Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5290979 — Healthy homes at 86 Winters Road, Redwood, Christchurch 8051
Decided 4 Aug 2025 · Published 4 Aug 2025 · Application 5290979
- Healthy homes
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- The fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 86 Winters Road, Redwood, Christchurch 8051 is ended by consent and the parties agree that the tenancy will continue as a periodic tenancy with the tenant required to give 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy.
- Kelly and Damian Chatfield must pay [The tenant/s] $577.00 immediately.
- The tenant’s other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Chatfield attended on behalf of the landlords.
- The tenant claims that the fixed term tenancy should be reduced.
- She also claims exemplary and/or general damages in relation to rodents, drainage issues and alleged breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
Should the fixed term be reduced?
- The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 23 November 2025.
- The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
- There has not been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances.
- I do not consider that the tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced.
- The tenant claimed that the property, due to drainage, rodents and alleged healthy homes issues was not liveable in winter.
- Insufficient evidence was provided in relation to this claim and the evidence that was provided (discussed below) does not support it.
- Although there are no grounds to reduce the term of the fixed term tenancy, the landlord agreed to release the tenant from her obligations under the fixed term.
- The parties agree that tenancy will continue on a periodic basis with the tenant being able to terminate the tenancy on giving 21 days’ notice under section 51 (2A) of the Act.
Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes standards?
- [The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Act, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
- The landlord signed a partially completed healthy homes compliance statement in the tenancy agreement. The statement did not include a compliance date and some of the details were incomplete and/or inaccurate. No healthy homes assessment had been completed and the landlord had not determined when the compliance date for the tenancy was.
- The tenant requested the healthy homes assessment details as she found the home to be cold and damp. The landlord did not provide the information and eventually the tenant arranged an assessment herself.
- The landlord said that she had also arranged an assessment but cancelled it when she learned that the tenant had arranged one.
- The assessment was completed on 27 May 2025, and the property initially failed the moisture ingress and draught stopping standards.
- The required work was completed, and the property was signed off as compliant on 11 July 2025.
- [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard and the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
- Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
- This property should have been compliant by 23 March 2025. No assessment had been completed by this date and the property did not comply with the requirements for a further 110 days. This is almost double the statutory time period provided.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) of the Act.
- I find Kelly and Damian Chatfield 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) of the Act.
- In this case I have determined that the landlords turned their mind to the HHS requirements, as they signed a statement in the tenancy agreement confirming that the property complied but they did not check the compliance date.
- The intention of this must be to assure any prospective tenant that the property is compliant.
- The tenant was impacted by the lack of healthy homes information. There were a number of issues with the tenancy which were causing stress to the tenant, and she was also concerned that the property was not compliant with the HHS.
- The non-compliance discovered by the assessment was relatively minor. The tenant complained of cold, condensation and mould, but the heating and ventilation were up to standard.
- The moisture ingress standard failed but the photographs provided show this to be due to a reasonably small area of the subfloor not being sufficiently covered by the existing moisture barrier. The barrier was present but was missing in parts or had been moved.
- The draught stopping standard also failed due to an exterior door missing a draught stopper strip and three windows not closing tightly enough (living/kitchen, bathroom and toilet).
- The tenant should not have had to chase the HHS information or arrange the assessment herself. She was clearly concerned that the property was non- compliant, and this added to her burden of stress and anxiety in relation to the tenancy generally.
- I find it unlikely that the non-compliance itself added significantly to this as the non-complying aspects were relatively minor.
- Although the tenant referred to medical issues suffered by her and her children, no evidence was provided to support this except a chart showing a child’s school attendance (with no name attached). There is no evidence connecting any illnesses or school absences with the tenancy property.
- It is certainly in the public interest that landlords ensure they comply with the HHS so that rental properties meet at least these minimum requirements. Tenants have the right to expect that the homes they occupy meet these standards.
- I note that the landlord did the work required to make sure that the property complied, and it did so within three and a half weeks of the initial assessment.
- There are additional (related) breaches of the landlord’s obligations to give the required statements in the tenancy agreement (implicit is the requirement that the statement must be accurate and complete which it was not) and the landlord’s obligation to provide documents relating to HHS compliance within 21 days of a request by the tenant (which they did not).
- Taking all of the above into account, the amount of $550.00 in exemplary damages is ordered accordingly. Claims for damages for drainage issues and rodents
- The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
- The applicant claimed that the landlord failed in their duties to maintain the property in relation to rodent infestation and drainage issues.
- The property was infested with mice. The tenant provided evidence to support this.
- In mid-March 2025, the tenant told the landlord about the issue, and they agreed to set bait and fill some access holes to see if this would be sufficient. The tenant set some bait, the council also assisted with external bait stations and the landlord filled some access holes and set additional bait stations including in the ceiling.
- The problem was not resolved.
- The landlord had a pest control expert attend on 2 May 2025, and this was followed up with an additional treatment a week later.
- The tenant accepted that this seemed to work.
- The landlord offered to have the kitchen and bathroom professionally cleaned but the tenant was unable to accommodate this at the time.
- The tenant also claimed that the landlord breached the Act in terms of a failure to properly attend to a drainage/water issue at the property.
- This issue seems to have been initiated primarily by a neighbour who was concerned that water issues on their property (which then impacted the tenancy address) were being caused by problems at the tenancy address.
- The landlord was told about this in late March and had a plumber look at the drains. The plumber said that the problem was with the Council and the landlord followed up with the Council and was told that they accepted there was an issue and intended to remedy it.
- A letter from the Council was provided which confirmed that the issue was to be remedied on 29 April 2025.
- The tenant accepted that this repair was effective.
- Although the tenant gave evidence that she followed up with the council on this matter a number of times, this seems to be more to do with pressure from the neighbour than anything the landlord could impact. The landlord checked their property and found no issue. The landlord was happy with the council’s response and thought the issue was out of their hands.
- Although the landlord expressed gratitude that the tenant followed up on the matter, they did not feel such follow up was necessary.
- The tenant was clearly significantly affected by the water issues and the neighbour’s response to this. She sent a number of emails and communicated with the council a number of times and passed this on to the landlord.
- I cannot find that there is any breach of the Act here in relation to the landlord’s actions. The council eventually fixed the problem and would likely have done so without any further follow up. It is difficult to imagine what, if anything, the landlord could have done to improve the situation.
- The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord committed any breach of the Act in relation to the rodent or the drainage issue.
- I accept that the tenant found this experience very difficult, especially considering she was also studying at the time and had her teenage children living with her at the property.
- However, I find that the landlord made reasonable efforts to resolve the issues in a timely way and they were resolved. Although unpleasant for the tenant, I do not find that the landlord breached their obligations in regard to the rodents or the drainage and no damages can or should flow.
- Much of the tenant’s stress seems to have been due to the owner of a neighbouring property involving the tenant in issues that did not need to be of her concern.
- The tone of the emails between the parties was always pleasant and the landlord seemed to genuinely try to understand what the issues were and how she could address them.
- Although the tenant referred to 14-day notices, no formal notices were supplied with the application. One email purported to contain “a 14 day notice to terminate our tenancy” but did not include an effective date and referred to issues that had already been resolved by the landlord (mice) or were not found to be an issue in the HHS assessment (ventilation). This was not a notice that could be addressed by the landlord and termination could not have been ordered (and was not requested) on this basis. Suppression and filing fee
- As [The applicant/s] has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
- The applicant requested name suppression in her application and as she has been partly successful, name suppression has been ordered.