What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5262664 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $1,127.00

How much money was awarded in case 5262664?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5262664?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5262664?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12904345-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5262664 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $1,127.00

How much money was awarded in case 5262664?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5262664?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5262664?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12904345-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 201, 11 Marina Road, Tutukaka, Whangarei 0173 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5262664 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5262664 — net $1,127.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to meet healthy homes standards - heating	$900.00	31. It is proven that the premises did not meet the healthy homes standard for heating.
Compensation: Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair	$200.00	Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	65. Ms Matiu was partially successful in the application, and I will award her the filing fee.
Net award	$1,127.00
Bond	$2,260.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,127.00

The tenancy began on 8 April 2022 and ended on 6 May 2025.

The tenant’s application seeks a refund of the bond and raises issues relating to compliance with the healthy homes standards, maintenance, and the circumstances around the termination of the tenancy.

The hearing took place in Whangarei on 10 December 2025. Mr Peters attended the hearing in person and was assisted by his sister. Ms Matiu attended by phone with the consent of the Tribunal. Bond

In the Case Conference order dated 23 July 2025 I noted that Mr Peters intended to file a cross-application, and that he said that he would file the application by 28 July 2025.

Mr Peters did not file a cross-application.

Section 22B(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states: If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.

Mr Peters has had more than ample opportunity to file his own application.

The bond will be released to the tenant in full. Healthy homes standards

Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards. 1

The healthy homes compliance date for this tenancy was not 1 July 2025 as Mr Peters incorrectly understood. The compliance date was 7 July 2022. 2

Ms Matiu raised issues relating to compliance with the heating, ventilation, and insulation standards. Heating

Tenanted premises must have a fixed means of heating in the main living area of the house that has a heating capacity of at least 1.5kW. 3

There is no fixed means of heating in the main living area of these premises during this tenancy. 1 Section 45(1)(bb) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 For tenancies that began between 1 July 2021 and 27 August 2022 the compliance date was 90 days after commencement of the tenancy (regulation 2(2) Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019) 3 The actual capacity requirement depends on the size of the area

The premises did not meet the healthy homes standard for heating. Ventilation

Ms Matiu said that there are extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom but neither of these vent to the exterior of the building.

Ms Matiu provided no evidence in support of this argument. She said that it was “well known” among the residents of the building.

Mr Peters said that the apartments were built approximately ten years ago, they were built in accordance with the requirements of the Building Act and they have Council ‘sign-off’.

It is clear that Mr Peters never turned his mind to the question of whether the premises meet the healthy homes standard. It seems that he understood, incorrectly, that the premises did not need to comply until 1 July 2025.

Given this lack of enquiry, it is possible that the premises may be non- compliant, and not just in terms of the heating standard. However, a suspicion is not sufficient. This is Ms Matiu’s claim, and she has the burden of proof.

I was not provided with any independent evidence about how / where the bathroom and kitchen fans discharge.

Therefore I find that this part of the claim is not proven.

Ms Matiu also argued that the fan in the laundry was ineffective and that it also vented into the ceiling space.

There is no specific healthy homes requirement in respect of mechanical ventilation in the laundry, only the kitchen and bathroom. Generally, all habitable rooms in a property must have at least one window, door, or skylight that opens to the outside. The size of the door, window and/or skylight must be at least 5% of the floor area of that room.

On the evidence provided to me, it is not proven that the laundry failed to meet those requirements. Insulation

The unit is across two floors. Ms Matiu said that there is no insulation in the floor / ceiling space.

Tenanted premises must have underfloor and ceiling insulation if it can be physically installed in those areas.

Again, Mr Peters had no knowledge about whether there is insulation in place.

Again, the only information that I have is the tenant’s assertion that there is no insulation.

I agree that Mr Peters had a responsibility to ascertain whether the premises were healthy homes compliant, and then to achieve compliance by 7 July 2022. Mr Peters did nothing.

However I do not agree that this creates an inference or assumption that the premises are not compliant. It only creates a possibility, which is not sufficient to base an award of exemplary damages for breach. Healthy homes compliance - conclusion

It is proven that the premises did not meet the healthy homes standard for heating.

The other alleged breaches are not proven.

It is an unlawful act for a landlord to fail to meet the healthy homes standards. 4 Exemplary damages of up to $7,200 can apply.

In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to: 5 a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.

In this instance: a. The landlord entirely ignored his obligation to comply with the healthy homes standards. b. The landlord provided ‘plug in’ heaters. c. Ms Matiu had concerns about poor ventilation / air quality, but there is no evidence that the premises were cold or damp. d. There is a legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords meet the healthy homes standards in all respects.

Having regard to these factors I will award exemplary damages of $900.00. Maintenance 4 Section 45(1A) RTA 5 Section 109 RTA

Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

On 12 March 2025, Ms Matiu sent Mr Peters a 14-day breach notice identifying various maintenance issues.

Mr Peters responded to some of the issues and disputed others.

As discussed in more detail below, Mr Peters issued a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy shortly after Ms Matiu issued this breach notice.

Landlords are entitled to dispute a tenant’s request for maintenance if they consider that the request is unreasonable, or if the need for repairs has arisen due to some careless or intentional action by the tenant.

Having regard to the photographs provided, I agree with Mr Peters’ submission that the carpet, although considerably aged, was not in imminent need of replacement. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have a contractor re-secure the edges of the carpet so that it was safe.

I accept Mr Peters’ submission that the water at the premises is potable but it has an unpleasant taste that unfortunately cannot be treated / removed.

Mr Peters replaced the dishwasher with a second hand one from his own unit. Ms Matiu said that the replacement dishwasher was also ineffective, but there is no good evidence around this.

On balance my finding is that, except for the bathroom plug issue, the landlord took reasonable steps to address the issues that were his responsibility to address. It is possible to make some minor criticisms of Mr Peters’ response to the 14-day notice, but not sufficient to justify a finding that Mr Peters breached a legal duty.

In terms of the bathroom plug, Ms Matiu first raised this in October 2024. Mr Peters promptly provided Ms Matiu with a replacement plug, sourced from his sister’s unit.

On 22 October 2024, Ms Matiu sent Mr Peters a message stating: Hi Wayne. Thanks for the plug. It won’t work in my sink. The sink has a plunger plug mechanism in at that has ceased up and won’t move so the entire unit needs to [be replaced]

On 4 January 2025, Ms Matiu followed up on this outstanding issue. On 5 January Mr Peters replied: Shelly The Appliances Guy will be available next week to fix the dryer and the bathroom plug

Over the next few days Ms Matiu sought an assurance that The Appliances Guy would replace the plug.

On 10 January, Ms Matiu sent Mr Peters a message confirming that the technician had assessed the dryer; However I remain concerned about the confusion regarding the plug replacement. The technician mentioned that this issue falls outside the scope of his work and I share his uncertainty about why this step has not been addressed, as it has been highlighted as necessary since October. It seems this ongoing delay in addressing the root issue is prolonging the resolution unnecessarily

Ms Matiu followed up again on 13 January, stating that she would file a Tenancy Tribunal application if the issue was not resolved promptly.

Ms Matiu issued a 14-day breach notice on 12 March 2025.

There is not much more that Ms Matiu could have done to bring this issue to Mr Peters’ attention. Although Mr Peters acted promptly by providing a replacement plug in October, Ms Matiu let him know that this didn’t fix the problem. Despite multiple reminders, follow ups, and attempts to get assurance that it would be sorted out, Mr Peters failed to sort it out.

This amounts to a breach of the landlord’s duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

The issue is relatively minor, but it was frustrating for Ms Matiu and, as a matter of principle (and law) tenants should not have to send multiple reminders over the course of 6 months for the landlord to address a simple repair issue.

The breach warrants an award of damages. As noted above, the issue was minor but irritating and inconvenient. I will award compensation of $200.00 for inconvenience and loss of amenity. Termination

A landlord can terminate a periodic tenancy by giving 90-days’ notice in writing to the tenant.

On 21 March 2025, Mr Peters issued a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy on 18 June 2025. At the bottom of the notice Mr Peters stated: “NB Without Prejudice: I am going to sell it.”

The Tenancy Tribunal may declare a landlord’s termination notice to be retaliatory if the Tribunal is satisfied that: In giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by the [Residential Tenancies Act 1986] or by any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.

Ms Matiu argued that the termination notice was retaliatory because it came just 9 days after she issued 14-day breach notices in respect of maintenance and healthy homes compliance. Ms Matiu also questioned Mr Peters’ intention to sell the property.

I acknowledge Ms Matiu’s suspicions about the motivation for the notice, given the timing of it. Landlords cannot “punish” tenants for raising maintenance issues by terminating their tenancy.

However, I accept that Mr Peters genuinely wants to sell the property. This is proven by the fact that the property is on the market. I viewed the real estate agent’s listing of the property at the hearing. Landlords are not obliged to continue to be landlords. Ms Matiu said if Mr Peters wanted to sell the property she would have been willing to stay while it was marketed, but Mr Peters was not obliged to take this approach.

In terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated by his decision to sell the premises.

Therefore, I find that the termination notice was not a retaliatory notice. Filing fee

Ms Matiu was partially successful in the application, and I will award her the filing fee. 6

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5262664 — net $1,127.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to meet healthy homes standards - heating	$900.00	31. It is proven that the premises did not meet the healthy homes standard for heating.
Compensation: Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair	$200.00	Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	65. Ms Matiu was partially successful in the application, and I will award her the filing fee.
Net award	$1,127.00
Bond	$2,260.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,127.00