What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5308119 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 5308119?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5308119?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5308119?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12441439-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5308119 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 5308119?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5308119?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5308119?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12441439-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Apartment 5, 32 Hobson Street, Thorndon, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5308119 — Healthy homes

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant seeks a work order requiring the landlord to install compliant heating and compensation for inadequate heating during the tenancy so far.
Any party bringing a claim to the Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim. The Tenancy Tribunal applies a civil standard of proof, determining matters on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the applicant must prove that it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events is correct. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be supported by other acceptable evidence. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents such as emails, texts, and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden.
Jhene Rozak claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Jhene Rozak considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The premises here are an apartment in an apartment complex run by a Body Corporate. The tenancy is for a fixed term starting on 8 June 2025 and expiring on 30 January 2026.
The tenant and her partner, also living at the property, say that the central heating system that services this apartment does not work properly. They gave evidence that it takes over 12 hours to heat the space, which means that it has to be kept on constantly. They say that it fails the HHS because it cannot heat the space to at least 18°C within a 2-hour period. They also say that the Body Corporate Chairman of the apartment building has told them that no-one in the apartments uses the heating system because it is too expensive to run at $1,000/month. The tenants have found the apartment too cold during the winter months to stay there. They notified the landlord of the problem and also served a 14-day breach notice on the landlord to remedy the problem dated 27 June 2025.
There is a text from the property manager provided in evidence by the tenant stating: “...Glad to hear the electrician has come through and found the heating system to indeed be working, very interesting viewpoint from ....BC chairperson.....that I wasn’t aware of regarding the running cost of the heating system. I will talk to the owner and see what options are available...”
The landlord produced a healthy homes compliance statement for the premises, which was completed by Healthy Rentals NZ on 26 May 2025, shortly before the tenancy started. The statement confirms that the heating provided complies with the HHS. Specifically, the assessor determined (using the Tenancy Services online calculator) that the minimum required heating capacity for the main living room is 3.9 kW and the central heating unit which is ducted into the living room has a capacity of 7 kW. The heating is controlled by a thermostat.
The landlord notes, and I accept, that the Body Corporate chairman’s comments about the heating system costs are hearsay and not supported by corroborating evidence.
In any event, to try and address the tenants concerns, the landlord has installed an additional wall mounted convection heater with an output of 2.4kW. In that regard, the landlord says that they have gone above and beyond their obligations.
As indicated at the hearing, the tenants have been unable to provide evidence to prove their claim. There is no evidence to establish the heating is not working and/or that it does not comply with the HHS standard. For example, there is no independent report from a suitably qualified expert that the heating is inadequate and non-compliant. The Body Corporate chairman comments are also unsubstantiated. For those reasons, the claim must be dismissed.
Both parties applied for suppression of their names and identifying details. As the landlord has succeeded in defending the claim, only they are entitled to suppression. See section 95A RTA.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant seeks a work order requiring the landlord to install compliant heating and compensation for inadequate heating during the tenancy so far.
Any party bringing a claim to the Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim. The Tenancy Tribunal applies a civil standard of proof, determining matters on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the applicant must prove that it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events is correct. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be supported by other acceptable evidence. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents such as emails, texts, and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden.
Jhene Rozak claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Jhene Rozak considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The premises here are an apartment in an apartment complex run by a Body Corporate. The tenancy is for a fixed term starting on 8 June 2025 and expiring on 30 January 2026.
The tenant and her partner, also living at the property, say that the central heating system that services this apartment does not work properly. They gave evidence that it takes over 12 hours to heat the space, which means that it has to be kept on constantly. They say that it fails the HHS because it cannot heat the space to at least 18°C within a 2-hour period. They also say that the Body Corporate Chairman of the apartment building has told them that no-one in the apartments uses the heating system because it is too expensive to run at $1,000/month. The tenants have found the apartment too cold during the winter months to stay there. They notified the landlord of the problem and also served a 14-day breach notice on the landlord to remedy the problem dated 27 June 2025.
There is a text from the property manager provided in evidence by the tenant stating: “...Glad to hear the electrician has come through and found the heating system to indeed be working, very interesting viewpoint from ....BC chairperson.....that I wasn’t aware of regarding the running cost of the heating system. I will talk to the owner and see what options are available...”
The landlord produced a healthy homes compliance statement for the premises, which was completed by Healthy Rentals NZ on 26 May 2025, shortly before the tenancy started. The statement confirms that the heating provided complies with the HHS. Specifically, the assessor determined (using the Tenancy Services online calculator) that the minimum required heating capacity for the main living room is 3.9 kW and the central heating unit which is ducted into the living room has a capacity of 7 kW. The heating is controlled by a thermostat.
The landlord notes, and I accept, that the Body Corporate chairman’s comments about the heating system costs are hearsay and not supported by corroborating evidence.
In any event, to try and address the tenants concerns, the landlord has installed an additional wall mounted convection heater with an output of 2.4kW. In that regard, the landlord says that they have gone above and beyond their obligations.
As indicated at the hearing, the tenants have been unable to provide evidence to prove their claim. There is no evidence to establish the heating is not working and/or that it does not comply with the HHS standard. For example, there is no independent report from a suitably qualified expert that the heating is inadequate and non-compliant. The Body Corporate chairman comments are also unsubstantiated. For those reasons, the claim must be dismissed.
Both parties applied for suppression of their names and identifying details. As the landlord has succeeded in defending the claim, only they are entitled to suppression. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5308119 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat Apartment 5, 32 Hobson Street, Thorndon,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5308119 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat Apartment 5, 32 Hobson Street, Thorndon,

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