

failed to maintain bathroom taps

Compensation: failed to maintain HRV

$250.00

failed to maintain HRV

Compensation: failed to maintain dining room ceiling

$150.00

failed to maintain dining room ceiling

Compensation: failed to maintain carpet dining / lounge

$250.00

failed to maintain carpet dining / lounge

Compensation: failed to meet HHS insulation standard 14

$1,000.00

failed to meet HHS insulation standard 14

Exemplary damages: unlawful entry 09 September 2024

$600.00

unlawful entry 09 September 2024

Exemplary damages: failed to comply HHS insulation

$500.00

failed to comply HHS insulation

Filing fee reimbursement

$27.00

Filing fee reimbursement

Total award

$2,407.18

$3,377.00

Net award

$969.82

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

$969.82

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $969.82 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 20 November 2025: a. Correct taps in bathroom

If the landlord fails to comply then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $ 500.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 17 July 2023 and is ongoing. The tenant filed their application on 13 December 2024. Following a Case Management Conference on 26 February 2025, the matter was set down for a two day, in person hearing on 16 and 17 June 2025. On 10 June 2025, one of the property managers advised that they would be unable to attend on the second day and requested an adjournment. The first day of the hearing proceeded, and the second day was adjourned to 23 July 2025.

[The tenant/s] appeared and was supported by [the tenant support person]. Property managers [the property managers] appeared for [the property management company]. The owner / landlord [the landlord/s] also appeared.

The tenant’s claims are that the landlord. i. Failed to provide a Healthy Homes compliance statement and insurance statement. ii. Sought electricity charges for which the tenant is not liable. iii. Interfered with the electricity supply. iv. Unlawfully entered the property. v. Failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), vi. Failed to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable condition. vii. Interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.

The tenant seeks compensation, exemplary damages, and where appropriate work orders.

The onus of proving these claims rests with the tenant. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The tenant must establish more likely than not that the landlord has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Has the landlord failed to provide a Healthy Homes compliance statement and insurance statement?

Under section 13A (1A) of the Act, the landlord must provide a statement concerning insulation. Under section 13A(1CA), the tenancy agreement must include a statement that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the property will comply with the HHS.

Section 13 (2) of the Act requires the landlord to provide a statement about whether the property is insured and, if so the excess.

A failure to comply with subsections (1A), 1(CA), and (2) is deemed an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $750.00 may be awarded. Evidence

The tenant claims that they were not provided with information concerning the HHS and insurance.

The landlord has produced a signed copy of the agreement dated 29 June 2023, which contains an HHS compliance statement. The landlord has also produced a separate insurance statement, also dated 29 June 2023. The landlord states that both were provided to the tenant.

Initially, the tenant could not recall signing any documents. However, the tenant then accepted that they had signed a document on the day, though they do not recall whether it was a tenancy agreement or a bond form. When shown a signed copy of the agreement, the tenant recalled that he had taken it out to his wife (the other tenant), who was waiting in their vehicle outside, and conceded that she had also signed it. Decision

The tenant remains uncertain as to what they signed or were given. I prefer the evidence of the landlord, which is clearer. The claim is dismissed. Liability for the electricity charges.

Under section 39(3) of the Act, the tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation. Evidence

The tenant states that at the commencement of the tenancy, they believed that they were able to arrange their own electricity supplier, as recorded in the tenancy agreement. The tenant states they contacted their preferred provider but were told they could not sign up as the power was in the name of the landlord and could not be changed. The property manager confirmed that the agreement contained an error.

The tenant stated that they were then advised by the property manager that the power would be $200.00 per month plus any additional charges as required.

The tenant states while they had been sent text reminders, the had not received invoices for the first twelve months of the tenancy.

The tenant has provided a diagram of the power meters and what he believes they supply, including the house, a nearby cowshed, and electric fences. They believe they are being charged for usage not attributable to their occupation of the property and have therefore stopped paying.

The property is surrounded by a farm owned by the landlord. The landlord states that the meter box at the property has three separate meters; two for the house (one general and one for the hot water cylinder), and one that supplies the farm.

The landlord provided a report from an electrician who confirmed that they had inspected the meter box and determined that the tenant’s usage was recorded by two house meters, and not the third meter, which supplied the farm.

The landlord states that, due to the configuration of the main supply, the power account must remain in their name. As a commercial consumer and high user of electricity, the landlord states that they benefited from a competitive unit rate, which the tenant also enjoyed. The landlord further stated that the tenant’s payments had been infrequent and then ceased. The landlord denied failing to provide invoices, stating that they had been delivered to the tenant’s letter box.

The tenant initially denied receiving these but later accepted that they had. The landlord produced the electricity accounts and a break down from the start of the tenancy to 30 June 2025. Decision

I prefer the evidence of the landlord, which includes the report from the electrician, who I am satisfied is qualified to provide an opinion. I am satisfied that the tenant is only being held liable for the electricity that they have used, which can be identified and calculated.

Between the first hearing on 16 June 2025, and the second hearing, the parties were invited to provide their own breakdown of the usage, amounts paid by the tenant, and charges owing. I will return to the electricity charges at the conclusion of this decision.

The landlord is also claiming 10% interest on the outstanding amount. This penalty is not levied by the electricity provider and being passed on. Rather, the landlord argues that they are running a business and are entitled to claim for late payments. I disagree. The landlord’s business is providing a residential property for rent, and not acting as an electricity provider. Interfered with the electricity.

Under section 45(2) of the Act, the landlord must not interfere with the tenant’s electricity, gas, water, or other services except where necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs. Evidence

In 2022, the tenant’s wife suffered a serious stroke and now uses a wheelchair. They also require medical apparatus that requires an uninterrupted electricity supply. The tenant described two incidents where the electricity supply had been interrupted. On both occasions, the tenant states that they had to hire a generator.

The landlord states they are aware of the tenant’s needs and noted that electricity providers usually require account holders to advise if such needs exist. They state that they had received advice of the first power outage (for routine maintenance) but did not pass it on to the tenant. They state they were unaware of the second outage, which occurred over a long holiday weekend, and suggested that it may have been accidental. Decision

In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligations. The provision envisages the landlord actively doing something that interferes with the tenant’s services. While the landlord omitted to pass on notice of the scheduled outage, they have not themselves intentionally acted so as to interfere with the supply. Although the incident caused the tenant inconvenience, the tenant would have in any event have had to make alternative arrangements. Has the landlord unlawfully entered the property and interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace comfort and privacy.

Section 48 of the Act states that a landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, repairs, and maintenance. Section 48(7) states that “premises” does not include the land or any facilities.

Under section 48(4), a landlord who breaches this provision commits an unlawful act for which, under section 109 of the Act, exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 may be awarded. Section 109(2) provides that a claim for exemplary damages under section 48(4) must be made within 12 months of the alleged breach.

Section 38(1) of the Act provides that the tenant shall be entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title of the landlord.

Section 38(2) of the Act states that a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.

The common law covenant for quiet enjoyment was set out in the case of Kenny v Preen [1963] 1 QB 499 (CA) in which Pearson LJ stated at 511: The implied covenant for quiet enjoyment is not an absolute covenant protecting a tenant against eviction or interference by anybody but is a qualified covenant protecting the tenant against interference with the tenant’s quiet and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the premises by the landlord or persons claiming through or under the landlord. The basis of it is that the landlord, by letting the premises, confers on the tenant the right of possession during the term and impliedly promises not to interfere with the tenant’s exercise and use of the right of possession during the term. I think the word ‘enjoy’ used in this connection is a translation from the Latin word ‘fruor’ and refers to the exercise and use of the right and having the full benefit of it, rather than to derive pleasure from it.

In Lucas v Patterson [2005] DCR 76 the Court considered that the common law convent, enshrined by section 38(1) of the Act, had been widened in section 38(2) with the inclusion of references to peace, comfort, and privacy.

In Smith v Floris Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at 6, the Tribunal stated, “Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents”.

An interference that also amounts to harassment is an unlawful act for which under section 109 of the Act exemplary damages of up to $3,000.00 may be awarded.

Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". See MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

The question as to whether a tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy has been significantly impacted by the actions of the landlord will involve an objective assessment of the facts. Evidence

The tenant states that on 09 April 2024, a builder visited the property to look at the bathroom and toilet. The tenant advised the builder that the other tenant was using the bathroom. The builder agreed to return. The tenant states that no notice of the visit had been given.

The tenant states that at around 4.30pm on 14 June 2024, the landlord appeared at the back door and shouted: “why can’t you pay your bills? if you can’t, get out”.

The tenant states that on 08 September 2024 they received a message from the landlord that a builder would be at the property at around 8am the next day. The tenant stated they responded explaining that they would be unavailable because of a hospital appointment. Despite this, the builder arrived at around 8am. The tenant asked the builder to come back in the afternoon, which the builder agreed to do.

The tenant left for the appointment and returned later that day. The appointment had taken its toll on the other tenant. When the builder returned and began setting up ladders, the tenant advised that the other tenant was asleep and that the visit may have to be deferred to another day. The builder then left.

The tenant states about half an hour later the landlord arrived, entered the house without permission, walked into the dining / lounge room, confronted him, and shouted: “you are not tenants in my house, you are guests.” The other tenant states they awoke to hear the landlord shouting and found the incident upsetting. The tenant states that the landlord remained at the property for about seven minutes. Both tenants describe themselves as “pretty shaken up.”

The tenant further states that they were building a portable trailer cabin for their son. The tenant states that on 10 December 2024, one of the property managers visited the property, accused the tenant of conducting a business from the property, and gave a verbal 14 day notice to remove the cabin, describing it as unsightly. The tenant produced a statement from their son confirming that they were present at the time and witnessed the property manager tell the tenant that they had two weeks to remove the cabin. The tenant stated that their son was available to give evidence by phone. The witness was however at work and unable to attend the hearing.

The landlord states that they visited the property on 09 April 2024 with a builder and accepted that it was without notice. The landlord stated they asked if they could come inside and look at the toilet. The tenant initially agreed but then advised that the other tenant was using the bathroom. The landlord stated that they inspected the toilet and then left, and that the bathroom was not the subject of the visit.

The landlord accepted that on 14 June 2024, they had been on the farm nearby and taken the opportunity to visit the property. They accepted that they stood at the back door and asked the tenant when they were going to pay their bills, referring to the outstanding electricity accounts, and then left.

Regarding the incident on 09 September 2024, the landlord stated that the tenant had requested a contractor investigate an issue. The landlord state that they had sought to accommodate the tenant but then became frustrated at what they viewed as the tenant’s lack of co-operation. The landlord accepted, that as a result they had visited the property, entered without permission, and confronted the tenant as described.

Concerning the alleged incident of 10 December 2024, the landlord stated that they had no personal knowledge of the matter. The property manager concerned accepted that they had been at the property on the date in question and had questioned whether the tenant was operating a business from the property. They stated they accepted the tenant’s explanation but asked him to tidy the long grass that had grown up around the cabin. The landlord stated that, if they wanted the cabin removed, they would have issued a 14-day written notice. Decision

I am not satisfied that the incident on 09 April 2023 was an unlawful entry, as the tenant consented to the landlord’s entry. Nor, on the facts, was it an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace comfort or privacy.

On 14 June 2024, the landlord stood outside and did not enter the premises. There was therefore no unlawful entry. I am satisfied the landlord did not travel to the property with the purpose of confronting the tenant but instead took the opportunity to challenge the tenant directly about non-payment of the electricity account. A more prudent course would have been to instruct the property managers, who were acting as the landlord’s agent. In my view, the incident constitutes an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy. I am however not satisfied that the incident amounts to harassment. I award the tenant compensation for loss of amenity of $250.00.

The incident on 09 September 2024 was clearly an unlawful entry and a breach of section 48 of the Act. The claim has been made within twelve months of the incident occurring. Under section 109(3) of the Act, when determining whether to award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must consider the intent of the person committing the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed, the public interest, and whether it is just to make the award. I will return to the matter of exemplary damages later in this decision.

Turning to the alleged incident on 10 December 2024, both property managers flatly deny the allegation. Having considered the witnesses written statement and heard from the parties, it is possible that there was a misunderstanding on the part of the tenant about what was being requested. The witness was unable to attend the hearing. There is insufficient evidence to be satisfied that the landlord has interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy. Has the landlord failed to provide or maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair and meet the HHS.

Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.

Section 45(1) (bb) requires the landlord to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards Regulations 2019 (HHS), which set out the minimum requirements for heating, insulation, ventilation, drainage, and draught stopping for residential rental properties.

The HHS standards for insulation and smoke alarms have applied to all rental properties since 01 July 2019.

The remaining HHS requirements covering heating, ventilation, drainage, moisture ingress, and draught stopping for this tenancy took effect on 14 November 2023, 120 days after the commencement of the tenancy.

Under section 45(1)(c) of the Act, a landlord must comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety, such as those contained in the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR).

In Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV 2009 085-001431, 24 February 2010 the Court stated: “I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair the defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”.

Whether the landlord has failed to meet their obligations will involve an objective assessment of the evidence. Laundry sink

The tenant states that the laundry sink, which was present at the pre tenancy inspection, was missing when they moved in on 17 July 2023 and only reinstated ten days later. The tenant expressed surprise that they had not been advised of this at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant has produced a photograph taken on 18 July 2023 showing the missing sink and wall behind.

The landlord states that prior to the tenancy work had been completed on the cabinetry and plumbing, but that the builder had accidentally put a nail through a pipe, causing a leak. The landlord states the sink and wall behind it was reinstated on 02 August 2023. Decision

The tenant should have been warned, as they may have wished to make alternative arrangements. The landlord accepts that ideally the repairs should have been completed before the tenancy but notes that it was completed by 02 August 2023. While there was a breach, it was rectified soon after the tenancy commenced. Although there would have been a loss of amenity, I consider this to have been a minor inconvenience. I award the tenant compensation of $50.00. Power

The tenant states that on or about 02 August 2023, the contractor repairing the laundry for the second time accidently put a nail through wiring which cut power to half the house.

The landlord states that the builder who repaired the laundry on the second occasion put a nail through the wiring which affected the heated towel rail and a three-point plug supplying a heated toilet seat, all on the same loop. The landlord stated that the heated towel rail had never worked and that no heated toilet seat had ever been installed. The loop was simply disconnected and made safe as it was redundant.

The tenant accepted that the towel rail was not a chattel and was unsure whether they had been advised at the commencement of the tenancy whether it worked, stating they simply assumed that it did. The tenant stated that around May 2024, an electrician visited the property and managed to reconnect the heated towel rail and get the “bubble things” in the bath working again. The landlord was unaware of this but considered it a bonus. Decision

I am not satisfied that power to half the house, as initially described by the tenant, was affected. The tenant later clarified that the outage had been to the laundry and the bathroom nearby only. The three-point plug for the heated toilet seat was redundant, and had the tenants wished to install a heated toilet seat, they could ask the landlord to reinstate the plug. The evidence concerning the tenant’s expectation regarding the heated towel rail is unclear. Ultimately it was made to work again. I am not satisfied that there has been a breach. Hot water

The tenant states that on 01 November 2023, they discovered that they had no hot water. The tenant states that they went into the property managers office and left a verbal message with a woman sitting at the front desk that they “had no shower water.” The woman said that they would “take care of it.” The tenant recalled the woman was called [property manager employee 1] and described her as having blonde curly hair. The tenant stated that nothing happened. The tenant explained that due to having dyslexia they did not write things down, although later stated that they did. The tenant stated that they went back to the office on 08 November 2023 and spoke with one of the property managers, who said that they would “get straight onto it”. The matter was resolved the next day.

The property manager stated that they had a receptionist called [property manager employee 1], but there was no record of the tenant leaving a message about the hot water on 01 November 2023. They explained that if an urgent matter were raised, the receptionist would normally phone the property manager and leave a written note. The property manager states that the first they became aware of the matter was on 08 November 2023, when the tenant came to the office, and that the matter was remedied the following day. Decision

The landlord was not responsible for the fault affecting the hot water. The tenant’s evidence was unclear and inconsistent. Initially, the tenant stated that due to their having dyslexia they did not write things down, but later stated that they did in fact write things down. During the hearing, the tenant had difficulty establishing clear chronologies. I am not satisfied that the landlord was advised of the fault before 08 November 2023 after which it was remedied the next day. The claim is dismissed. Flood

The tenant states that the plumber who attended the property on 09 November 2023 accidently left some taps on, which then drained the hot water cylinder causing a flood inside the house. The flood damaged some boxes in the hot water cupboard but did not damage the tenant’s other possessions. The tenant stated they advised the landlord who visited soon afterward.

The landlord stated that they offered to have the carpet lifted and dried, but the tenant declined, so “they left them to it.” The tenant agreed but stated that they had suffered a financial loss by having to run a dehumidifier provided by the landlord for a couple of weeks. The tenant stated while they had claimed for financial loss, it was more about the inconvenience caused. They described the inconvenience as moderate as they had to continue to care for the other tenant at the same time. Decision

The flood was accidental. The landlord responded immediately and offered to address the matter, but their offer was declined. It may have been more prudent to insist. The tenant now claims that the landlord has breached their obligations and seeks compensation. I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately, and the claim is dismissed. Mould in toilet

The tenant states that on or about 18 August 2023 they noticed water running down the wall in the toilet. The tenant advised the landlord, who immediately visited the property. The lining of the wall was removed revealing the source of the water as a faulty joiner. Mould was also discovered, suggesting the leak had gone undetected for some time. The tenant states that three or four days later the plumbing was repaired, about six weeks later a contractor removed the rest of the wall, leaving mould exposed and untreated. The tenant states that a contractor then repaired part of the wall but left the bottom section unfinished. The tenant states that the wall was not fully repaired until January 2025. The tenant has produced a photograph of the wall with the lining removed before repair and state that the delay was unreasonable.

The landlord states that the leak originated in the ceiling and had run down the inside of the wall. The wall lining was removed a few days later, the plumbing repaired, and the area allowed to dry before being patched. The landlord stated that the mould was not discovered until the patch was removed to complete the repair in early 2024, not 2025, and that it was not left exposed. Decision

The onus is on the tenant to establish more likely than not that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately. Establishing an accurate chronology has been challenging. I prefer the landlord’s evidence which is clearer and more consistent. On the evidence presented, I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations. Shower mixer.

The property has a disabled shower installed. The tenant states the shower had two shower mixers, one mixer they described as “normal”, the other mixer as “running hot only”. The tenant states that having two mixers was confusing, and a carer had accidentally scalded themselves and the other tenant. The tenant states that despite raising this issue during a walkthrough with the property manager on 31 July 2023, it was not addressed until January 2025, when the hot only mixer was removed.

The tenant stated that they had also issued three 14-day notices each of which set out a list of faults which included the mixer, on 10 August 2023 ,08 April 2024, and 13 December 2024. The tenant stated that the August 2023 notice was delivered to the property manager’s office and given to “a tall lanky guy called [property manager employee 2]”, who told them he usually sold houses and was not normally on reception.

The tenant states that nothing in the notice was addressed. The tenant states during an inspection on 08 April 2024, they handed the second notice to one of the property managers, but that the property manager left it on the table.

The notice dated 13 December 2024 was posted to the property manager’s office.

The property manager states that the notice dated 13 December 2024 was sent to the wrong address, and that it had not been received until January 2025. They stated they had not received the first notice dated 10 August 2023, and could not recall being given a list by the tenant at the inspection on 08 April 2024.

The landlord provided three inspection reports dated 22 June 2023, 30 August 2023, 08 April 2024, and 10 December 2024. Each report included photographs, noted faults, and made recommendations. The reports were sent to the landlord. The 22 June 2023 report refers to a list being provided by the tenant. The mixer issue is mentioned in each report. The landlord has produced an invoice showing that the issue was addressed on 12 February 2025. Decision

It is unclear when and how the 14-day notices and lists of faults were served on the landlord. The more the Tribunal heard the more confused the chronology became. The property manager has noted maintenance issues in their reports. I find that these inspection reports prepared by the property manager are the best evidence of when issues were identified and passed onto the landlord.

In this case the issue concerning the mixer was raised on 22 June 2023 and not addressed until February 2025. The delay in addressing the matter once raised was unreasonable. I award the tenant compensation of $150.00 for loss of amenity. Vanity taps

The tenant states that the hot and cold taps on the bathroom hand basin are reversed. Hot is cold and cold is hot. The tenant states that this confused the other tenant and posed a risk of injury. The tenant states that despite raising it the issue had yet to be addressed.

The property manager accepted that it had been raised in the notice dated 13 December 2024, received in January 2025, and had been passed onto the landlord. The landlord did not see that the matter required addressing, noting that the previous occupants, who were elderly, had managed without issue. Decision

The matter is noted by the property manager in each of the inspection reports. The delay in addressing this matter has been unreasonable, and it remains outstanding. I disagree with the landlord. The issue poses a safety risk to one of the tenants and should be addressed. I award the tenant compensation of $150.00 for loss of amenity.

I also make an order requiring the landlord to correct the taps in the bathroom by 20 November 2025.

If the landlord fails to do so by 20 November 2025, the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $500.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable. Roof leaks

The tenant states that during the tenancy there had been ongoing roof leaks affecting the hallway ceiling. The tenant states that after the first hearing in June they had issued another 14-day notice. The tenant stated a plumber had attended and that most of the leaks had been identified and remedied, although some remained undetected.

The property manager stated that the tenant had pointed out holes in the ceiling in the hallway, which they had checked for signs of dampness. None could be detected. The property manager passed this on to the landlord. Decision

The issue is not recorded in any of the inspection reports. The tenant has produced a photograph of water running down a wall taken in June 2025 which was sent to the landlord. The leak corresponded with a significant weather event in the area. This appears to be the first, and only, photograph showing water ingress. The landlord responded appropriately. Based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligations, and the claim is dismissed. Holes in the ceiling

The tenant has produced photographs of small holes in the ceiling. The tenant states that during the walkthrough on 31 July 2023 the property manager took photos of the holes which were in the hallway, bedroom, and dining room. The tenant states these were not addressed and had been included in the notice and list delivered to the property managers office on 10 August 2023.

The property manager accepted that they had noted the holes but that they did not show any signs of moisture ingress. The landlord viewed them as cosmetic. The landlord stated that the holes were plastered in December 2024. The tenant stated the work started in December 2024 and had been completed in January 2025. Decision

There is insufficient evidence that the holes corresponded with active leaks. In the circumstances the landlord has responded appropriately. The property was built in the 1980s and shows signs of wear and tear relative to its age. I accept the landlord’s submission that the holes were cosmetic and did not affect the insulation of the property. I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations and the claim is dismissed. Ventilation system

The property has a ventilation system that circulates air. The tenant states that at the commencement of the tenancy they noted a light flashing on the ventilation display panel. The tenant stated that they initially believed the system to be a heat transfer system. They state that despite requesting the system be serviced, this did not occur until late January 2025. The tenant has produced a photograph of the filter before it was cleaned, which the tenant states is very dirty.

The landlord stated that the system circulates air only and was not for heating. The landlord stated that the indicator light does not mean there is a fault, but that the system was due for servicing, and not that it necessarily needed it. The landlord explained that the light had to be manually reset by the technician after servicing. Accordingly, the flashing light did not necessarily mean that the system was not operating. The landlord questioned whether the tenant had in fact been using the system. The tenant stated the property manager told them during the walkthrough on 31 July 2023 not to touch the display and that it had been running constantly. The property manager denied they had told the tenant not to touch the system. The landlord viewed the system as an optional extra that the tenant may choose to use. Decision

The matter is noted in the inspection reports June 2023, April 2024, and December 2024. In the June report the property manager questions whether the filter has been changed, the April report notes that the filter needed changing, and in December 2024, again that the filter needs changing. The filter shown in the photograph taken by the tenant is very dirty. Although there is no accurate way of measuring its efficiency, the system must have been affected to some extent. I do not accept the landlords view that it was an optional feature. The ventilation system is a chattel, and in my view plays an important part in maintaining a moisture free environment. This is for the benefit of both parties. I am satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligations. The delay was unreasonable. I award the tenant compensation of $250.00 for loss of amenity. Heat pump.

The tenant states that the heat pump in the lounge has never worked. Despite raising this in the 14-day notices, it was not serviced until February 2025 when the technician inspecting the ventilation system found it to have insufficient gas.

The landlord stated that the first they were aware that the heat pump was not working was in December 2024, when the technician servicing the ventilation system discovered the issue. The invoice dated 28 January 2025 for the ventilation system states that the heat pump was not operating and required re- gassing. This appears to have occurred in February 2025.

The Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) report commissioned by the tenant dated 07 November 2024 states that the heat pump is not required to meet the heating standard, as the property had a compliant firebox that exceeded the standard. Decision

Although the heat pump was not required to meet the heating standards, it was a chattel and provided an additional source of heating, should the tenant have wished to use it. The heat pump is not mentioned any of the inspection reports. There appears to have been some confusion on the part of the tenant describing the ventilation system as an HRV system. This has been referred to in the tenant’s 14-day notice dated 13 December 2024. I am not satisfied that the matter was properly identified as an issue until December 2024, after which I am satisfied that the landlord has then responded appropriately. The claim is dismissed. Exterior tap

The tenant states that on or about 16 September 2023, they had drawn the landlord’s attention to an outside tap that had become seized. The tenant stated that the landlord expressed dis-interest in remedying the matter. The tenant stated that they replaced the tap themselves and have produced a photograph of the new tap, but not the damaged one.

The landlord has no recollection of the matter being raised. Decision

There is no mention of the issue in any of the 14-day notices or the inspection reports. There is insufficient evidence to be satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligations, and the claim is dismissed. Wallpaper and carpet.

The tenant has produced a photograph showing a peeling section of wallpaper above the window in the main bedroom taken on 18 July 2023, and a further photograph of the carpet beneath the same window taken in May 2025, which shows a large wet patch.

The landlord states that the wallpaper damage is cosmetic. Regarding the carpet beneath the window, they state that the matter had been reported in May 2025, coinciding with a significant weather event, and they responded appropriately.

The tenant stated that the wallpaper had been mentioned previously but accepted that the carpet was a new matter that had been addressed. The landlord provided a dehumidifier from 29 May 2025 to 30 June 2025. The tenant felt they should be compensated for the electricity used drying the wet patch. The landlord stated that no compensation had been offered as the tenant was not paying for power. Decision

The wallpaper in the bedroom is mentioned in the inspection reports from June 2023 and April 2024. As stated, the property shows signs of general wear and tear relative to its age. The patch of peeling wallpaper is cosmetic, and I accept that it does not impact on the tenant’s enjoyment or use of the property. Regarding the carpet in the bedroom, the landlord responded appropriately. The claim is dismissed. Moisture and mould

The tenant claims that the property was affected by excessive moisture and mould. The tenant has produced photographs of mould on walls and ceilings in the dining room taken 25 October 2024. However, the tenant stated that this was not shown to the property manager until 21 July 2025. The tenant also states a contractor who attended to investigate the matter advised them that there was an issue relating to the placement of external vents.

The landlord stated that the matter had been raised for the first time in July 2025 and was being addressed. They questioned whether the tenant had contributed to the problem by failing to use the ventilation system, heat pump, and fire. The tenant stated that they could not use the heat pump until February 2025 because it was not working, that it had not been cold enough to light the fire, and due to the clogged filter questioned the efficiency of the ventilation system. Decision

Apart from possible mould on the toilet wall mentioned in the December 2024 report, likely relating to the leak caused by the faulty connection, and a note that the wall in the lounge was damp, mould is not otherwise referred to in any of the other inspection reports. The matter appears to have been raised for the first time recently and is being addressed. I am not satisfied there has been a breach, and the claim is dismissed. Dining room ceiling

The tenant has produced a photograph taken on 18 July 2023 showing flaking paint on the dining room ceiling. The tenant stated that paint had fallen off into their food while eating. That they raised the issue at the commencement of the tenancy, but that it had not been addressed until January 2025.

The landlord cannot recall the matter being raised but viewed it as minor and non urgent. Decision

The landlord stated they could not recall it being mentioned. However, the condition of the ceiling is noted in the inspection reports from 22 June 2023, 30 August 2024, and 13 December 2024 as “poor – cracking”. I cannot accept the landlord’s argument that the matter is purely cosmetic, given that paint had fallen into the tenant’s food. The delay in remedying the problem was unreasonable. I am satisfied that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations. I award the tenant compensation of $150.00 for loss of amenity. Ranchslider

The tenant states that the ranchslider in the main bedroom was difficult to open and close from the start of the tenancy. The tenant stated they raised this during the walkthrough on 31 July 2023, but that it was not addressed until September 2023.

The landlord stated that it was noted in the inspection report 22 June 2023 and fixed in September 2023. Decision

In the circumstances, the time between being advised and repairing the door was not unreasonable. The claim is dismissed. No splash back

The tenant states that since the commencement of the tenancy they have been asking the landlord to provide a splash back to the cook top. Without one, they are concerned that damage will occur to the wall behind it.

The landlord states that it is not required, and they are not motivated to install one. Decision

The landlord is correct. While there is an obligation to maintain a splash back if one is installed, there is no obligation to install one, as it is not required for the operation of the cooktop. However, any damage that occurs arising from the usual use of the cooktop will be considered fair wear and tear and not the tenant’s responsibility. The claim is dismissed. Cooktop elements

The tenant states that at the commencement of the tenancy, the main front left and the second largest rear element on the cooktop were not working. They state they reported this to the property manager in November 2023, and the cooktop was replaced in February 2024.

The property manager accepted that they had been advised but could not recall when they passed it on to the landlord. Decision

The June 2023 inspection report records that the hob / oven “needs attention”, but does not state why. It has been suggested that this may have referred to a crack in the ceramic cooktop. In the circumstances, there is insufficient evidence that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations. Carpet joiner dining / lounge.

The tenant states that carpet at the join between the lounge and dining room was worn, had lifted, and created a trip hazard. The exposed tacks on the joiner had punctured the tyres on the other tenant’s wheelchair. A carer had also tripped and injured themselves. The tenant has produced a photograph of the affected area taken on 23 October 2023. The tenant stated they had raised this during the walkthrough on 31 July 2023. The tenant state the landlord had initially taped a hard plastic sheet over the area, but that this created another trip hazard. The carpet was repaired on 27 February 2025.

The landlord accepted that there had been a delay. Decision

The matter is noted in all of the inspection reports. In the December 2024 report, the property manager has also noted “caregiver fell over”. The matter was a health and safety issue, and the delay was unreasonable. The landlord has breached their obligations. I award the tenant $250.00 compensation for loss of amenity. Water hose from water tank to house

The property is not on a reticulated water supply. Bore water is collected in a tank which services the house and nearby troughs. The pipe from the tank to the house is alkathene and runs above ground. The tenants state that on 03 January 2025 the pipe burst. A photograph has been produced. The tenant stated they isolated the water at the tank and called the property manager but reached an answer machine. The tenant then emailed the property manager. The leak was repaired on 07 January 2025. During this time, the tenant had no water for drinking or bathing and purchased bottled water.

The tenant states there was a second leak on 10 January 2025, which they reported to the property manager by text. Again, they isolated the water at the tank. The leak was repaired on the same day.

The tenant stated that on 25 February 2025, there was no water again. On this occasion there was no identifiable leak. The tenant sent a text message to the property manager. The water returned that afternoon. The tenant states that the water went off again on 01 March 2025 and came back on the following morning.

The tenant claims that in total they were without water for six days. During this time, they purchased 15 litre bottles of water for drinking and bathing. No receipts have been provided.

Regarding the first leak. The property manager stated it had happened over the holiday period. The answer machine message provided their cellphone number for emergencies, but no call was received from the tenant. The message was discovered on their return to work, and they responded immediately. The property manager further stated that their email address for service had changed, all tenants had been notified, but the tenant sent the email to the old address.

The landlord stated that on the first two occasions the tenant was never entirely without water but accepted that it would have been low pressure. The tenant accepted this was the case. The tenant stated that as the tank supplied water for troughs, they did not want to be responsible for depriving the landlord’s stock of water, especially in summer. The tenant accepted that when no one answered their call, they may not have listened to the message properly.

The landlord stated that water supply had been an ongoing issue for farms in the area, especially in summer, and that they had spent a considerable amount of money on a new supply system for the property and farm, which also serviced a number of other houses including their own. The landlord stated they had warned the tenant that during summer there might be periods without water supply and that the tenant’s should keep a reserve. The tenant could not recall any such advice being given. Decision

The issue in this case is whether, having been advised of the issue the landlord has responded within a reasonable time. The first incident occurred over the New Year period. The tenant did not call the emergency number provided, and their email was sent to the wrong address. Once the property manager was advised, the issue was addressed. The other two incidents were addressed soon after the property manager was notified.

In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately. The claim is dismissed. I accept the landlord’s argument that over the summer period there was a significant draw on the bore. Under section 45(1) of the Act, if the property does not have a reticulated water supply the landlord must provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water, but not the water itself. There is an issue that the nearby troughs also draw from tank supplying the tenant’s property. Moving forward, the landlord may wish to consider installing a tank solely for the tenanted property.

Regarding these breaches of section 45(1)(b) of the Act for failing to maintain the laundry, shower mixer, bathroom taps, ventilation system, dining room ceiling, the carpet in the dining / lounge.

This appears to be a case where the landlord (who is also the owner) has engaged a property manager as agent to conduct inspections and deal with the day-to-day management of the property. The property manager has noted faults in their inspection reports which has then been provided to the landlord. Some matters were addressed by the landlord within a reasonable time, others were not. The landlord appears to have regarded certain issues, amounting to breaches of the act, as minor or unimportant. For the tenants, however, these issues caused stress, and, in some cases, they were not minor and unimportant, resulted in stress, and in some cases physical discomfort. A better understanding of the law by the landlord would have likely resulted in better decisions.

Despite appointing a property manager, the landlord has also become personally involved, creating an overlap resulting cross and misunderstandings. Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)

The tenant states that the property fails to meet the HHS standards for insulation, draught stopping, and drainage.

The property manager states that the HHS compliance statement provided with the tenancy agreement was completed by the landlord on 01 April 2022, who believed that the property complied with all standards.

On 07 November 2024, the tenant commissioned their own HHS report. That report states that the property fails to meet the ceiling insulation standard, as the insulation was not sufficiently thick, that there was a gap greater than 3mm under the laundry door, and that some of the guttering was not in a reasonable condition.

The tenant states the report was disclosed to the landlord with the application filed in December 2024.

The landlord states that around late October / November 2024, and before they had received the tenant’s HHS report, they had a builder look at the insulation, who said it looked acceptable. The landlord then stated they engaged an insulation company, who advised that the insulation was not thick enough. The insulation was topped up on 22 February 2025.

The property manager stated that after receiving the tenants HHS report they had a contractor investigate the gap under the door in December 2024. The tenant stated that no one had attended. The property manager confirmed that the invoice did not refer to any draught stopping.

The HHS report notes a small hole in a section of guttering by the lounge. The landlord states that this has been addressed. Decision

The landlord’s self-certification of 01 April 2022, confirming that the property complied with all of the HHS, was incorrect. The property failed to meet the ceiling insulation standard. The HHS report dated 07 November 2024 records a gap larger than 3mm under the external door to the laundry and a small hole in the guttering by the lounge.

The HHS for this tenancy came into effect on 14 November 2023, 120 days after the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant’s HHS report records that the ceiling insulation was 50mm when it should have been 120mm. The landlord was therefore in breach of the insulation standard from 14 November 2023 until 22 February 2025. Proper insulation has significant bearing on the efficacy of any heating system.

I am satisfied that the insufficiency of the insulation more likely than not affected the tenant’s enjoyment of the property, especially over the winter months. In this case, I award the tenant $1,000.00 for loss of amenity. Exemplary damages

In addition to compensation for loss of amenity the tenant also seeks exemplary damages for the breaches that are deemed to be unlawful acts.

Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.

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 of the Act.

Section 109 of the Act relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.

The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.

The District Court decision of Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited (DC Wellington, CIV 2014-085-13, 27 August 2014) confirmed that if there were multiple breaches of a particular section, then only one set of exemplary damages could be ordered for that breach. Decision

As stated, section 109(2) provides that a claim for exemplary damages must be made within 12 months of the alleged breach.

The breaches of section 45(1)(b) of the Act, relating to the failure to maintain the laundry, shower mixer, bathroom taps, ventilation system, dining room ceiling, the carpet in the dining / lounge, were all committed on 22 June 2023. Therefore, under section 109(2), the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages.

The two provisions where the Tribunal can consider exemplary damages are section 48 (unlawful entry which occurred on 09 September 2024), and section 45(1)(bb) (failure to meet the HHS insulation standard, as identified by the tenant’s HHS report dated 07 November 2024).

The maximum exemplary damages that may be awarded for unlawful acts under section 45(1)(bb) is $7,200.00, and $1,500.00 under section 48.

Regarding the unlawful entry on 09 September 2024: landlord intentionally went to the property to confront the tenant. Having heard the evidence, I am satisfied that the incident left the tenant shaken and feeling vulnerable. It is the public interest that parties conduct themselves according to the provisions of the Act. Taking these factors into account, I award the tenant $600.00 exemplary damages.

In my view, the landlord’s HHS compliance statement was not completed by someone who fully understood their obligations. I am some doubt as to whether the landlord actually exercised due diligence required. Taking these factors into account, I order exemplary damages of $500.00. Electricity charges

The landlord calculates that up to 30 June 2025 the tenant had used $6,781.05 worth of electricity, the tenant calculates $6,133.31. Neither party disputes that the tenant has already paid $3,750.00.

Section 85 of the Act states the Tribunal should look to a fair resolution of the dispute, considering substantial merits and justice, rather than strict legal rights and technicalities.

I determine the tenant’s liability for electricity from the commencement of the tenancy to 30 June 2025 to be $6,457.18, less the $3,750.00 already paid as at the date of hearing on 23 July 2025. This leaves $2,707.18. From this, I deduct $300.00 for electricity consumed by the dehumidifier between 29 May 2025 and 30 June 2025.

Accordingly, the tenant’s liability for the outstanding electricity charges to 30 June 2025 is $2,407.18. This sum is deducted from the award made to the tenant. Costs

Because [the tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.

Both parties seek name suppression.

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.

In this case my global assessment is that both parties have been substantially successful in these proceedings, and both are granted name suppression.