What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5246211 about?

The tribunal order states: The Rent Shop Limited - As Agent For Colin Barrow must pay [The party] and [The party] $6,527.00 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5246211?

Compensation: $4,100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5246211?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5246211?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12462749-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5246211 about?

The tribunal order states: The Rent Shop Limited - As Agent For Colin Barrow must pay [The party] and [The party] $6,527.00 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5246211?

Compensation: $4,100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5246211?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5246211?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12462749-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

114 Moana Avenue, Moana, Nelson 7011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5246211 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

114 Moana Avenue, Moana, Nelson 7011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5246211 — State of repair | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5246211 — net $6,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation – Failure to maintain	$4,100.00	Compensation – Failure to maintain
Exemplary damages - HHS	$2,400.00	Exemplary damages - HHS
Net award	$6,527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,527.00

Claims and awards for application 5246211 — net $6,527.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Compensation – Failure to maintain

Amount: $4,100.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation – Failure to maintain

Exemplary damages - HHS

Amount: $2,400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Exemplary damages - HHS

Net award

Tenant $6,527.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $6,527.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee

Order

The Rent Shop Limited - As Agent For Colin Barrow must pay [The party] and [The party] $6,527.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Cheryl Collie and Danelle Kinnear represented the landlord. They tabled a large document bundle for the respondents at the hearing. This caused the applicants some consternation but the offer to adjourn so they could review the bundle in a more considered manner was declined. The hearing proceeded. [The party] was present throughout the hearing. [The party] attended intermittently, leaving for periods of time to attend to parking or due other reasons of his. He did this in a generally respectful way with minimal impact on the hearing.
This was a final hearing as provided for in a case conference minute dated 28 May 2025. It provided for a short hearing 26 June 2025 to consider retaliatory notice only (determined as not by order dated 27 June 2025). All other matters would be heard at a later in-person hearing (this hearing). None of the prior agents for the landlord who had appeared at the case conference, or first hearing appeared at the final hearing (one has left the company).
In a previous order I reminded the parties that a party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The tenant had supplied a large number of photos and videos.
The applicants seek compensation and exemplary damages for landlord failures. Compensation of $5,900 was sought at the date of lodgement. The tenancy continued for another 10 weeks (approximately) after lodgement. $3,400.00 in rent reduction compensation has already been provided by the landlord (based on a rent reduction of $100.00 per week for the last 34 weeks of the tenancy).
The tenancy commenced 8 March 2024 and ended 19 July 2025.
The tenancy formed unseen by the tenants, living out of town at that time. There was some urgency for them due to their circumstances where they were at that time.
I was told that their first application for this tenancy was declined but they were reinvited to apply later. Based on limited messaging, the tenants had been working with a housing advisor at the Ministry of Social Development during this time. On 20 February 2025 the advisor messaged Lisa-Maree, when asked about viewing the premises, that she was waiting to hear back from the agents if she could view on Lisa-Maree’s behalf. This was some two weeks before this tenancy commenced. No further evidence of any inspection or recommendation by the advisor was provided. It is apparent that there was some local agency support for the tenants prior to the tenancy formation.
This tenancy commenced under a new agency with the Rent Shop. The owner had previously used another property management company for prior tenancies.
In a written submission, the owner stated:
In this order, the term landlord is used as a collective for the agents and owner. Any failures are attributed to the collective unless apparent and noted accordingly. It is for them to decide any responsibility as need be, given the determination here.
I also note the owner stated he relied on the agent advice in establishing the market rent of $620.00. The agents later (November 2024) recommended to the owner he accept the tenant request for a $150.00 rent reduction per week (to acknowledge the “current living conditions”). The agent considered that offer, and an earlier exit from the fixed-term, were “fair and reasonable”. That advice was not fully accepted and a permanent reduction in rent was set at $100.00. This reduction applied for 34 weeks until the tenancy ended.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. This includes submissions regarding insurance statements.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.
Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
I note the obligation on the landlord is not solely established by tenant notice. Maintenance issues may be brought to its attention by other means, such as an independent report like a Healthy Homes Assessment, or agent feedback or inspections.
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to remedy several repair issues within a reasonable timeframe. There were some internal repairs or maintenance tasks required during the tenancy. Any repair of the shower leaking is considered ineffectual based on the later and repeated reporting of the problem. Others issues as raised and resolved, and any impact on the tenants are not considered a basis for any specific orders here but, where applicable, they have been considered in the compensation considerations in this order.
The biggest problem during this tenancy was the exterior building performance and failures of some land and appurtenances 1 . While the slope or drop of some levels will have had some other impacts on living I do not consider such issues beyond where any such movement adversely impacted building performance, and consequently the tenants.
The landlord provided a useful timeline of compliance. It is copied below.

Did the landlord comply with the Healthy Home Standards?

Two HHS reports were provided.
The first was dated 13 May 2020. That report was relied on by the landlord but there are two issues with that report. The first is that report identified some failures. Some were professionally remedied while I was told the owner undertook the work regarding draught stopping. The repairs were effectively self-certified compliance as no revisit from the inspector took place. The second issue was that report was somewhat dated by the start of this tenancy.
The second HHS report was completed on 27 March 2024. – some two weeks into the tenancy. Of the two reports, this was most current and more thorough. It usefully included photos. It identified a number of failures, summarised as: 1 "Any land and appurtenances," broadly covers everything intrinsically associated with the premises that provides value and utility, whether tangible or a legal right.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For this tenancy that commenced 8 March 2024 the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of tenancy, regardless of whether the previous tenancy should have already been compliant. For a new tenancy, the 120-day clock starts again 2 . Here, the landlord had until 5 July 2024 to ensure the premises met the HHS Standards. A report detailing the actions required to achieve this was clearly stated on 27 March 2024 (and as shown above in a screenshot from the report).
The HHS draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
Any claimed exemption for a ground proof barrier based on the 2020 inspection was, in my mind, usurped by the 2024 report that clearly stated one was required. The claimed limited access to the subfloor for assessment is, based on the photos and evidence, dubious. The lack of a key is not considered limited access. The potential for stormwater to drain into or through the subfloor area also casts some question on underfloor insulation compliance, also given the lack of recent inspection. 2 This is confirmed in the “Healthy Homes Standards” section and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, Schedule 1, Part 1, clause 2(2), which states that the compliance period applies to each new or renewed tenancy.
The HHS report at commencement highlighted numerous issues. These substantiate the photo and video evidence on provided by the tenant.
Even while the 120-day countdown for HHS compliance was running, the photos provided in the report should have prompted immediate action under the s 45(1)(b) requirement that the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The condition shown at commencement lends itself to the claims of the tenants regarding guttering and drainage issue problems.
I was told the interior of the premises was renovated shortly before this tenancy. The owner stated draught proofing was also carried out but I have no evidence of that and, if so, I question the quality of any such work given the subsequent HHS report. Below are some of the photos provided to the landlord in the March HHS 2024 report. The first three highlight the extent of gaps in some windows, the last two the poor condition of the guttering (including vegetation growing in it).
It is evident there were significant issues with the house at commencement. It is not considered unrealistic that the extent of the issues should have been apparent to the new agency during their on-boarding of this new property for management, despite ant interior decoration that might have masked some underlying problems.
Tenant photos of later mould and other deterioration are considered to be due to environmental rather than behavioural issues.
No immediate remedial action took place. I was not until November 2024 that some maintenance work attempted to address some of the issues identified in March that year. By that time the statutory requirement for the premises to be up to the Healthy Homes Standard was well past.
Even after the November work, two further third-party reports highlight ongoing problems.
The first was a building report to the landlord(s) dated 25 March 2025. 3 Like earlier inspections, the inspector was not supplied access to the downstairs basement area.
Sections of that report note: Upon arrival and being invited into the house, it was immediately evident that there was an issue with the levels throughout the upstairs dwelling. My initial walkthrough was led by the tenant and I was shown her area of concerns. Throughout the dwelling there was no evidence of current moisture , BUT in some rooms there was still the remnants of black mould on the ceilings. It should be noted that at the time of inspection Nelson was going through a warm dry spell with no significant rain. Therefore I would assume that the mould issues are weather related rather than plumbing related. 3 Built it Better report. Author Chris Heywood. The main concern internally is the slope that the dwelling is on. It is not just the floors that have dropped but the entire structure has moved to the extent that the walls are significantly out of plumb and show a similar angle to the floor slope. A walk around the exterior of the property has shown that there are a number of cracks in the plaster cladding as well as some cracking in the concrete foundation. This is not surprising due to the angle the house is sitting on. The concrete stairs on the northern side of the property also have cracked and moved significantly. I also noted that there is a drain channel behind the carport that is completely blocked. It appears given the type of vegetation rubbish in the drain that this could be caused from flood run-off rather than direct from the property. However, there are a number of trees immediately over the area that could be contributing to the pile up of rubbish. Regardless, this drain needs to be cleared before the next rain to prevent flooding that apparently happens around the back entrance and carport. Down the eastern side of the foundation there are two vent that are at ground level. This is a concern as any water flow in heavy rain could lead to water flowing under the house. There has been an attempt to bring the dwelling up to the Healthy Homes standard, but given the extent of the movement I seriously doubt the dwelling could be made to meet the standard completely or be maintained to the standard. Windows are constantly jamming due to movement, even though dry at the time of inspection, some windows still were not operating properly. I noted one window had even cracked due to being jammed shut. The shower in the bathroom has been a relatively recent installation and has been installed with the tray level and a false wall built plumb, but the floor of the bathroom has the same significant slope and water from the shower runs out and across the hallway to the bedroom opposite. A splash rail could be fitted to prevent water running out of the shower, but that is not the main issue. The shower rail has come loose from the wall, indicating that possible it is only fitted with gib fixings with no timber behind.
The second third-party report was written by Charlotte Spilman, Team Leader Building Compliance at Nelson City Council, dated 15 July 2025. It supports the observations in the Build it Better report some 3-4 months prior and confirms the continued state, this report being less than a week before the tenancy ended.
Both the tenant evidence and third-party reports since the beginning of the tenancy confirm the failure to maintain or repair the premises. The challenges for the owner of a property near or in an active slump zone are accepted. What is not accepted is that the premises were provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair when rent was being taken. Nor is it accepted the landlord complied with the statutory requirements for Healthy Homes Compliance, required by 6 July 2024.
I find the landlord has failed to comply with the requirements of section 45(1)(bb). Such a failure is an unlawful act (refer section 45(1A))

Should the tenants be compensated?

Section 77(2)(n) RTA allows the Tribunal to grant general damages where a landlord or a tenant has breached a provision of the RTA. These damages can include an amount for distress and pain and suffering.
In Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993 (upheld in the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust, CIV-2018-009-002094 [2020] NZDC 17667) sets out the factors that the Tribunal should take into account when making a damages award, being: a. The nature of the breaches b. The duration of the breach c. The effect of the breaches.
I have taken into account the above factors, as well as the compensation already provided by the rent reduction.
I have also had to balance tenant submissions regarding the poor condition and impacts on them against other contradictory messages of their desire for the tenancy to continue, subject to a “fairer” rent. Given the tenant ongoings challenge in finding alternative accommodation, I accept the pursuit of a rent discount rather than use of the more flexible exit provisions, as provided, was at least partially a result of that challenge. I note the premises remains empty some ten weeks since the tenants vacated due to remedial work yet to conclude.
Having considered all submissions and evidence, I have determined two compensation awards should be made.
The first is for the period from commencement until the rent reduction in November 2024. This allows for repair or maintenance issues that should have been addressed much sooner than November. A number of issues should have been apparent to the landlord but the HHS report provided further clarity that should have led to immediate remedial efforts. That period was 37 weeks. I have determined a weekly rent rebate of $70.00 is appropriate. That totals $2,590.00.
The second compensation award is in addition to the 34 weeks of $100 rent reduction already received. I consider the $150.00 reduction as requested by the tenant (and recommended to the owner by the agent as an acknowledgement of the “current living conditions”) reasonable. I note the greater amount as requested by the tenants was for during the remedial work, and the lesser amount agreed to by the owner was permanent. However, given the later third-party reports confirming unresolved issues remained until the tenancy ended, I consider the extension at the greater sum of $150.00 is appropriate. That equates to a further $1,700.00 compensation in addition to that already provided.
These awards, combined with the prior compensation total $7,690.00. At a weekly rent $620.00 per week for 71 weeks that award of compensation reflects a 17% refund of the $44,020.00 rent as contractually due. That discount is fair and reasonable given the nature and duration of the breaches.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

As I have determined that the landlord committed unlawful acts I must decide if it is appropriate to award exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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) RTA.
The requirements to meet the Healthy Home Standards were clearly advised to the landlord with ample time for remedial action before the 120-day period lapsed. The owner appears to have had a mind to the 1 July 2025 final deadline, regardless any current tenancy status (based on a letter from him to the agent). That was incorrect. As remarked on earlier, the communication between the agent and owner after the HHS report of March 2024 is not something sighted but I consider the unlawful act was intentional and exemplary damages should follow. I am mindful the failure of the landlord to comply with s 45(1)(b) from commencement is also unlawful but that section requires some regard to the age and character of the premises, and I do not make any order for exemplary damages there.
The District Court has confirmed that for multiple breaches of the same unlawful act provision, that the Tribunal must order exemplary damages as a global order, not for each individual breach. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583
The maximum order for such an unlawful act is $7,200.00. I have considered the failure to comply within the context of the ongoing building structural challenges. I have also considered the landlord’s failure to ensure access for inspections, as well as a reliance on exemptions that were superseded or unproven. This appears to have been a tenancy of “too little, too late”. The full impact on the tenants is uncertain due to their mixed messages, with the rent amount being a driver as much as any building issues. Compensation is a separate consideration to assessing exemplary damages, but I have allowed that some of the impact on the tenant was mitigated by financial compensation as sought; some during the tenancy, more by order now.
There is an associated public interest that tenancies are healthy, and that landlords comply with their statutory obligations in relation to the tenancy. The strong public interest here is reflected by Parliament in the significant maximum for such unlawful acts.
Given the multiple HHS breaches and consideration of the factors as detailed in section 109(3) RTA, my start point was 50% of the maximum amount but with a reduction from that to acknowledge what are real geotechnical challenges with this property. I make an order of $2,400.00 exemplary damages. Filing fee
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claim I have reimbursed their filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5246211 — net $6,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation – Failure to maintain	$4,100.00	Compensation – Failure to maintain
Exemplary damages - HHS	$2,400.00	Exemplary damages - HHS
Net award	$6,527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,527.00

Claims and awards for application 5246211 — net $6,527.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Compensation – Failure to maintain

Amount: $4,100.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation – Failure to maintain

Exemplary damages - HHS

Amount: $2,400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Exemplary damages - HHS

Net award

Tenant $6,527.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $6,527.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee

Order

The Rent Shop Limited - As Agent For Colin Barrow must pay [The party] and [The party] $6,527.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Cheryl Collie and Danelle Kinnear represented the landlord. They tabled a large document bundle for the respondents at the hearing. This caused the applicants some consternation but the offer to adjourn so they could review the bundle in a more considered manner was declined. The hearing proceeded. [The party] was present throughout the hearing. [The party] attended intermittently, leaving for periods of time to attend to parking or due other reasons of his. He did this in a generally respectful way with minimal impact on the hearing.
This was a final hearing as provided for in a case conference minute dated 28 May 2025. It provided for a short hearing 26 June 2025 to consider retaliatory notice only (determined as not by order dated 27 June 2025). All other matters would be heard at a later in-person hearing (this hearing). None of the prior agents for the landlord who had appeared at the case conference, or first hearing appeared at the final hearing (one has left the company).
In a previous order I reminded the parties that a party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The tenant had supplied a large number of photos and videos.
The applicants seek compensation and exemplary damages for landlord failures. Compensation of $5,900 was sought at the date of lodgement. The tenancy continued for another 10 weeks (approximately) after lodgement. $3,400.00 in rent reduction compensation has already been provided by the landlord (based on a rent reduction of $100.00 per week for the last 34 weeks of the tenancy).
The tenancy commenced 8 March 2024 and ended 19 July 2025.
The tenancy formed unseen by the tenants, living out of town at that time. There was some urgency for them due to their circumstances where they were at that time.
I was told that their first application for this tenancy was declined but they were reinvited to apply later. Based on limited messaging, the tenants had been working with a housing advisor at the Ministry of Social Development during this time. On 20 February 2025 the advisor messaged Lisa-Maree, when asked about viewing the premises, that she was waiting to hear back from the agents if she could view on Lisa-Maree’s behalf. This was some two weeks before this tenancy commenced. No further evidence of any inspection or recommendation by the advisor was provided. It is apparent that there was some local agency support for the tenants prior to the tenancy formation.
This tenancy commenced under a new agency with the Rent Shop. The owner had previously used another property management company for prior tenancies.
In a written submission, the owner stated:
In this order, the term landlord is used as a collective for the agents and owner. Any failures are attributed to the collective unless apparent and noted accordingly. It is for them to decide any responsibility as need be, given the determination here.
I also note the owner stated he relied on the agent advice in establishing the market rent of $620.00. The agents later (November 2024) recommended to the owner he accept the tenant request for a $150.00 rent reduction per week (to acknowledge the “current living conditions”). The agent considered that offer, and an earlier exit from the fixed-term, were “fair and reasonable”. That advice was not fully accepted and a permanent reduction in rent was set at $100.00. This reduction applied for 34 weeks until the tenancy ended.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. This includes submissions regarding insurance statements.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.
Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
I note the obligation on the landlord is not solely established by tenant notice. Maintenance issues may be brought to its attention by other means, such as an independent report like a Healthy Homes Assessment, or agent feedback or inspections.
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to remedy several repair issues within a reasonable timeframe. There were some internal repairs or maintenance tasks required during the tenancy. Any repair of the shower leaking is considered ineffectual based on the later and repeated reporting of the problem. Others issues as raised and resolved, and any impact on the tenants are not considered a basis for any specific orders here but, where applicable, they have been considered in the compensation considerations in this order.
The biggest problem during this tenancy was the exterior building performance and failures of some land and appurtenances 1 . While the slope or drop of some levels will have had some other impacts on living I do not consider such issues beyond where any such movement adversely impacted building performance, and consequently the tenants.
The landlord provided a useful timeline of compliance. It is copied below.

Did the landlord comply with the Healthy Home Standards?

Two HHS reports were provided.
The first was dated 13 May 2020. That report was relied on by the landlord but there are two issues with that report. The first is that report identified some failures. Some were professionally remedied while I was told the owner undertook the work regarding draught stopping. The repairs were effectively self-certified compliance as no revisit from the inspector took place. The second issue was that report was somewhat dated by the start of this tenancy.
The second HHS report was completed on 27 March 2024. – some two weeks into the tenancy. Of the two reports, this was most current and more thorough. It usefully included photos. It identified a number of failures, summarised as: 1 "Any land and appurtenances," broadly covers everything intrinsically associated with the premises that provides value and utility, whether tangible or a legal right.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For this tenancy that commenced 8 March 2024 the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of tenancy, regardless of whether the previous tenancy should have already been compliant. For a new tenancy, the 120-day clock starts again 2 . Here, the landlord had until 5 July 2024 to ensure the premises met the HHS Standards. A report detailing the actions required to achieve this was clearly stated on 27 March 2024 (and as shown above in a screenshot from the report).
The HHS draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
Any claimed exemption for a ground proof barrier based on the 2020 inspection was, in my mind, usurped by the 2024 report that clearly stated one was required. The claimed limited access to the subfloor for assessment is, based on the photos and evidence, dubious. The lack of a key is not considered limited access. The potential for stormwater to drain into or through the subfloor area also casts some question on underfloor insulation compliance, also given the lack of recent inspection. 2 This is confirmed in the “Healthy Homes Standards” section and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, Schedule 1, Part 1, clause 2(2), which states that the compliance period applies to each new or renewed tenancy.
The HHS report at commencement highlighted numerous issues. These substantiate the photo and video evidence on provided by the tenant.
Even while the 120-day countdown for HHS compliance was running, the photos provided in the report should have prompted immediate action under the s 45(1)(b) requirement that the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The condition shown at commencement lends itself to the claims of the tenants regarding guttering and drainage issue problems.
I was told the interior of the premises was renovated shortly before this tenancy. The owner stated draught proofing was also carried out but I have no evidence of that and, if so, I question the quality of any such work given the subsequent HHS report. Below are some of the photos provided to the landlord in the March HHS 2024 report. The first three highlight the extent of gaps in some windows, the last two the poor condition of the guttering (including vegetation growing in it).
It is evident there were significant issues with the house at commencement. It is not considered unrealistic that the extent of the issues should have been apparent to the new agency during their on-boarding of this new property for management, despite ant interior decoration that might have masked some underlying problems.
Tenant photos of later mould and other deterioration are considered to be due to environmental rather than behavioural issues.
No immediate remedial action took place. I was not until November 2024 that some maintenance work attempted to address some of the issues identified in March that year. By that time the statutory requirement for the premises to be up to the Healthy Homes Standard was well past.
Even after the November work, two further third-party reports highlight ongoing problems.
The first was a building report to the landlord(s) dated 25 March 2025. 3 Like earlier inspections, the inspector was not supplied access to the downstairs basement area.
Sections of that report note: Upon arrival and being invited into the house, it was immediately evident that there was an issue with the levels throughout the upstairs dwelling. My initial walkthrough was led by the tenant and I was shown her area of concerns. Throughout the dwelling there was no evidence of current moisture , BUT in some rooms there was still the remnants of black mould on the ceilings. It should be noted that at the time of inspection Nelson was going through a warm dry spell with no significant rain. Therefore I would assume that the mould issues are weather related rather than plumbing related. 3 Built it Better report. Author Chris Heywood. The main concern internally is the slope that the dwelling is on. It is not just the floors that have dropped but the entire structure has moved to the extent that the walls are significantly out of plumb and show a similar angle to the floor slope. A walk around the exterior of the property has shown that there are a number of cracks in the plaster cladding as well as some cracking in the concrete foundation. This is not surprising due to the angle the house is sitting on. The concrete stairs on the northern side of the property also have cracked and moved significantly. I also noted that there is a drain channel behind the carport that is completely blocked. It appears given the type of vegetation rubbish in the drain that this could be caused from flood run-off rather than direct from the property. However, there are a number of trees immediately over the area that could be contributing to the pile up of rubbish. Regardless, this drain needs to be cleared before the next rain to prevent flooding that apparently happens around the back entrance and carport. Down the eastern side of the foundation there are two vent that are at ground level. This is a concern as any water flow in heavy rain could lead to water flowing under the house. There has been an attempt to bring the dwelling up to the Healthy Homes standard, but given the extent of the movement I seriously doubt the dwelling could be made to meet the standard completely or be maintained to the standard. Windows are constantly jamming due to movement, even though dry at the time of inspection, some windows still were not operating properly. I noted one window had even cracked due to being jammed shut. The shower in the bathroom has been a relatively recent installation and has been installed with the tray level and a false wall built plumb, but the floor of the bathroom has the same significant slope and water from the shower runs out and across the hallway to the bedroom opposite. A splash rail could be fitted to prevent water running out of the shower, but that is not the main issue. The shower rail has come loose from the wall, indicating that possible it is only fitted with gib fixings with no timber behind.
The second third-party report was written by Charlotte Spilman, Team Leader Building Compliance at Nelson City Council, dated 15 July 2025. It supports the observations in the Build it Better report some 3-4 months prior and confirms the continued state, this report being less than a week before the tenancy ended.
Both the tenant evidence and third-party reports since the beginning of the tenancy confirm the failure to maintain or repair the premises. The challenges for the owner of a property near or in an active slump zone are accepted. What is not accepted is that the premises were provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair when rent was being taken. Nor is it accepted the landlord complied with the statutory requirements for Healthy Homes Compliance, required by 6 July 2024.
I find the landlord has failed to comply with the requirements of section 45(1)(bb). Such a failure is an unlawful act (refer section 45(1A))

Should the tenants be compensated?

Section 77(2)(n) RTA allows the Tribunal to grant general damages where a landlord or a tenant has breached a provision of the RTA. These damages can include an amount for distress and pain and suffering.
In Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993 (upheld in the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust, CIV-2018-009-002094 [2020] NZDC 17667) sets out the factors that the Tribunal should take into account when making a damages award, being: a. The nature of the breaches b. The duration of the breach c. The effect of the breaches.
I have taken into account the above factors, as well as the compensation already provided by the rent reduction.
I have also had to balance tenant submissions regarding the poor condition and impacts on them against other contradictory messages of their desire for the tenancy to continue, subject to a “fairer” rent. Given the tenant ongoings challenge in finding alternative accommodation, I accept the pursuit of a rent discount rather than use of the more flexible exit provisions, as provided, was at least partially a result of that challenge. I note the premises remains empty some ten weeks since the tenants vacated due to remedial work yet to conclude.
Having considered all submissions and evidence, I have determined two compensation awards should be made.
The first is for the period from commencement until the rent reduction in November 2024. This allows for repair or maintenance issues that should have been addressed much sooner than November. A number of issues should have been apparent to the landlord but the HHS report provided further clarity that should have led to immediate remedial efforts. That period was 37 weeks. I have determined a weekly rent rebate of $70.00 is appropriate. That totals $2,590.00.
The second compensation award is in addition to the 34 weeks of $100 rent reduction already received. I consider the $150.00 reduction as requested by the tenant (and recommended to the owner by the agent as an acknowledgement of the “current living conditions”) reasonable. I note the greater amount as requested by the tenants was for during the remedial work, and the lesser amount agreed to by the owner was permanent. However, given the later third-party reports confirming unresolved issues remained until the tenancy ended, I consider the extension at the greater sum of $150.00 is appropriate. That equates to a further $1,700.00 compensation in addition to that already provided.
These awards, combined with the prior compensation total $7,690.00. At a weekly rent $620.00 per week for 71 weeks that award of compensation reflects a 17% refund of the $44,020.00 rent as contractually due. That discount is fair and reasonable given the nature and duration of the breaches.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

As I have determined that the landlord committed unlawful acts I must decide if it is appropriate to award exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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) RTA.
The requirements to meet the Healthy Home Standards were clearly advised to the landlord with ample time for remedial action before the 120-day period lapsed. The owner appears to have had a mind to the 1 July 2025 final deadline, regardless any current tenancy status (based on a letter from him to the agent). That was incorrect. As remarked on earlier, the communication between the agent and owner after the HHS report of March 2024 is not something sighted but I consider the unlawful act was intentional and exemplary damages should follow. I am mindful the failure of the landlord to comply with s 45(1)(b) from commencement is also unlawful but that section requires some regard to the age and character of the premises, and I do not make any order for exemplary damages there.
The District Court has confirmed that for multiple breaches of the same unlawful act provision, that the Tribunal must order exemplary damages as a global order, not for each individual breach. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583
The maximum order for such an unlawful act is $7,200.00. I have considered the failure to comply within the context of the ongoing building structural challenges. I have also considered the landlord’s failure to ensure access for inspections, as well as a reliance on exemptions that were superseded or unproven. This appears to have been a tenancy of “too little, too late”. The full impact on the tenants is uncertain due to their mixed messages, with the rent amount being a driver as much as any building issues. Compensation is a separate consideration to assessing exemplary damages, but I have allowed that some of the impact on the tenant was mitigated by financial compensation as sought; some during the tenancy, more by order now.
There is an associated public interest that tenancies are healthy, and that landlords comply with their statutory obligations in relation to the tenancy. The strong public interest here is reflected by Parliament in the significant maximum for such unlawful acts.
Given the multiple HHS breaches and consideration of the factors as detailed in section 109(3) RTA, my start point was 50% of the maximum amount but with a reduction from that to acknowledge what are real geotechnical challenges with this property. I make an order of $2,400.00 exemplary damages. Filing fee
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claim I have reimbursed their filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5246211 — State of repair at 114 Moana Avenue, Moana, Nelson 7011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5246211 — State of repair at 114 Moana Avenue, Moana, Nelson 7011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Did the landlord comply with the Healthy Home Standards?

Should the tenants be compensated?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Did the landlord comply with the Healthy Home Standards?

Should the tenants be compensated?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions