What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5288128?

The tribunal order states: John Stringer must pay Alice Claire Hudson and Joshua Moffit $491.99

How much money was awarded in case 5288128?

Compensation: Breaches Healthy Homes…: $4,875.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Previous Order Application 5354381 D…: $8,383.01 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5288128?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5288128?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13560630-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5288128?

The tribunal order states: John Stringer must pay Alice Claire Hudson and Joshua Moffit $491.99

How much money was awarded in case 5288128?

Compensation: Breaches Healthy Homes…: $4,875.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Previous Order Application 5354381 D…: $8,383.01 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5288128?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5288128?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13560630-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

151 Harewood Road, Papanui, Christchurch 8053 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5288128 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5288128 — net $491.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 5354381 dated 26/01/2026	$8,383.01		Previous order application 5354381 dated 26/01/2026
Compensation: Breaches Healthy Homes Standards		$4,875.00	Breaches Healthy Homes Standards
Exemplary damages: Breaches Healthy Homes		$2,000.00	Breaches Healthy Homes
Exemplary damages: Failure to Lodge Bond		$600.00	Failure to Lodge Bond
Refund Bond		$1,400.00	Refund Bond
Total award	$8,383.01	$8,875.00
Net award		$491.99
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$491.99

Order

John Stringer must pay Alice Claire Hudson and Joshua Moffit $491.99 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

All other claims by the parties are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing by video.
The Tribunal heard and determined a landlord application (5354381) in January 2026. Enforcement of that Order was stated pending resolution of the tenant application. I have now heard and determined the tenant’s claims (`5288128).
The net result of both applications is that the landlord must pay the tenants $491.99 as set out above. Healthy Homes – Repair & Maintenance
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the heating standards, draught stopping and ventilation standards.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The 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 tenants provided evidence that there was no mechanical ventilation in the bathroom and said that, as a result the bathroom became damp and mouldy. They claim to have stopped using the main bathroom and used a shower in the laundry (which also had no mechanical ventilation, but the mould was not as bad in that room).
The landlord confirmed that there was no mechanical ventilation and said that he had advice from an experienced landlord (Mr Sprott) that an opening window was sufficient. He did not provide any evidence of that advice. Even if received, it is patently wrong. The Healthy Homes Statement completed by the landlord clearly refers to a fan being required.
The landlord also said that he lived at the premises and he had no issue with mould in the bathroom. He may not have. These tenants did, in circumstances where the landlord had failed to provide the correct ventilation. The photographs provided by the tenant also suggest that dampness was not a recent issue.
A Healthy Homes report commissioned by the landlord at the end of the tenancy also confirms that the premises do not comply with draught stopping or heating standards. The report lists multiple draughts. In relation to heating, I accept that the heat pump itself is compliant and the issue is lack of maintenance, but the landlord is responsible for that maintenance.
That report also states the insulation complies, partly because of an exemption for the sub-floor being too low to access. However, someone has accessed the sub-floor and installed carpet as a moisture barrier. I doubt that carpet (which will hold moisture and rot over time) is an effective moisture barrier.
The results of the Healthy Homes Report and the tenant’s evidence (including photographs) establish that the premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes requirements and were more likely than not cold and damp throughout this tenancy. The tenants have suffered a loss of amenity, they were paying $700 per week for premises which should have been warm, dry and compliant. I award compensation of $4,875.00 which equates to a rent abatement of approximately $75 per week for the duration of the tenancy.
The tenants also claimed to have suffered adverse health conditions from living in the dwelling. They provided limited medical evidence. They did not establish a connection between the property and any health condition. If they had, the award of compensation would have been higher.
I do not accept the landlord’s assertion that he acted as soon as he became aware of his obligations (at the end of the tenancy). Landlords are expected to be aware of their responsibilities under the RTA. Ignorance of the law is not an answer to the tenant’s claim.
The landlord has failed to ensure compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards throughout the tenancy; in doing so he has also failed to provide and maintain the premises to a reasonable standard. He has breached s45 RTA. I find he has committed an unlawful act.
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.
The landlord considered ventilation at the start of the tenancy, but concluded windows were sufficient. He made a deliberate decision not to install ventilation. It is in the public interest and in these particular tenant’s interests that rental properties are warm and dry. That is the purpose of the Healthy Homes Standards. An award of exemplary damages is appropriate in the context of this case. I award $2,000. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
The tenants claim that the landlord has interfered with their privacy and reasonable enjoyment of the property.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants claim that the landlord made inappropriate suggestions regarding possible restructuring of the tenancy when they were experiencing some personal difficulties.
The landlord says that the tone of his communication is evident from the way he interacted with them, and he stands by it. I have reviewed the email exchanges. The landlord’s position and tone (particularly to the female tenant) is unfortunate, but it does not meet the threshold of interfering with the reasonable peace and enjoyment of the tenants.
This aspect of the claim is dismissed. Failure to Lodge the Bond
The tenancy agreement called for a bond of $1,400. The tenants paid $1,400. It was never lodged at the bond centre.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord maintained that he was not required to lodge the bond payment because it was a “partial bond”. It was not, the tenants paid the full amount of bond specified in the tenancy agreement.
Further s19(1) provides for payment of “any” bond. So, partial payments must be sent to the bond centre as they are received by the landlord.
This landlord claimed that, because the tenants did not pay a “full bond” of four weeks rent, he was not required to lodge it. His argument was an exercise in semantics and has no merit.
Four weeks is the maximum bond a landlord can request (s18 RTA), and any bond payment must be sent to the bond centre within 23 working days of receipt (s19 RTA).
The landlord failed to lodge the bond, within time or at all. He has committed an unlawful act.
A bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent. The decision not to lodge the bond was conscious and intentional. I award exemplary damages of $600. The landlord must also refund the bond to the tenants. Failure to Appoint an Agent
The tenants claim that the landlord has been overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has been out of New Zealand for more than 21 days during this tenancy. However, he says that he was available through normal methods of communication and that his sons could act for him when necessary. He appointed a property manager at the very end of the tenancy only.
I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act. However, the evidence does not show any adverse consequence to the tenancy as a result of this failure, and the landlord did respond to communication promptly. I am not persuaded that it is necessary to award exemplary damages for this breach. However, the landlord is now on notice, that if he commits the same breach in the future, it is likely that exemplary damages will be awarded.
This claim is dismissed.
As each party was partially successful with their claims, I did not award reimbursement of either application fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5288128 — net $491.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 5354381 dated 26/01/2026	$8,383.01		Previous order application 5354381 dated 26/01/2026
Compensation: Breaches Healthy Homes Standards		$4,875.00	Breaches Healthy Homes Standards
Exemplary damages: Breaches Healthy Homes		$2,000.00	Breaches Healthy Homes
Exemplary damages: Failure to Lodge Bond		$600.00	Failure to Lodge Bond
Refund Bond		$1,400.00	Refund Bond
Total award	$8,383.01	$8,875.00
Net award		$491.99
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$491.99

Order

John Stringer must pay Alice Claire Hudson and Joshua Moffit $491.99 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

All other claims by the parties are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing by video.
The Tribunal heard and determined a landlord application (5354381) in January 2026. Enforcement of that Order was stated pending resolution of the tenant application. I have now heard and determined the tenant’s claims (`5288128).
The net result of both applications is that the landlord must pay the tenants $491.99 as set out above. Healthy Homes – Repair & Maintenance
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the heating standards, draught stopping and ventilation standards.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The 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 tenants provided evidence that there was no mechanical ventilation in the bathroom and said that, as a result the bathroom became damp and mouldy. They claim to have stopped using the main bathroom and used a shower in the laundry (which also had no mechanical ventilation, but the mould was not as bad in that room).
The landlord confirmed that there was no mechanical ventilation and said that he had advice from an experienced landlord (Mr Sprott) that an opening window was sufficient. He did not provide any evidence of that advice. Even if received, it is patently wrong. The Healthy Homes Statement completed by the landlord clearly refers to a fan being required.
The landlord also said that he lived at the premises and he had no issue with mould in the bathroom. He may not have. These tenants did, in circumstances where the landlord had failed to provide the correct ventilation. The photographs provided by the tenant also suggest that dampness was not a recent issue.
A Healthy Homes report commissioned by the landlord at the end of the tenancy also confirms that the premises do not comply with draught stopping or heating standards. The report lists multiple draughts. In relation to heating, I accept that the heat pump itself is compliant and the issue is lack of maintenance, but the landlord is responsible for that maintenance.
That report also states the insulation complies, partly because of an exemption for the sub-floor being too low to access. However, someone has accessed the sub-floor and installed carpet as a moisture barrier. I doubt that carpet (which will hold moisture and rot over time) is an effective moisture barrier.
The results of the Healthy Homes Report and the tenant’s evidence (including photographs) establish that the premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes requirements and were more likely than not cold and damp throughout this tenancy. The tenants have suffered a loss of amenity, they were paying $700 per week for premises which should have been warm, dry and compliant. I award compensation of $4,875.00 which equates to a rent abatement of approximately $75 per week for the duration of the tenancy.
The tenants also claimed to have suffered adverse health conditions from living in the dwelling. They provided limited medical evidence. They did not establish a connection between the property and any health condition. If they had, the award of compensation would have been higher.
I do not accept the landlord’s assertion that he acted as soon as he became aware of his obligations (at the end of the tenancy). Landlords are expected to be aware of their responsibilities under the RTA. Ignorance of the law is not an answer to the tenant’s claim.
The landlord has failed to ensure compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards throughout the tenancy; in doing so he has also failed to provide and maintain the premises to a reasonable standard. He has breached s45 RTA. I find he has committed an unlawful act.
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.
The landlord considered ventilation at the start of the tenancy, but concluded windows were sufficient. He made a deliberate decision not to install ventilation. It is in the public interest and in these particular tenant’s interests that rental properties are warm and dry. That is the purpose of the Healthy Homes Standards. An award of exemplary damages is appropriate in the context of this case. I award $2,000. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
The tenants claim that the landlord has interfered with their privacy and reasonable enjoyment of the property.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants claim that the landlord made inappropriate suggestions regarding possible restructuring of the tenancy when they were experiencing some personal difficulties.
The landlord says that the tone of his communication is evident from the way he interacted with them, and he stands by it. I have reviewed the email exchanges. The landlord’s position and tone (particularly to the female tenant) is unfortunate, but it does not meet the threshold of interfering with the reasonable peace and enjoyment of the tenants.
This aspect of the claim is dismissed. Failure to Lodge the Bond
The tenancy agreement called for a bond of $1,400. The tenants paid $1,400. It was never lodged at the bond centre.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord maintained that he was not required to lodge the bond payment because it was a “partial bond”. It was not, the tenants paid the full amount of bond specified in the tenancy agreement.
Further s19(1) provides for payment of “any” bond. So, partial payments must be sent to the bond centre as they are received by the landlord.
This landlord claimed that, because the tenants did not pay a “full bond” of four weeks rent, he was not required to lodge it. His argument was an exercise in semantics and has no merit.
Four weeks is the maximum bond a landlord can request (s18 RTA), and any bond payment must be sent to the bond centre within 23 working days of receipt (s19 RTA).
The landlord failed to lodge the bond, within time or at all. He has committed an unlawful act.
A bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent. The decision not to lodge the bond was conscious and intentional. I award exemplary damages of $600. The landlord must also refund the bond to the tenants. Failure to Appoint an Agent
The tenants claim that the landlord has been overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has been out of New Zealand for more than 21 days during this tenancy. However, he says that he was available through normal methods of communication and that his sons could act for him when necessary. He appointed a property manager at the very end of the tenancy only.
I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act. However, the evidence does not show any adverse consequence to the tenancy as a result of this failure, and the landlord did respond to communication promptly. I am not persuaded that it is necessary to award exemplary damages for this breach. However, the landlord is now on notice, that if he commits the same breach in the future, it is likely that exemplary damages will be awarded.
This claim is dismissed.
As each party was partially successful with their claims, I did not award reimbursement of either application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5288128 — Healthy homes at 151 Harewood Road, Papanui, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5288128 — Healthy homes at 151 Harewood Road, Papanui, Christchurch 8053

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