What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310459 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 5310459?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310459?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310459?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12598573-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310459 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 5310459?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310459?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310459?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12598573-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

12 Simon Ellice Drive, Bayview, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5310459 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310459 — net $2,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: breach of HHS: ventilation and ground moisture barrier	$2,000.00	breach of HHS: ventilation and ground moisture barrier
Exemplary damages: failure to provide HHS information on request	$500.00	failure to provide HHS information on request
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,528.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310459 — net $2,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: breach of HHS: ventilation and ground moisture barrier	$2,000.00	breach of HHS: ventilation and ground moisture barrier
Exemplary damages: failure to provide HHS information on request	$500.00	failure to provide HHS information on request
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,528.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Reliance Property Management Limited As Agent For H & N Investment Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,528.00 immediately.

Reasons

Introduction

[The tenant/s] (the Tenant) lived at 12 Simon Ellice Drive, Bayview, Auckland (the Premises) owned by H & N Investments Limited (the Owner) and managed by Reliance Property Management Limited (the Property Manager) (together, the Landlord) for nearly six years.
Before the tenancy came to an end in October 2025, the Tenant filed a claim with the Tenancy Tribunal seeking work orders, compensation and exemplary damages.
Now that tenancy has ended, the Tenant no longer seeks work orders and the claims for compensation and exemplary damages are limited to two breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) in relation to ventilation and ground moisture barrier. The Tenant also seeks exemplary damages for the Landlord’s failure to provide HHS compliance information upon request by the Tenant.
At the hearing, the Property Manager appeared as agent for the Landlord. The Property Manager accepted the Premises did not meet the HHS in respect of ventilation and ground moisture barrier, and that HHS compliance information was not provided when requested by the Tenant. The Property Manager said they raised these issues with the Owner but the Owner chose not to take action.
Despite the admitted breaches by the Landlord, the Property Manager says the Landlord should not be required to pay the Tenant exemplary damages and/or compensation.
The issues I have to determine are: a. Should the Owner and the Property Manager be named as respondents? b. Given the Premises did not meet the HHS standards in respect of ventilation in the bathroom, should the Landlord pay the Tenant exemplary damages and/or compensation? c. Given the Premises did not meet the HHS standards in that there was no ground moisture barrier, should the Landlord pay the Tenant exemplary damages and/or compensation? d. Given the Tenant requested documents that relate to HHS compliance during the tenancy but were not provided with them, should the Landlord pay the Tenant exemplary damages? e. Should the Landlord reimburse the Tenant’s filing fee? f. Should the Tenant’s name be suppressed?
The bond of $2,200 is held by the Bond Centre and shall remain there. The Tenant’s application did not seek an order for release of the bond, and at the hearing, the Landlord indicated the Landlord may have claims against the bond. For those reasons, the bond is to remain at the Bond Centre until either the parties notify the Bond Centre that they agree to whom it should be refunded, or, either party files a fresh application asking the Tribunal to order refund of the bond. The Tribunal’s approach to the issues
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim establish their claim “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

Should the Owner and the Property Manager be named as respondents?

At the hearing, the Property Manager sought clarification as to whom (out of the Property Manager and/or the Owner) was liable to pay the Tenant if the Tribunal was to make any orders as sought by the Tenant.
The Property Manager admitted breaches of the HHS, however, the Property Manager sought to distance the Property Manager’s position from that of the Owner. The Property Manager says they reminded the Owner of the compliance deadlines and requests for compliance from the Tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 28 December 2019. The tenancy agreement records the Owner as the “landlord.” Another property manager managed the tenancy from its commencement until 3 May 2021, when the Property Manager took over management of the tenancy until the end of the tenancy. 1
In the Tenant’s application, the Tenant named the Property Manager (only) as the respondent. 1 As set out in an email sent to the Tenant on that date.
At the hearing, the Property Manager confirmed she appeared as agent for the Owner. The Property Manager also made it clear the Owner was aware of the Tenant’s claim. I am satisfied that is correct as, during the hearing, the Property Manager was in email communication with the Owner. 2
As stated at the hearing, given the Property Manager appeared as agent for the Owner, the two entities were, for the purposes of the application, one party – that is, the Landlord. That is because the Act defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy of the premises, and, where appropriate, an agent of a landlord. 3 The Act’s definition of “landlord” expressly stipulates that an agent (including a property manager) is the “landlord” for all obligations which are owed under the Act. 4
The same issue has arisen in the District Court, in which Judge Clark explained: 5 What this means then is a property manager must meet the obligations which are imposed by [the Act] on a landlord, as if it was a landlord. Where liability is imposed on a property manager (as agent) the property manager may be entitled to seek compensation from the owner under general agency law or by way of contract, but that is an issue between the property manager and the owner and not something which can be resolved in the tenancy jurisdiction.
As observed by Judge Clark in the above case, treating the Property Manager and Owner as one party makes sense as in many instances (such as the present) the only relationship a tenant has with their landlord is via the property manager. 6
Therefore, for the purposes of the Tenant’s claim, the Property Manager and the Owner are treated as one party, the Landlord. The effect of this is that both parties are liable, on a joint and several basis, for any amounts the Tribunal orders the Landlord to pay the Tenant. Put simply, the Tenant is entitled to seek payment against either of the two parties. If there are any issues between the Property Manager and Owner over who pays what, the Property Manager and Owner will need to resolve those issues elsewhere. 2 During the hearing, the Property Manager produced a Certificate of Conformance in relation to the ground moisture barrier which the Owner had emailed to the Property Manager during the hearing. 3 Section 2 of the Act. 4 Abdulla Moussa Ragab Hamouda v Gralin Property Management (Auckland Central) Limited [2024] NZDC 16642 at [31]. 5 Ibid., at [33]. 6 Abdulla Moussa Ragab Hamouda v Gralin Property Management (Auckland Central) Limited [2024] NZDC 16642 at fn8. Given the Premises did not meet the HHS standards in respect of ventilation in the bathroom, should the Landlord pay the Tenant exemplary damages and/or compensation?
[The tenant/s] say the Landlord breached their obligations in that they failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard. 7 The Landlord accepts the bathroom did not have an extraction fan during the tenancy. 8 The Landlord accepts they were aware the bathroom would require an extraction fan as it was recorded in a HHS assessment completed on 16 June 2023.
Given the tenancy commenced on 28 December 2019, and there were no variations or new tenancy agreements entered into during the tenancy, the compliance date for HHS for this tenancy was 1 July 2025.
I am satisfied the Landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to comply with the HHS in respect of ventilation by 1 July 2025. Exemplary damages
The Tenant seeks exemplary damages for the Landlord’s unlawful act of failing to meet the HHS ventilation standards by 1 July 2025. Where a party has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00, 9 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. 10
Considering those factors, I am satisfied the Landlord intended to commit the unlawful act because the Landlord was aware of the need to install a bathroom extractor fan from at least 16 June 2023. The HHS report of that date identified that the bathroom did not have an extractor fan and therefore did not meet the HHS. Despite receiving that report, the Landlord did not remedy the issue before the compliance deadline of 1 July 2025.
The effect of the unlawful act was that the Tenant’s had to mop up excess condensation using a mop on the walls and ceilings of the bathroom and had to clean the bathroom more often due to mould build up. I note that I take into consideration those effects only for the three and a half months from 1 July – 15 October 2025, as the Landlord was not required to comply with HHS until 1 July 2025.
I am also satisfied it is in the public interest to ensure Landlords are held to account for their failure to meet the minimum standards set by the HHS. 7 Section 45(1)(bb) of the Act. 8 The Landlord says a fan was installed on 18 October 2025, three days after the tenancy ended. 9 Schedule 1A of the Act. 10 Section 109(3) of the Act.
The District Court has confirmed that where the Tribunal awards exemplary damages for multiple breaches of the same unlawful act provision, the Tribunal must order exemplary damages as a global order, not for each individual breach. 11 As the Tenant has made another claim for breach of the same unlawful act provision, 12 I will consider that claim before making any order for exemplary damages for breach of the HHS ventilation standards. Compensation
The Tenant also seeks compensation for the Landlord’s failure to meet the HHS ventilation standards. The Tenant says because there was no extractor fan in the bathroom, the Tenant had to leave the bathroom window open when using the shower and therefore incurred higher electricity bills to heat the home during winter. The Tenant says that acute loss of heat meant they had to run the heat pump and use the wood-burning fireplace more often than if there was an extractor fan installed. The Tenant seeks $1,750 in compensation for excess power used in the periods July – September 2024, and June – August 2025. 13
The Tenant produced evidence of their power bills during those winter months in 2024 and 2025. I am not satisfied the Tenant’s evidence proved they incurred greater costs in power usage because there was no extractor fan in the bathroom as at 1 July 2025. The Tenant’s comparison of power usage in winter months vs summer months does not support their claim as it is to be expected that power usage will be significantly less in the summer months when homes require heating. In the winter months, occupants spend more time inside their home and lights and appliances are used more often. I also note that the majority of the Tenant’s evidence relating to power usage was for time periods before 1 July 2025. The Landlord was not obligated to meet the HHS until 1 July 2025, therefore, there are no grounds to award compensation for any loss before that date.
The claim for compensation for failure to meet the HHS ventilation standard is dismissed. 11 Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583. 12 Section 45(1)(bb) of the Act. 13 Being half the total compensation sought for the two breaches of the HHS (ventilation and ground moisture barrier) as calculated in the Tenant’s document “Compensation Explanation and Calculation.” Given the Premises did not meet the HHS standards in that there was no ground moisture barrier, should the Landlord pay the Tenant exemplary damages and/or compensation?
[The tenant/s] say the Landlord also breached their HHS obligations in that they failed to install a ground moisture barrier. 14 The Landlord accepts the Premises did not have a ground moisture barrier until very late in the tenancy. 15 The Landlord accepts they were aware the Premises needed a ground moisture barrier as recorded in the HHS assessment completed on 16 June 2023.
As stated above, the compliance date for HHS for this tenancy was 1 July 2025.
I am satisfied the Landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to comply with the HHS in respect of the ground moisture barrier by 1 July 2025. Exemplary damages
The Tenant seeks exemplary damages for the Landlord’s failure to meet the HHS standards in relation to the ground moisture barrier. Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00, 16 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. 17
Considering those factors, I am satisfied the Landlord intended to commit the unlawful act because the Landlord was aware of the failure from at least 16 June 2023. The HHS report of that date identified the premises did not have a ground moisture barrier (and there was no impediment to installing one) and therefore did not meet the HHS. Despite receiving that report, the Landlord did not remedy the issue before the compliance deadline of 1 July 2025.
The effect of the unlawful act was that the Premises were cold and mould grew in many of the rooms. The Tenants say, and referred to photos which showed, condensation would build up on the windows in the lounge and in the master bedroom. 18 The Landlord says a ground moisture barrier was installed on 3 September 2025, that is during the tenancy, however the Tenants say they do not believe it was installed on that date, as they say nobody came onsite to do the work and they did not received notice of tradespersons attending when they would be absent. The Tenants confirmed they were living in the home (and not overseas) as at 3 September 2025. 14 Section 45(1)(bb) of the Act. 15 The Landlord says a ground moisture barrier was installed on 3 September 2025, 7 weeks before the tenancy ended. 16 Schedule 1A of the Act. 17 Section 109(3) of the Act. 18 The Tenant produced photos of condensation taken on 13 October 2025.
I note that there is no dispute that there was no ground moisture barrier installed between at least 1 July – 3 September 2025, a period of 9 weeks. While it remains in dispute whether a ground moisture barrier was in fact installed on 3 September 2025, 19 and therefore whether the Premises was compliant in that respect for the last 7 weeks of the tenancy, I note that the amount I would award in exemplary damages would not change significantly on determination of that dispute. I am satisfied the Tenant experienced cold and condensation issues for at least the 9 weeks from 1 July 2025 to 3 September 2025, after which date the change of season would likely lessen the impact in any event.
I am also satisfied it is in the public interest to ensure Landlords are held to account for their failure to meet the minimum standards set by the HHS.
Considering those factors, and taking a global approach to both breaches of the HHS requirements, 20 I have determined it is appropriate that the Landlord pay the Tenant a global award of $2,000 in exemplary damages.
I make the order accordingly. Compensation
The Tenant also seeks compensation for the Landlord’s failure to install a ground moisture barrier. As with the breach of the HHS ventilation standards, the Tenant says because there was no ground moisture barrier, the Tenant incurred higher electricity bills to heat the home during winter.
For the same reasons that I dismissed the claim for compensation for the breach of the HHS ventilation standards, I also dismiss the Tenant’s claim for compensation for failure to install a ground moisture barrier as the Tenant has not demonstrated, to the necessary standard, they incurred the cost of additional power as a result of the Landlord’s breach. As stated above, demonstration that more power was used in winter than in summer (in periods before 1 July 2025) is not sufficient.
The claim for compensation for failure to install a ground moisture barrier is dismissed. 19 During the hearing the Landlord produced a Certificate of Conformance stating installation was completed by Affordable Energy Solutions on 3 September 2025. 20 Breach of HHS ventilation and ground moisture barrier. Given the Tenant requested documents that relate to HHS compliance during the tenancy but were not provided with them, should the Landlord pay the Tenant exemplary damages?
[The tenant/s] say the Landlord failed, when requested by the Tenant, to supply the records or other documents that relate to the Landlords’ compliance with the HHS within 21 days after receiving the request. 21
The Tenant says they first requested evidence of HHS compliance in 2021, and referred to an email to the Property Manager sent on 8 July 2021. Although that email was enquiring as to whether a HHS assessment had been scheduled, the Tenants say the requirement for a HHS assessment arose because they had previously requested evidence of HHS compliance. The Tenants say they continued to request the Landlord take steps to comply with HHS, including after the compliance date of 1 July 2025. 22
The Property Manager does not dispute that the Landlord failed to supply the Tenant with records or other documents that relate to HHS compliance within the required time-period. Accordingly, I am satisfied the Landlord committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, up to a maximum of $750.00, 23 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. 24
The Tenants say, and I accept, that the failure to provide evidence of compliance with HHS meant the Tenants did not know whether their home was compliant, or more specifically, given their belief it was not compliant, did not know in what ways and to what degree the Premises was not compliant. The Landlord was in possession of a HHS assessment from at least 16 June 2023, and therefore held information which could have been provided to the Tenants. Despite that, the Landlord chose not to provide information to the Tenants. That is clearly intentional.
Given the Landlord failed to provide the HHS compliance information for at least four years (from the first request in 2021), I consider the breach to be at the upper end of the scale for this type of unlawful act. I consider an award of $500 in exemplary damages is appropriate and make the order accordingly. 21 Pursuant to s45(1AC) of the Act. 22 During the hearing, the Tenant produced an email dated 17 July 2025 in which the Tenant noted the compliance deadline had passed and requested the property be brought up to full compliance within 14 days. 23 Schedule 1A of the Act. 24 Section 109(3) of the Act. Should the Landlord reimburse the Tenant’s filing fee?
As the Tenant has partly succeeded with their claim the Landlord must reimburse the filing fee. Should the Tenant’s name be suppressed?
As the Tenant has partly (and substantially) succeeded with their claim, the Tenant is entitled to name suppression and I make the order accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310459 — Healthy homes at 12 Simon Ellice Drive, Bayview, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310459 — Healthy homes at 12 Simon Ellice Drive, Bayview, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the Owner and the Property Manager be named as respondents?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the Owner and the Property Manager be named as respondents?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions