What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300858 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 5300858?

Lightbulbs: $52.55 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300858?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300858?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12521949-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300858 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 5300858?

Lightbulbs: $52.55 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300858?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300858?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12521949-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

150 Ohiro Road, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5300858 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

150 Ohiro Road, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5300858 — Healthy homes | 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 5300858 — net $3,680.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: draught stopping, drain clearer, light bulb	$52.55	draught stopping, drain clearer, light bulb
Exemplary damages: HHS breaches and maintenance	$3,600.00	HHS breaches and maintenance
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,680.55
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,680.55

Claims and awards for application 5300858 — net $3,680.55 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: draught stopping, drain clearer, light bulb

Amount: $52.55
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: draught stopping, drain clearer, light bulb

Exemplary damages: HHS breaches and maintenance

Amount: $3,600.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: HHS breaches and maintenance

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $3,680.55

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $3,680.55

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Property damage Exemplary damages Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Phong Do must pay [The tenant/s] $3,680.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended and had a representative.
This tenancy started on 9 June 2025 and ended by agreement one month later. The house is over 100 years old. The tenants have filed an application because they are concerned the house was not clean, not maintained, and did not meet the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). They are also concerned there were breaches of quiet enjoyment during the tenancy. They have asked for compensation and exemplary damages. The landlord does not agree with the claims. The questions I have to decide include: • Was the house in a reasonable condition when the tenants moved in? • Did the house comply with the HHS? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment? • Should the landlord pay compensation? • Should I allow exemplary damages?

Was the house in a reasonable condition when the tenants moved on?

The tenants claim that the landlord breached his obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Under section 45 a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching either 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 RTA.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. They provided me with photos and copies of emails asking for cleaning and repairs. The landlord agreed cleaning was missed but said family went to the house within two days after he became aware the tenants were unhappy and carried out more cleaning. I find the house was not provided to the tenants in a reasonable condition. The tenants have also proved the washing machine and the dyer were not reasonably clean, even after the extra cleaning. The lawns were not reasonable for the first two weeks of the tenancy. Not providing the house and garden in a reasonable condition is an unlawful act.
The tenants provided me with photos and emails to show the house needed maintenance and repairs when they moved in and when they let the landlord know. Landlords are not required to provide a house free from repair, but they are required to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe after being notified of an issue by the tenants. The landlord carried out some repairs promptly but said there was so much work that not all repairs could be done in the month the tenants lived there. I find the tenants have proved the following repairs were not done during the tenancy: • Cracks in windows were covered with silicone and not properly repaired. • Many windows did not open or close properly. • The skylights, which dripped excessive condensation onto the floor of the thoroughfare, were not fixed. • The bathroom extractor fan did was not effective. • There were latches missing on the kitchen cupboards. • The curtains and blinds were mouldy. • The washing machine needed a new seal. • The dryer should have been vented to the outside.
I do not accept that these maintenance issues could be avoided because they are common to 100 year old houses. I find that failing to fix these issues during the tenancy was a breach by the landlord, which means the landlord committed an unlawful act.

Did the house comply with the HHS?

The tenants claim the landlord did not provide a house that complied with the HHS. The tenants are concerned the landlord’s insulation statement was incorrect because it did not disclose that only part of the house had underfloor insulation. They were so cold during their month in the house that they doubt there is sufficient ceiling insulation. They are also worried the windows do not meet the ventilation requirements, the extractor fam in the bathroom was not in a reasonable condition, and there were draughts. Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
As at 1 July 2025 the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 required ceiling insulation and underfloor insulation where it is possible to install. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016 the insulation must still be in reasonable condition. The HHS statement in the tenancy agreement states the house is fully insulated but after the tenants moved in the landlord clarified that only the bedrooms had underfloor insulation. We only have the landlord’s word that the ceiling insulation is R2.4 and in a good condition. I would expect a landlord to come to a hearing with some sort of independent evidence about the underfloor exemption, and photos of the ceiling insulation. I find there was a breach by putting the wrong information in the tenancy agreement, and most likely a breach of the duty to provide insulation to the required standard.
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard. 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 and these must duct to the outside.
The tenants provided me with photos showing the windows they had trouble opening and closing. They also took measurements of the rooms and windows. The landlord said that all the rooms in question had sufficient opening windows to meet the HHS. Having considered the evidence it seems most likely to me all rooms would have complied with the ventilation requirements had the windows opened properly. However, as at 1 July 2025, it seems likely that two of the rooms could not be adequately ventilated. This is a breach of the HHS.
I accept the tenants’ submission the bathroom fan was not effective. I have seen photos showing mould and water damage in the bathroom. The fan was installed before the landlord bought the house in 2017 and most likely needs to be replaced.
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard. The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, and which allow draughts to arise. The tenants provided photos showing gaps around windows, around the disused fireplace, around pipes, and through a no longer used mail slot in the front door. The landlord said these were to be expected in a home of this age. I find there was a breach of the HHS. The landlord must understand that there is no exemption from draught stopping because houses are too old.
I find the landlord breached the HHS and committed an unlawful act.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenants said the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment. The law provides that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenants in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
The tenants are concerned the landlord came to the house to mow the lawns without giving notice. The landlord is allowed to do this. There is no evidence the landlord went too often, so I find there was no breach of quiet enjoyment.
The tenants agreed to the landlord bringing prospective tenants to the house on Sundays during a one hour slot. I find this was sufficiently clear and the landlord was not required to give the tenants further notice they would be at the house. There was no breach of quiet enjoyment.
The tenants said the maintenance, loss of amenity and healthy homes breaches contributed to a breach of quiet enjoyment. This is better considered as part of claim for compensation and exemplary damages. I find there was no additional breach of section 38 RTA by the landlord.
All claims relating to quiet enjoyment are dismissed.

Should the landlord pay compensation?

The tenants have claimed compensation for loss of amenity and additional costs which they incurred during the short tenancy.
I find the landlord should reimburse the tenants for the products used to clear the drains when they moved in, for the missing light bulb, and the draught stopping tape bought when the landlord did not fix the draughts. The amounts claimed are reasonable.
I do not find the tenants have proved the landlord should pay the cost of the doctor’s visit. I am more persuaded by the landlord’s submission that the doctor did not visit the house to assess compliance with the law and there are a number of reasons for a flair up of existing conditions such as asthma. This claim is dismissed.
The claim for the power bill for the month because there was an additional cost to heat the house is not allowed because there is no way I can compare usage or establish what the power would be in that house when the repairs and HHS compliance were complete.
The claim for the mop is not allowed because this is a usual household item that can still be used.
I accept there was a loss of amenity because the tenants were paying rent for appliances they couldn’t use and for a house that was cold and draughty. The landlord submitted that it reduced the rent by $200 during the tenancy and accepted the tenants notice when they had signed a fixed term tenancy agreement. I accept there is value in these efforts by the landlord and note the tenants were only there for a month. I find the tenants have already been sufficiently compensated for the loss of amenity.
The claim for compensation is dismissed.

Should I allow exemplary damages?

I have found the landlord committed unlawful acts by breaching the obligation to provide a house in a reasonable condition and by not complying with the HHS. 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) RTA.
The landlord said there was no intention to mislead the tenant or to breach the obligation to provide premises in a reasonable condition, or to breach the HHS. The inaccurate HHS information in the tenancy agreement was a mistake and there was no intention to mislead. I am not persuaded by this submission because there is an obligation on landlords to keep up to date with the RTA and the HHS. The effect for the tenants was they were misled by the tenancy agreement and rented a cold house in need of repair. They had to move out five months sooner than they were expecting. There were additional costs, both financially and emotionally. It is in tenants’ interests that landlords repair and maintain tenancy premises and take changes to the law seriously. There is public interest that landlords pay exemplary damages when they breach the RTA.
Considering these factors, I have determined that the landlord should pay exemplary damages of $3600. This is mid-scale because of the number of breaches. 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 and the tenancy address will be published because there is public interest when landlords breach the RTA and when houses don’t meet the HHS. See section 95A RTA.

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 5300858 — net $3,680.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: draught stopping, drain clearer, light bulb	$52.55	draught stopping, drain clearer, light bulb
Exemplary damages: HHS breaches and maintenance	$3,600.00	HHS breaches and maintenance
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,680.55
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,680.55

Claims and awards for application 5300858 — net $3,680.55 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: draught stopping, drain clearer, light bulb

Amount: $52.55
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: draught stopping, drain clearer, light bulb

Exemplary damages: HHS breaches and maintenance

Amount: $3,600.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: HHS breaches and maintenance

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $3,680.55

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $3,680.55

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Property damage Exemplary damages Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Phong Do must pay [The tenant/s] $3,680.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended and had a representative.
This tenancy started on 9 June 2025 and ended by agreement one month later. The house is over 100 years old. The tenants have filed an application because they are concerned the house was not clean, not maintained, and did not meet the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). They are also concerned there were breaches of quiet enjoyment during the tenancy. They have asked for compensation and exemplary damages. The landlord does not agree with the claims. The questions I have to decide include: • Was the house in a reasonable condition when the tenants moved in? • Did the house comply with the HHS? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment? • Should the landlord pay compensation? • Should I allow exemplary damages?

Was the house in a reasonable condition when the tenants moved on?

The tenants claim that the landlord breached his obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Under section 45 a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching either 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 RTA.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. They provided me with photos and copies of emails asking for cleaning and repairs. The landlord agreed cleaning was missed but said family went to the house within two days after he became aware the tenants were unhappy and carried out more cleaning. I find the house was not provided to the tenants in a reasonable condition. The tenants have also proved the washing machine and the dyer were not reasonably clean, even after the extra cleaning. The lawns were not reasonable for the first two weeks of the tenancy. Not providing the house and garden in a reasonable condition is an unlawful act.
The tenants provided me with photos and emails to show the house needed maintenance and repairs when they moved in and when they let the landlord know. Landlords are not required to provide a house free from repair, but they are required to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe after being notified of an issue by the tenants. The landlord carried out some repairs promptly but said there was so much work that not all repairs could be done in the month the tenants lived there. I find the tenants have proved the following repairs were not done during the tenancy: • Cracks in windows were covered with silicone and not properly repaired. • Many windows did not open or close properly. • The skylights, which dripped excessive condensation onto the floor of the thoroughfare, were not fixed. • The bathroom extractor fan did was not effective. • There were latches missing on the kitchen cupboards. • The curtains and blinds were mouldy. • The washing machine needed a new seal. • The dryer should have been vented to the outside.
I do not accept that these maintenance issues could be avoided because they are common to 100 year old houses. I find that failing to fix these issues during the tenancy was a breach by the landlord, which means the landlord committed an unlawful act.

Did the house comply with the HHS?

The tenants claim the landlord did not provide a house that complied with the HHS. The tenants are concerned the landlord’s insulation statement was incorrect because it did not disclose that only part of the house had underfloor insulation. They were so cold during their month in the house that they doubt there is sufficient ceiling insulation. They are also worried the windows do not meet the ventilation requirements, the extractor fam in the bathroom was not in a reasonable condition, and there were draughts. Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
As at 1 July 2025 the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 required ceiling insulation and underfloor insulation where it is possible to install. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016 the insulation must still be in reasonable condition. The HHS statement in the tenancy agreement states the house is fully insulated but after the tenants moved in the landlord clarified that only the bedrooms had underfloor insulation. We only have the landlord’s word that the ceiling insulation is R2.4 and in a good condition. I would expect a landlord to come to a hearing with some sort of independent evidence about the underfloor exemption, and photos of the ceiling insulation. I find there was a breach by putting the wrong information in the tenancy agreement, and most likely a breach of the duty to provide insulation to the required standard.
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard. 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 and these must duct to the outside.
The tenants provided me with photos showing the windows they had trouble opening and closing. They also took measurements of the rooms and windows. The landlord said that all the rooms in question had sufficient opening windows to meet the HHS. Having considered the evidence it seems most likely to me all rooms would have complied with the ventilation requirements had the windows opened properly. However, as at 1 July 2025, it seems likely that two of the rooms could not be adequately ventilated. This is a breach of the HHS.
I accept the tenants’ submission the bathroom fan was not effective. I have seen photos showing mould and water damage in the bathroom. The fan was installed before the landlord bought the house in 2017 and most likely needs to be replaced.
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard. The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, and which allow draughts to arise. The tenants provided photos showing gaps around windows, around the disused fireplace, around pipes, and through a no longer used mail slot in the front door. The landlord said these were to be expected in a home of this age. I find there was a breach of the HHS. The landlord must understand that there is no exemption from draught stopping because houses are too old.
I find the landlord breached the HHS and committed an unlawful act.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenants said the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment. The law provides that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenants in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
The tenants are concerned the landlord came to the house to mow the lawns without giving notice. The landlord is allowed to do this. There is no evidence the landlord went too often, so I find there was no breach of quiet enjoyment.
The tenants agreed to the landlord bringing prospective tenants to the house on Sundays during a one hour slot. I find this was sufficiently clear and the landlord was not required to give the tenants further notice they would be at the house. There was no breach of quiet enjoyment.
The tenants said the maintenance, loss of amenity and healthy homes breaches contributed to a breach of quiet enjoyment. This is better considered as part of claim for compensation and exemplary damages. I find there was no additional breach of section 38 RTA by the landlord.
All claims relating to quiet enjoyment are dismissed.

Should the landlord pay compensation?

The tenants have claimed compensation for loss of amenity and additional costs which they incurred during the short tenancy.
I find the landlord should reimburse the tenants for the products used to clear the drains when they moved in, for the missing light bulb, and the draught stopping tape bought when the landlord did not fix the draughts. The amounts claimed are reasonable.
I do not find the tenants have proved the landlord should pay the cost of the doctor’s visit. I am more persuaded by the landlord’s submission that the doctor did not visit the house to assess compliance with the law and there are a number of reasons for a flair up of existing conditions such as asthma. This claim is dismissed.
The claim for the power bill for the month because there was an additional cost to heat the house is not allowed because there is no way I can compare usage or establish what the power would be in that house when the repairs and HHS compliance were complete.
The claim for the mop is not allowed because this is a usual household item that can still be used.
I accept there was a loss of amenity because the tenants were paying rent for appliances they couldn’t use and for a house that was cold and draughty. The landlord submitted that it reduced the rent by $200 during the tenancy and accepted the tenants notice when they had signed a fixed term tenancy agreement. I accept there is value in these efforts by the landlord and note the tenants were only there for a month. I find the tenants have already been sufficiently compensated for the loss of amenity.
The claim for compensation is dismissed.

Should I allow exemplary damages?

I have found the landlord committed unlawful acts by breaching the obligation to provide a house in a reasonable condition and by not complying with the HHS. 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) RTA.
The landlord said there was no intention to mislead the tenant or to breach the obligation to provide premises in a reasonable condition, or to breach the HHS. The inaccurate HHS information in the tenancy agreement was a mistake and there was no intention to mislead. I am not persuaded by this submission because there is an obligation on landlords to keep up to date with the RTA and the HHS. The effect for the tenants was they were misled by the tenancy agreement and rented a cold house in need of repair. They had to move out five months sooner than they were expecting. There were additional costs, both financially and emotionally. It is in tenants’ interests that landlords repair and maintain tenancy premises and take changes to the law seriously. There is public interest that landlords pay exemplary damages when they breach the RTA.
Considering these factors, I have determined that the landlord should pay exemplary damages of $3600. This is mid-scale because of the number of breaches. 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 and the tenancy address will be published because there is public interest when landlords breach the RTA and when houses don’t meet the HHS. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300858 — Healthy homes at 150 Ohiro Road, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300858 — Healthy homes at 150 Ohiro Road, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the house in a reasonable condition when the tenants moved on?

Did the house comply with the HHS?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Should the landlord pay compensation?

Should I allow exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the house in a reasonable condition when the tenants moved on?

Did the house comply with the HHS?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Should the landlord pay compensation?

Should I allow exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions