What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5191799 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 5191799?

Compensation: $1,040.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5191799?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5191799?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11849520-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5191799 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 5191799?

Compensation: $1,040.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5191799?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5191799?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11849520-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

23A Union Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5191799 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5191799 — net $2,017.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation HHS	$1,040.00	Compensation HHS
Compensation building materials	$50.00	Compensation building materials
Compensation bins	$200.00	Compensation bins
Compensation washing line	$500.00	Compensation washing line
Compensation gate	$200.00	Compensation gate
Filing fee	$27.00	e claim I order name suppression of their names and reimburse the filing fee of $27.00. T Baker 15 May 2025 ___________________________________________________…
Net award	$2,017.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,017.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5191799 — net $2,017.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation HHS	$1,040.00	Compensation HHS
Compensation building materials	$50.00	Compensation building materials
Compensation bins	$200.00	Compensation bins
Compensation washing line	$500.00	Compensation washing line
Compensation gate	$200.00	Compensation gate
Filing fee	$27.00	e claim I order name suppression of their names and reimburse the filing fee of $27.00. T Baker 15 May 2025 ___________________________________________________…
Net award	$2,017.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,017.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Property Brokers Manawatu Limited On Behalf Of S & T Vadke must pay [The tenant/s] $3,980.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlord represented by Stanella Nui and Michelle Luke.
The tenancy began on 12 April 2024.
At the start of the tenancy, the property was managed by Ms Paterson, who was responsible for the signing of the tenancy agreement and attending to the pre-inspection report.
At the time of the hearing, Ms Parry was managing the property but she was unable to be present. A phone call was made to her during the hearing, but she could not be reached.
The tenants were under a misapprehension that they were under a fixed term tenancy and had applied for a reduction of fixed term. It was confirmed at the hearing that it is a periodic tenancy and so they may terminate by giving the required notice period.
In their application, the tenants sought $19760.00 compensation, which is the equivalent to one year’s rent. The claims related to: Healthy Homes Standards Removal of building materials Removal of green bins Repair of clothesline Repair of electric gate.
At the hearing, when asked what they wanted the Tribunal to order, the tenants did not stipulate an amount, but felt that they had not been fairly treated. Their main grievance and what appears to have precipitated their notice to the landlord to remedy and their application to the Tribunal concerned the requirements under the Healthy Homes Standards. Healthy Homes Standards
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), the landlord must comply with all healthy homes standards. Under the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 (2016 Regulations), insulation is required in all residential tenancies commencing on or after 1 July 2019. In the present case, the tenant says there is an issue with the underfloor insulation and moisture ingress standard.
According to the Healthy Homes Statement contained in the tenancy agreement: As Agents/Landlords we are authorised by the owner of the mentioned property to be their legal representatives and hereby declare that the information contained as per the Insulation Regulations 2016 / Healthy Homes Statement 2019 attached to this tenancy agreement, either done by a third-party contractor or by an employee, is true and correct as at the date of signing this agreement. From 1 July 2019, Landlords must include a statement in new, renewed or varied tenancy agreements that confirms: • that on and after the start of the tenancy, the Landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by either Section 45(1)(bb) – Residential Tenancies, or Section 66I(1)(bb) – Boarding House Tenancies, of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, or • that the Landlord already complies with the healthy homes standards as required by either Section 45(1)(bb) – Residential Tenancies, or Section 66I(1)(bb) – Boarding House Tenancies, of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. All reasonable efforts have been made to obtain information about the ceiling, underfloor and wall insulation, ventilation, heating, ground vapour barrier, draughts, drainage and gutters as per Healthy Homes Standards 2019 and this information is provided in the attached statement in accordance with Section 13a of the Residential Tenancy Act. As agents for the owner, we agree to remedy any areas identified within the Healthy Homes Statement should the property not meet the current standards and regulations within 120 days of the tenancy start date should that start date be after the 1st of July 2021.
This was signed by Ms Patterson. The management agency has declared that the information attached to the agreement is true and correct at the time of signing.
The information attached was a document from Auckland Building Reports entitled, Healthy Homes Standards Compliance Inspection Required by Residential Tenancies Regulation 2019 23A Union Street Palmerston North (the HHS report). It is dated 26 September 2022. Pages 2 to 16 were blank, as were 18 and 19. The only page with any information about the inspection was page 17 concerning the smoke alarms in the bedrooms.
The tenants say that they found the house cold, damp and mouldy. [Tenant 1] is a builder and he found it hard to believe that the property was properly insulated. He said that he asked Ms Parry, who told him it was insulated in the ceiling and underneath.
[Tenant 1] removed a panel and went under the house. He found that there was no underfloor insulation and no damp proof membrane.
In October 2024, [Tenant 1] asked for a full copy of the Healthy Homes Report. He did not receive it until December 2024. A copy of an email from Ms Parry on 11 December 2024 reads, “Sorry it [has] taken so long. Please find attached the HHS report as requested.”
According to the HHS report, the ceiling insulation passed the assessment, and the property was exempt from requiring underfloor insulation because the house is on a concrete base.
The tenants say that the house is on piles, not a concrete base and produced photographs showing a gap between the floor and the ground of approximately 450mm, according to the tape measure in the photos. [Tenant 1] says that as a builder he has accessed such an area to put in a damp proof membrane and insulation.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard is contained in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS 2019) and requires a ground moisture barrier 1 when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
According to the HHS report, the property is again exempt from this aspect of the moisture ingress and drainage standard because, “The house stands on a concrete base and hence contains no subfloor cavity. No further action is required.” The photographs provided by the tenant show that it does not stand on a concrete base and there is a subfloor space.
For the landlord, Ms Nui acknowledged that when the HHS was initially provided to the tenant, it had not been realised that a number of the pages were blank. This was simply an inadvertent error.
I accept that it was unlikely that the landlords intentionally withheld any information from the tenants. It is possible that the HHS report was scanned and uploaded with some pages facing the wrong way up. However, if it had been provided in full, it is likely that the error would have been picked up sooner by the tenant. It is not clear why the correct copy could not be provided to the tenants immediately on asking.
As for compliance with the HHS, the landlords have relied on the report provided by the owners. However, that is not a complete answer to whether or not they have complied with the HHS.
First, when signing the HHS statement in the tenancy agreement, they have declared that the information in the attached information (the HHS report) was correct. Before making such a declaration, they should have realised that it could not be correct. The house is pictured on the entry inspection report and on the HHS report. It is an older weatherboard home. Without looking under the house, it is obvious that it is very unlikely to sit on a concrete base. From outside, it is apparent that it would be much more likely to sit on piles which are enclosed by further weatherboard skirting with some small ventilation grids. This is confirmed by the tenant’s photographs taken under the house.
The subfloor space of these premises clearly meets the definition of an enclosed subfloor space under regulation 28(3) of the HHS 2019 which say that a subfloor space is enclosed if the airflow into and out of the space is significantly obstructed along at least 50% of the perimeter by one or more structures including timber skirting.
The tenants say that Ms Parry specifically told them that the house has underfloor insulation and a damp proof membrane. Ms Nui said that she thought 1 Whereas the damp proof membrane is attached to the bottom of the floor, a ground moisture barrier is placed on the ground. that Ms Parry may have been thinking of the front house, which is owned by the same people. She did not know if Ms Parry had said that.
A phone call to try to reach Ms Parry during the hearing was unsuccessful.
After the hearing I asked the tenant to provide screenshots of their phone(s) showing evidence of phone calls between themselves and Ms Parry. This was something that had been discussed during the hearing when exploring what attempts had been made to notify or follow up with the landlord about the various issues. Those were provided and the landlord was given an opportunity to comment. The email sent to the Tribunal from Ms Parry was not about those, but about whether or not she had told the tenants that there was underfloor insulation. She said that she would have told them the house was compliant.
Such evidence should have been presented at the hearing. However, I have received the evidence because Ms Nui had made arrangements for Ms Parry to be contacted to give evidence during the hearing and Ms Parry had been waiting for the call but for some reason did not receive it. It is possible that Ms Parry said that there was underfloor insulation, but I find it more likely that she simply said that the property was compliant. Even if she did say that there was underfloor insulation, I do not find that there was any intention to mislead the tenants. Ultimately, the real issue is that the landlords relied on a HHS report that was clearly incorrect. The owners and the property managers should have realised this and should not have declared that it was correct.
The tenant has proved that there is no underfloor insulation and there is no ground moisture barrier. The onus of proof now shifts to the landlord to establish that the property is exempt.
The exceptions contained in regulation 18 of the 2016 regulations concerning insulation are that an experienced professional installer of insulation cannot: a. access the location to install the insulation without the carrying out of substantial building work; or the causing of substantial damage to the premises; or b. install the insulation at the location without creating risks to the health or safety of any person that are greater than the risks that are normally acceptable when insulation is being installed by an experienced professional installer of insulation; or c. it is not otherwise reasonably practicable for an experienced professional installer of insulation to instal the insulation.
If the landlord wishes to rely on any of those exceptions, the Tribunal requires evidence from an experienced professional installer of insulation that the property is exempt for one of those reasons. They cannot rely on the HHS report to show that the property is exempt because that report says that the reason it is exempt is because there is a concrete base, which is plainly not true.
The same applies to an exemption under regulation 29 of the HHS regulation 2019 if it is not reasonably practicable to install a ground moisture barrier The term, “not reasonably practicable to install” is defined in regulation 4 in an identical way to the exemptions for installation of insulation, referring to “an experienced professional installer”. Therefore, if the landlord relies on one of the exceptions contained in section 4, they need to produce evidence from an experience professional installer that: a. they cannot access the location to install the ground moisture barrier without substantial building work or causing substantial damage to the premises; or b. they cannot install the ground moisture barrier at the location without creating risks to the health or safety of any person that are greater than the risks that are normally acceptable when a ground moisture barrier is being installed by an experienced professional installer; or c. it is otherwise not reasonably practicable for an experienced professional installer to install the ground moisture barrier at the location.
The landlord has not provided that evidence. Accordingly I find that the landlord has not complied with the insulation standard under the 2016 Regulations or the moisture ingress standard under the HHS 2019.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am not satisfied that the property manager or owners intentionally committed an unlawful act. They believed they had complied with the Healthy Homes Standards. In these circumstances I do not consider it would be just to make an order of exemplary damages.
However, the tenants found the property cold, damp and mouldy, and asked again about the insulation, after they had moved in. The conditions were sufficiently uncomfortable to prompt the tenant to look underneath the premises.
The tenants are entitled to compensation for the discomfort they experienced. Had they known about the lack of underfloor insulation and moisture barrier, they would no doubt have raised it earlier. I order compensation of $1,040, which is equivalent to $20 per week for the 12 months. Other issues under section 45
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45.
Section 45 sets out a number of other requirements of a landlord, including providing the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and providing and maintaining the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant raised four issues: Building materials
At the start of the tenancy, some building materials had been left at the premises. The tenants assumed this was left from a bathroom renovation that was completed before the start of the tenancy. The tenant raised this and it is recorded in their comments of the entry inspection report, that leftover gib and timber had been left in the entry way, and more materials were left in the back and side garden. It was recorded that getting a bin by was difficulty. It appears that the tenant comments were made on 25 April 2024.
The tenants said that it was at least 2 weeks before they were removed.
On a daily basis the Tribunal orders compensation to landlords who have had to remove debris at the end of the tenancy because the tenant has not complied with their obligations under section 40 of the Act to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. The same obligations apply to the landlord at the start of the tenancy. The landlord should have been aware of this issue and ensured these had been removed before the tenants moved in. A small order of compensation is warranted for the inconvenience to the tenant. I order $50.00. Rubbish bins and clothesline
Also noted in the entry inspection report was that the green bin was full of rubbish. At the hearing it was clarified that there were two bins that did not belong to the property or to the tenants.
The property manager had recorded in the entry inspection report that the washing lines had pulled loose. The tenants had added that in addition, the foldable arms were broken and not extending and retracting properly.
Text communication between the tenants on 22 April 2024 records the following exchange, “Still no answer regarding clothes line”. “Did you show her?” “No but told her”.
On 25 February 2025 the tenants issued a 14-day notice to remedy regarding the clothesline, the rubbish bins and the healthy homes standards. The clothes line was repaired and the bins removed.
These matters should have been attended to at the start of the tenancy when the property manager noted them.
I am satisfied based on the text communications between the tenants that it is more likely than not that the tenants raised the issue of the washing line again.
The tenants say that they had to use the dryer because the washing line was not fixed.
I order a further $500 compensation for the lack of use of the washing line and $200 for the inconvenience of the bins over a 10-month period.
The landlords are reminded that such an omission could give rise to a claim for exemplary damages for a failure to maintain. Electric gate
The inconvenience of the lack of function of the electric gate was considerable. The landlord attended to this issue promptly on two occasion. However, the fact remains that during a two-month period there were times when the tenants had to climb over the gate in order to access their property. I order $200 compensation for this inconvenience.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I order name suppression of their names and reimburse the filing fee of $27.00.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5191799 — Healthy homes at 23A Union Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5191799 — Healthy homes at 23A Union Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410

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