What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5302509 about?

The tribunal order states: There is an order for suppression of the name of the tenant.

How much money was awarded in case 5302509?

Compensation: $1,246.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: HHS Report Fee: $281.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302509?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12436292-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5302509 about?

The tribunal order states: There is an order for suppression of the name of the tenant.

How much money was awarded in case 5302509?

Compensation: $1,246.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: HHS Report Fee: $281.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302509?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12436292-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

327 Hakakino Road, Wainuioru, RD 10, Wainuioru 5890, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5302509 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5302509. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation	$1,246.00	Compensation
Compensation: HHS report fee	$281.75	HHS report fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5302509. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation	$1,246.00	Compensation
Compensation: HHS report fee	$281.75	HHS report fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

There is an order for suppression of the name of the tenant.
Suzanne Butcher must immediately pay [the tenant] the sum of $1,555.75 as calculated in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Butcher clarified that her name is Suzanne, not Susan.
The tenancy began on 14 November 2023 and ended on 28 July 2025 as a result of the tenant giving notice.
[The Tenant] has applied for $10,000 compensation in relation to the following issues: a. Non-potable water b. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards.
[The tenant] also applied for exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment.
The onus is on the tenant to prove his claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Drinking water
[The tenant] says that the water from the rain water tank was not drinkable and that he had to buy drinking water throughout the tenancy. He claims xxx reimbursement.
[The tenant] said that he told the landlords about this. The landlords deny knowledge.
In support of his application, he produced a copy of test results of water showing the presence of ecoli. The sample was taken on 18 July 2025. Although the report says that the parameter pH and Escherichia coli did NOT meet the guidelines laid down in the Water Services (Drinking Standards for New Zealand) Regulations 2022, it also says that further testing is required using a sterile container.
Therefore I find that it is possible that on 18 July there was ecoli in the water, the tenant has not established on the balance of probabilities that the water was not drinkable at that time.
Even if the test was definitive, the tenant has not established that the water was not drinkable throughout the tenancy.
Furthermore, if there was evidence that it was not drinkable for a period of time, Section 49 says that where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
In order to mitigate his loss, the tenant should have told the landlords so that they could fix the problem. The landlords deny that he spoke to them about any concerns about the water quality. The tenant has produced no corroborative evidence such as text messages or emails. Therefore, I am not satisfied that it is likely that he told them.
This claim is dismissed. Because he has been unsuccessful, I have not ordered reimbursement of the water testing. Breach of quiet enjoyment
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice, and seeks exemplary damages.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
On 4 July 2025 the tenant confirmed via text that he would be moving out on 28 July.
On Wednesday 6 July the landlord texted asking to show some people through the house on the following Sunday. The tenant replied that he was busy with the school holidays and packing and would prefer to wait a couple of weeks for people to come through. The landlord replied that she couldn’t wait that long and asked if he could give her a call. In a further text she said that they were bringing the prospective tenants through. The tenant replied that it did not suit him.
The landlord and prospective tenants came on the Sunday. The tenant did not let them in.
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.
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.
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.
Under section 48(3)(a) of the Act, with the prior consent of the tenant, the landlord may enter the premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of showing the premises to prospective tenants. Section 48(3A) says that the tenant may not withhold their consent unreasonably.
An example of when a tenant might reasonably withhold consent where there was a specific reason such as a celebration or family event being held in the premises at the requested time.
The tenant did not consent because it was school holidays, he was packing, and he did not want anyone coming through the house for another couple of weeks. I find that they are not reasonable grounds for withholding consent. The landlord needed to find new tenants, and as they said in their text, those tenants would understand if the house was being packed up. A viewing of one lot of tenants is not an imposition. I find that consent was withheld unreasonably.
I add that the tone of the landlord in the texts could be interpreted as a little high-handed, but that is not a ground for exemplary damages.
In any event, the tenant did not let the landlord into the property. The landlord is allowed on the premises outside the house. They wandered outside and looked in the windows. Therefore there was no unlawful entry.
I find that one instance of bringing tenants to view a property does not amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment. They did not enter the property. It was a one-off occurrence and the tenant had notice they were coming. This was confirmed again on the morning.
I do not find that the landlords breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment or harassed him. This claim is dismissed.
The tenant also referred to an incident when the neighbour came over drunk, saying that the landlord has said it was ok for her to come and take photos for a friend who was thinking of moving in. [The tenant] did not allow the neighbour entry.
It is not a breach of the tenant’s rights for a person to knock on the door. The landlord has no control over the neighbour’s behaviour. No breach of the Residential Tenancies Act occurred in this instance. Healthy Homes Standards
At the end of the tenancy, [the tenant] obtained a Healthy Homes Report. Section 45(1)(bb) says that landlords must comply with Healthy Homes Standards. These are standards issued under regulations of the Residential Tenancies Act.
Based on the report, the premises failed the following Healthy Homes Standards: a. Insulation 1 b. Moisture ingress c. Draught-stopping d. Ventilation.
The report recommended that the owners confirm the strength of the woodburners but did not fail the premises under the heating standard. In any 1 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 event the landlords provided evidence that the woodburners for each lounge have a 15kw capacity which is adequate. Insulation
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
Although there was insulation in the ceiling, it did not meet the standards required. The report writer said that the ceiling insulation has poor coverage and is only 30mm thick. There should be full coverage and it should be at least 120mm thick. There is no insulation in the subfloor.
I find it unlikely that the insulation complied at the start of the tenancy, only 20 months earlier. Ventilation
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) for ventilation had to be complied with no later than 120 days after the commencement of the tenancy. Therefore, compliance was required by mid- March 2023.
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 house did not have mechanical ventilation for each bathroom. Draught-stopping
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 compliance dates are the same as for the ventilation.
There was an open fireplace that had not been boarded up and there was a gap around a window. There was also a hole in a leadlight window.
The tenant also referred to a crack in the wall, but it was not evident that this caused a draught and it was not referred to in the HHS report. Moisture ingress and drainage standard
According to the HHS report, the premises do not comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard, which requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The report found that there was no ground moisture barrier and the gutters required cleaning. Compensation
The tenant was asked how these shortcomings had affected him. He stressed his concerns about the water quality. Although I have found that he has not established that the water was no drinkable, I accept that the amount of debris in the gutters was significant and would likely have affected the taste and appearance of the water.
In a written statement, the tenant said that he was unable to use two bedrooms because of leakiness and mould. There was no evidence provided of any leaks. The HHS report commented on the mould, but there is no independent evidence of the nature of the mould. There was no evidence of attempts to clean the mould or any advice to the landlord that the bedrooms could not be used.
At the hearing, when was asked to describe the impact of the breaches of the HHS, the tenant focused on the gutters and water. He said that there were dead animals affecting the water quality, but the photographs showed twigs and branches. Other than that, the tenant did not articulate the impact of the breaches of the HHS.
Looking at the photographs I find it is likely that the gap around the window and the open fireplace would have affected the warmth of the premises, as would the insufficient insulation. Although the tenant provided screenshots of texts in July 2025, he provided no texts or emails in which he raised concerns. I find it unlikely that the tenant raised these concerns with the landlord and so he has failed to mitigate the impact of this. It is also not evident when the hole in the leadlight developed.
However, the landlords should have been aware of these deficiencies with the window, fireplace and insulation and I find that the combination of these issues would have affected the warmth of the property.
The landlords should have cleared the gutters which had a large amount of debris in them. The landlord said that the tenant had said he would clear them. In the course of a tenancy that lasted about 20 months, the landlords should have ensured the gutters were clear. I order compensation of $1,068 compensation for the breach of these three standards. This is approximately $12.00 a week for the duration of the tenancy.
[The tenant] could not explain how the lack of mechanical ventilation had affected his enjoyment of the premises. Again, this was not something he had raised with the landlord, who pointed out that there were windows available for ventilation. I order $178, representing $2 a week compensation for this.
I also order reimbursement of the fee for the Healthy Homes Standards report, which is $281.75.
The tenant has had some success and so I have ordered refund of the filing fee.
There is no application for refund of the bond and so I have made no order in relation to the bond.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5302509 — Healthy homes at 327 Hakakino Road, Wainuioru, RD 10, Wainuioru 5890,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5302509 — Healthy homes at 327 Hakakino Road, Wainuioru, RD 10, Wainuioru 5890,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions