What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5239422 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 5239422?

Breach Of Healthy Homes Standards: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Breach Of Section 47 (Notice Of Mark…: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Healthy Homes Report: $270.25 awarded to tenant; Rent: $610.00 awarded to landlord; Water Charges September 2022-March 2…: $2,500.07 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5239422?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5239422?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12426420-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5239422 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 5239422?

Breach Of Healthy Homes Standards: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Breach Of Section 47 (Notice Of Mark…: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Healthy Homes Report: $270.25 awarded to tenant; Rent: $610.00 awarded to landlord; Water Charges September 2022-March 2…: $2,500.07 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5239422?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5239422?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12426420-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5239422 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5239422 — net $1,789.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 3 April 2025	$610.00		Rent to 3 April 2025
Water charges September 2022-March 2025	$2,500.07		Water charges September 2022-March 2025
Breach of Healthy Homes Standards		$1,000.00	Breach of Healthy Homes Standards
Breach of section 47 (notice of marketing for sale		$50.00	Breach of section 47 (notice of marketing for sale
Healthy Homes Report		$270.25	Healthy Homes Report
Total award	$3,110.07	$1,320.25
Net award	$1,789.82
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,789.82

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord and tenant’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,789.82 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $810.18 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 September 2025.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, outgoings, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant applied for compensation for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards and for failure to give notice that the property was on the market for sale. Background
A brief background summary is as follows: • The parties signed a periodic tenancy starting on 8 September 2022 with a weekly rent of $650.00 (increased to $790.00 by the end of the tenancy). • The owner obtained a Healthy Homes Report in February 2021, which found that the premises were Healthy Homes Compliant. Only the summary page of this document has been provided. • The tenant obtained a Healthy Homes Report dated 20 February 2025 (and paid $270.25). This found that the property was not compliant with the heating and draught-stopping standards. • On 21 February 2025 the landlord served a 42-day notice to terminate. The notice said the owner was required, under an unconditional agreement for the sale of the premises, to give the purchaser vacant possession. The last day of the tenancy was given as 4 April 2025. The tenant moved out on 3 April 2025. • The landlord obtained a further Healthy Homes Report dated 4 June 2025. This found the property to be fully compliant. Rent and Water
The tenancy ended on 3 April 2025. After discussion at the hearing, the tenant accepted that rent of $610.00 remains due. This accords with the rent summary provided by the landlord.
The tenant said the water invoices were provided on an irregular basis and there were no water readings. However, as to readings, the tenant was receiving the invoices from the landlord. The water arrears built up over time because only $20-30.00 was being paid each week towards water. I am satisfied that the amount claimed is due ($2,500.07). Marketing for Sale
The landlord said he told the tenant at an inspection that the property was being marketed for sale. He offered the tenant an alternative property which she agreed to, but later the tenant declined to move in. The landlord said this occurred prior to service of the termination notice, on 12 February 2025. The tenant said she did not know the property was on the market until she was told the contract was unconditional.
Section 47 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) requires the landlord to give written notice as soon as practicable after the property is put on the market for sale.
Even if the landlord did give the tenant informal notice, no written notice has been provided in evidence. I therefore find that there was a breach of section 47 of the Act. The breach was merely technical in a sense because the landlord offered an alternative rental property for the tenant to move into. The tenant said she was shocked by the 42-day termination notice because she did not know the property was on the market. However, I am unsure why the tenant would agree to rent new premises, with the same landlord, unless she knew her current property was to be sold. The landlord was clear that he told the tenant the property was to be marketed when he offered replacement accommodation.
I find that, while there was a breach, the tenant has not suffered material loss. I award nominal damages of $50.00 to reflect the breach. The tenant should have been given written notice of the marketing. Healthy Homes Standards Heating
The heating standard requires that there be a qualifying heater in the main living room with a total heating capacity of at least the required heating capacity.
The Healthy Homes Statement dated 7 September 2022 (appended to the tenancy agreement) recorded heating capacity of 6.6kW in the living room. The required heating capacity was not stated.
The Healthy Homes Report dated 20 February 2025 recorded a heating capacity of 4.23Kw as against a required heating capacity of 6.2kW.
The Healthy Homes Report dated 4 June 2025 recorded heating capacity of
98kW as against a required heating capacity of 6kW.
There is a photograph of the front of the heat pump in the 20 February 2025 report. Under “capacity” it appears to state “6.9kW”, although it is impossible to be certain. Elsewhere there is reference to “heat” of “4.23”.
I consider it likely that the heating capacity of the heat pump was about 6.6kW or 6.9kW, as this is consistent with the Healthy Homes Statement, the 4 June 2025 report, and the photograph of the technical specifications. This information is under the heading “capacity” in the photograph, which would seem to be the relevant data. It is not clear what the reference to “4.23” means.
On this basis, I find that there was no breach of the heating standard. Draught-Stopping
The draught-stopping standard requires premises to be free from unreasonable gaps between building elements that are not intentional parts of the construction of the premises, and which allow draughts into the premises. A building element includes windows, roofs, and doors.
The 20 February 2025 Healthy Homes report identified gaps around the entrance door and windows causing noticeable draughts. There is a photograph of a door in the lounge with an obvious gap at the bottom next to a small lock. There was also maintenance work to the windows in November 2024. The invoice records that 4-5 windows were not closing properly.
The landlord denied that there were any unreasonable gaps and noted that the February 2021 and June 2025 reports had not identified any breach of the standard. However, this contrasts with the tenant’s lived experience. She said it was cold in winter and she told the landlord the gaps in the front door needed to be sealed (the landlord denied being told of any Healthy Homes Standards issues). During the winter the tenant said she would often sleep with the children in one room because it was so cold.
The tenant did not put her concerns in writing and the landlord pointed out that he could only remedy things he knew about. The landlord said that problems with the windows were notified and remedied, for example. The tenant’s evidence gave only a general sense of how badly they were affected by the cold draughts. The tenant said it contributed to her children’s sickness and the house was freezing in the mornings.
Where maintenance issues are concerned, it has been held that the landlord is only under an obligation to remedy matters that are brought to their attention within a reasonable time (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Limited (District Court Wellington, CIV 2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010)). In my view, in contrast, compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards likely involves strict liability. The premises must comply, and if they do not, there is a breach, without any requirement for knowledge on the landlord’s part. There was a breach here, but its effect on the tenant was moderate.
The tenant sought compensation of 20% of the weekly rent for the entire tenancy, calculated at $16,900.00. In my view, a much more modest award is appropriate. I award $1,000.00 as compensation for living in a house that had cold draughts, especially in winter. I also award $270.25 for the cost of the Healthy Homes Report. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
Both parties have had some success. It is appropriate that they bear their own costs.
Both parties are granted suppression as requested. The public interest is met by this order being published and is not strongly engaged in a case where neither party has conducted themselves unreasonably. The parties’ privacy interest should be upheld.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5239422 — net $1,789.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 3 April 2025	$610.00		Rent to 3 April 2025
Water charges September 2022-March 2025	$2,500.07		Water charges September 2022-March 2025
Breach of Healthy Homes Standards		$1,000.00	Breach of Healthy Homes Standards
Breach of section 47 (notice of marketing for sale		$50.00	Breach of section 47 (notice of marketing for sale
Healthy Homes Report		$270.25	Healthy Homes Report
Total award	$3,110.07	$1,320.25
Net award	$1,789.82
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,789.82

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord and tenant’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,789.82 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $810.18 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 September 2025.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, outgoings, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant applied for compensation for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards and for failure to give notice that the property was on the market for sale. Background
A brief background summary is as follows: • The parties signed a periodic tenancy starting on 8 September 2022 with a weekly rent of $650.00 (increased to $790.00 by the end of the tenancy). • The owner obtained a Healthy Homes Report in February 2021, which found that the premises were Healthy Homes Compliant. Only the summary page of this document has been provided. • The tenant obtained a Healthy Homes Report dated 20 February 2025 (and paid $270.25). This found that the property was not compliant with the heating and draught-stopping standards. • On 21 February 2025 the landlord served a 42-day notice to terminate. The notice said the owner was required, under an unconditional agreement for the sale of the premises, to give the purchaser vacant possession. The last day of the tenancy was given as 4 April 2025. The tenant moved out on 3 April 2025. • The landlord obtained a further Healthy Homes Report dated 4 June 2025. This found the property to be fully compliant. Rent and Water
The tenancy ended on 3 April 2025. After discussion at the hearing, the tenant accepted that rent of $610.00 remains due. This accords with the rent summary provided by the landlord.
The tenant said the water invoices were provided on an irregular basis and there were no water readings. However, as to readings, the tenant was receiving the invoices from the landlord. The water arrears built up over time because only $20-30.00 was being paid each week towards water. I am satisfied that the amount claimed is due ($2,500.07). Marketing for Sale
The landlord said he told the tenant at an inspection that the property was being marketed for sale. He offered the tenant an alternative property which she agreed to, but later the tenant declined to move in. The landlord said this occurred prior to service of the termination notice, on 12 February 2025. The tenant said she did not know the property was on the market until she was told the contract was unconditional.
Section 47 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) requires the landlord to give written notice as soon as practicable after the property is put on the market for sale.
Even if the landlord did give the tenant informal notice, no written notice has been provided in evidence. I therefore find that there was a breach of section 47 of the Act. The breach was merely technical in a sense because the landlord offered an alternative rental property for the tenant to move into. The tenant said she was shocked by the 42-day termination notice because she did not know the property was on the market. However, I am unsure why the tenant would agree to rent new premises, with the same landlord, unless she knew her current property was to be sold. The landlord was clear that he told the tenant the property was to be marketed when he offered replacement accommodation.
I find that, while there was a breach, the tenant has not suffered material loss. I award nominal damages of $50.00 to reflect the breach. The tenant should have been given written notice of the marketing. Healthy Homes Standards Heating
The heating standard requires that there be a qualifying heater in the main living room with a total heating capacity of at least the required heating capacity.
The Healthy Homes Statement dated 7 September 2022 (appended to the tenancy agreement) recorded heating capacity of 6.6kW in the living room. The required heating capacity was not stated.
The Healthy Homes Report dated 20 February 2025 recorded a heating capacity of 4.23Kw as against a required heating capacity of 6.2kW.
The Healthy Homes Report dated 4 June 2025 recorded heating capacity of
98kW as against a required heating capacity of 6kW.
There is a photograph of the front of the heat pump in the 20 February 2025 report. Under “capacity” it appears to state “6.9kW”, although it is impossible to be certain. Elsewhere there is reference to “heat” of “4.23”.
I consider it likely that the heating capacity of the heat pump was about 6.6kW or 6.9kW, as this is consistent with the Healthy Homes Statement, the 4 June 2025 report, and the photograph of the technical specifications. This information is under the heading “capacity” in the photograph, which would seem to be the relevant data. It is not clear what the reference to “4.23” means.
On this basis, I find that there was no breach of the heating standard. Draught-Stopping
The draught-stopping standard requires premises to be free from unreasonable gaps between building elements that are not intentional parts of the construction of the premises, and which allow draughts into the premises. A building element includes windows, roofs, and doors.
The 20 February 2025 Healthy Homes report identified gaps around the entrance door and windows causing noticeable draughts. There is a photograph of a door in the lounge with an obvious gap at the bottom next to a small lock. There was also maintenance work to the windows in November 2024. The invoice records that 4-5 windows were not closing properly.
The landlord denied that there were any unreasonable gaps and noted that the February 2021 and June 2025 reports had not identified any breach of the standard. However, this contrasts with the tenant’s lived experience. She said it was cold in winter and she told the landlord the gaps in the front door needed to be sealed (the landlord denied being told of any Healthy Homes Standards issues). During the winter the tenant said she would often sleep with the children in one room because it was so cold.
The tenant did not put her concerns in writing and the landlord pointed out that he could only remedy things he knew about. The landlord said that problems with the windows were notified and remedied, for example. The tenant’s evidence gave only a general sense of how badly they were affected by the cold draughts. The tenant said it contributed to her children’s sickness and the house was freezing in the mornings.
Where maintenance issues are concerned, it has been held that the landlord is only under an obligation to remedy matters that are brought to their attention within a reasonable time (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Limited (District Court Wellington, CIV 2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010)). In my view, in contrast, compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards likely involves strict liability. The premises must comply, and if they do not, there is a breach, without any requirement for knowledge on the landlord’s part. There was a breach here, but its effect on the tenant was moderate.
The tenant sought compensation of 20% of the weekly rent for the entire tenancy, calculated at $16,900.00. In my view, a much more modest award is appropriate. I award $1,000.00 as compensation for living in a house that had cold draughts, especially in winter. I also award $270.25 for the cost of the Healthy Homes Report. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
Both parties have had some success. It is appropriate that they bear their own costs.
Both parties are granted suppression as requested. The public interest is met by this order being published and is not strongly engaged in a case where neither party has conducted themselves unreasonably. The parties’ privacy interest should be upheld.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5239422 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5239422 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions