What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5297029 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5297029?

Compensation: breach of the heating…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: loss of amenity for 17…: $1,420.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5297029?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5297029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12185606-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5297029 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5297029?

Compensation: breach of the heating…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: loss of amenity for 17…: $1,420.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5297029?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5297029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12185606-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

36 Waipounamu Drive, Kelson, Lower Hutt 5010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5297029 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5297029 — net $2,447.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of amenity for 17 weeks	$1,420.00	loss of amenity for 17 weeks
Compensation: breach of the heating standard	$1,000.00	breach of the heating standard
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,447.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,447.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by Friday 15 August: a. Have a qualified technician check and/or service the heatpump at the landlord’s expense. b. Have a qualified builder check the house and the garage for leaks and make any necessary repairs. c. Have a qualified builder confirm the laundry leak is repaired and that the floor is safe. d. Have a qualified builder check the front door for leaks and draughts and make repairs if needed to have a watertight door. e. Have a qualified plumber check the hot water cylinder is functioning correctly and make any necessary repairs. f. Have a qualified insulation installer check the crawl space under the house to determine if underfloor insulation can be installed.
The landlord must pay the tenants $2447.00 immediately calculated as showing in the table:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants moved into the house in June 2023. They are looking to move out because the house is cold and leaks. They are concerned the house does not meet the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), and they believe the landlord has not carried out maintenance and repairs. Rather than adjourn the hearing so I could direct the landlord to provide an independent HHS report, the tenants preferred that I consider the information discussed at the hearing and make work orders and orders about compensation. The questions I have to decide include: • Should I make work orders? • Does the house meet the requirements of the HHS? • Should I make an order for compensation?

Should I make work orders?

The tenants claim that the landlord has not carried out repairs and maintenance is a timely manner and has not properly investigated leaks in the house and the garage. The tenants want the problems fixed.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements. Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) RTA.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. We saw two short videos at the hearing and looked at photos. I find the tenants have proved the garage floods with water when it rains, there are ongoing leaks inside the house, water blows under the front door when there is heavy wind and rain, and the hot water cylinder and hot water in the house may not function properly. The landlord could not tell us at the hearing if the repairs to the laundry have been completed so this work should be checked as well. Finally, the amount of crawl space under house should be checked in case underfloor insulation can be installed. The landlord agreed work orders could be made.

Does the house meet the requirements of the HHS?

The tenants raised concerns about draughts, insulation, and drainage. I have made work orders to address these.
The tenants have also had problems with the heatpump, which is not heating the lounge. During the hearing I noticed that the heating compliance statement in the HHS report attached to the tenancy agreement states there is a heatpump and a top up panel heater fixed to the lounge walls. The tenants said the panel heater had never been attached to the wall and could not be used. I had asked the landlord to email, after the hearing, copies of the four inspection reports we discussed at the hearing. The landlord provided the inspection reports, as well as an explanation about how the heating standard was applied, and this submission: We acknowledge the documentation error in the original report but confirm: •The property was compliant with the Healthy Homes heating standard at the start of the tenancy, •The heating provided was sufficient and lawful under the amended regulations, •The reference to an additional panel heater was unnecessary and based on a misinterpretation of the applicable tolerance rule. We trust this explanation confirms that the property met the legal standard and was suitable for tenancy under the Healthy Homes Regulations.
As an exception, I have considered this submission received after the hearing because it seemed most likely there would be no detriment to the tenants.
Schedule 1, provision 4 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 does allow for large heaters installed before 2019 to be used if they provide 80% of the required heating capacity under the HHS. I accept this would explain the 4Kw heatpump in a living room which needs a
7Kw capacity heatpump.
Provision 4 also states that the landlord is required to disclose the 80% capacity in the tenancy agreement. The landlord did not do this.

Should I make an order for compensation?

This is the tenants’ claim to prove. The tenant’s evidence about timing was vague. However, I am persuaded that there was a loss of amenity because the dishwasher had stopped working, the laundry leaked, the garage leaked, the house leaked, and the heatpump was not working properly. I find the landlord has limited the claim to 28 March 2025, which is the date the broken dishwasher was reported in the inspection report. I allow compensation because the tenants have been paying full rent and they have not been able to use the house as intended. Compensation in the amount of $80 a week seems fair.
I also allow compensation in the amount of $1000 for the breach of the duty to provide accurate information about the heating standard. This is a lower amount than I would have allowed because I have taken the landlord’s submission about compliance into account, but acknowledges the importance of accurate disclosure so tenants can make informed choices about which house to rent. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest in breaches of the HHS. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5297029 — net $2,447.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of amenity for 17 weeks	$1,420.00	loss of amenity for 17 weeks
Compensation: breach of the heating standard	$1,000.00	breach of the heating standard
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,447.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,447.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by Friday 15 August: a. Have a qualified technician check and/or service the heatpump at the landlord’s expense. b. Have a qualified builder check the house and the garage for leaks and make any necessary repairs. c. Have a qualified builder confirm the laundry leak is repaired and that the floor is safe. d. Have a qualified builder check the front door for leaks and draughts and make repairs if needed to have a watertight door. e. Have a qualified plumber check the hot water cylinder is functioning correctly and make any necessary repairs. f. Have a qualified insulation installer check the crawl space under the house to determine if underfloor insulation can be installed.
The landlord must pay the tenants $2447.00 immediately calculated as showing in the table:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants moved into the house in June 2023. They are looking to move out because the house is cold and leaks. They are concerned the house does not meet the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), and they believe the landlord has not carried out maintenance and repairs. Rather than adjourn the hearing so I could direct the landlord to provide an independent HHS report, the tenants preferred that I consider the information discussed at the hearing and make work orders and orders about compensation. The questions I have to decide include: • Should I make work orders? • Does the house meet the requirements of the HHS? • Should I make an order for compensation?

Should I make work orders?

The tenants claim that the landlord has not carried out repairs and maintenance is a timely manner and has not properly investigated leaks in the house and the garage. The tenants want the problems fixed.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements. Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) RTA.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. We saw two short videos at the hearing and looked at photos. I find the tenants have proved the garage floods with water when it rains, there are ongoing leaks inside the house, water blows under the front door when there is heavy wind and rain, and the hot water cylinder and hot water in the house may not function properly. The landlord could not tell us at the hearing if the repairs to the laundry have been completed so this work should be checked as well. Finally, the amount of crawl space under house should be checked in case underfloor insulation can be installed. The landlord agreed work orders could be made.

Does the house meet the requirements of the HHS?

The tenants raised concerns about draughts, insulation, and drainage. I have made work orders to address these.
The tenants have also had problems with the heatpump, which is not heating the lounge. During the hearing I noticed that the heating compliance statement in the HHS report attached to the tenancy agreement states there is a heatpump and a top up panel heater fixed to the lounge walls. The tenants said the panel heater had never been attached to the wall and could not be used. I had asked the landlord to email, after the hearing, copies of the four inspection reports we discussed at the hearing. The landlord provided the inspection reports, as well as an explanation about how the heating standard was applied, and this submission: We acknowledge the documentation error in the original report but confirm: •The property was compliant with the Healthy Homes heating standard at the start of the tenancy, •The heating provided was sufficient and lawful under the amended regulations, •The reference to an additional panel heater was unnecessary and based on a misinterpretation of the applicable tolerance rule. We trust this explanation confirms that the property met the legal standard and was suitable for tenancy under the Healthy Homes Regulations.
As an exception, I have considered this submission received after the hearing because it seemed most likely there would be no detriment to the tenants.
Schedule 1, provision 4 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 does allow for large heaters installed before 2019 to be used if they provide 80% of the required heating capacity under the HHS. I accept this would explain the 4Kw heatpump in a living room which needs a
7Kw capacity heatpump.
Provision 4 also states that the landlord is required to disclose the 80% capacity in the tenancy agreement. The landlord did not do this.

Should I make an order for compensation?

This is the tenants’ claim to prove. The tenant’s evidence about timing was vague. However, I am persuaded that there was a loss of amenity because the dishwasher had stopped working, the laundry leaked, the garage leaked, the house leaked, and the heatpump was not working properly. I find the landlord has limited the claim to 28 March 2025, which is the date the broken dishwasher was reported in the inspection report. I allow compensation because the tenants have been paying full rent and they have not been able to use the house as intended. Compensation in the amount of $80 a week seems fair.
I also allow compensation in the amount of $1000 for the breach of the duty to provide accurate information about the heating standard. This is a lower amount than I would have allowed because I have taken the landlord’s submission about compliance into account, but acknowledges the importance of accurate disclosure so tenants can make informed choices about which house to rent. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest in breaches of the HHS. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5297029 — Tenancy dispute at 36 Waipounamu Drive, Kelson, Lower Hutt 5010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5297029 — Tenancy dispute at 36 Waipounamu Drive, Kelson, Lower Hutt 5010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should I make work orders?

Does the house meet the requirements of the HHS?

Should I make an order for compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should I make work orders?

Does the house meet the requirements of the HHS?

Should I make an order for compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions