Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5312022 — Tenancy dispute at 2 Retallick Place, Flagstaff, Hamilton 3210
Decided 5 Oct 2025 · Published 5 Oct 2025 · Application 5312022
- Exemplary damages
- Healthy homes
- Mould & damp
- Property damage
- State of repair
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- Glasshouse Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,378.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
Reasons
- [Tenant], the tenant, appeared and was supported by [support person]. Ms Elliottyson, Operations Manager, appeared for the landlord.
- The tenancy commenced on 13 August 2024. It was for a fixed term of one year and the tenant vacated the property at the end of the fixed term.
- On 24 July 2025 the tenant filed an application with the Tribunal seeking: • Compensation for breach of the Healthy Home Standard (HHS) for heating. • Compensation for failing to maintain the heat pump. • A work order to replace the damaged cooktop. • Compensation for loss of amenity for the damaged cooktop. • Reduction of the fixed term tenancy. • Reimbursement of the filing fee.
- At the hearing the tenant stated she no longer sought a reduction of the fixed term as she had vacated the property, and no longer sought a work order as the cooktop had been replaced. Relevant legal considerations
- 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 and expectations: • That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally 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.
- Both parties provided documentary evidence and gave oral evidence and made submissions. The Tribunal has considered everything placed before it even if it is not specifically referred to. Heat pump
- The tenant seeks compensation from the landlord for failing to comply with the HHS heating regulations and failure to maintain the heat pump in accordance with section 45(1)(b) of the Act.
- Section 45(1)(b) of the Act requires landlords to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
- The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 provided for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
- Section 45(1)(bb) of the Act requires compliance with the HHS. A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered as set out in Schedule 1A to the Act, is $7,200.00.
- Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. All private rentals must comply within 120 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025.
- 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 tenant said the property was advertised as having two working heat pumps, these were recorded on the list of chattels in the tenancy agreement and accounted for in the Healthy Homes compliance documents. Her expectation was that both heat pumps should have been operational on the day she moved in.
- The tenant said on the day she moved into the property she was told by the landlord that the heat pump in the lounge was not working, and a work order had been raised. The tenant said that because of this she relocated her lounge to the dining room as that was where the second heat pump was situated. The tenant said the lounge effectively became a storage area because it was too cold for her family to use.
- On 21 August 2025 the tenant said she telephoned the landlord and followed this call up with an e-mail two days later. The tenant said she wanted to know when the broken heat pump would be repaired or replaced. The tenant said she was told the landlord had been aware the heat pump had not been working a few weeks before she moved into the property and due to financial constraints, had held off arranging for it to be repaired or replaced.
- The tenant said she asked the landlord to repair or replace the heat pump at her two routine tenancy inspections (after 23 August 2025) and re-raised the issue on the landlords’ Tapi reporting system.
- The heat pump was replaced on 13 December 2025.
- The landlord denies the property was advertised as having two working heat pumps but accepted they were recorded as chattels in the tenancy agreement and included in the Healthy Homes compliance report.
- The landlord said that when the tenant signed the tenancy agreement, they understood the property was healthy homes compliant. However, after discovering the heat pump had stopped working, they spoke to the landlord and arranged for a new heat pump to be installed.
- The landlord said that due to a series of errors and oversights the installation of the heat pump did not occur until 13 December 2025, just outside of the 120-day time frame for new tenancies to be healthy homes compliant. Analysis and decision
- Section 45(1)(b) and section 45(1)(bb) of the Act requires landlords to provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with the healthy homes standards.
- The landlord was aware the property did not have two working heat pumps at the commencement of the tenancy. The heat pumps were documented as chattels in the tenancy agreement and on the HH compliance documents. The tenant raised the issue of the broken heat pump multiple times with the landlord, both in person and via the Tapi reporting system. The landlord approved the replacement of the heat pump between 27-28 August 2024. The Tribunal does not accept that the property managers unexpected illness between 8-25 November 2024 justifies the delay in the heat pump being installed. The tenant was without a working heat pump in the lounge from 13 August 2024 to 13 December 2024, a period of 17 weeks and two days. This breach resulted in a loss of amenity to the tenant.
- The Tribunal finds that the landlord breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) by failing to provide and maintain the heat pump in a reasonable state of repair.
- The Tribunal also finds that the landlord breached their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Act. To be HHS compliant the property required two working heat pumps. The property was without two working heat pumps between 13 August and 13 December 2024. The landlord failed to comply with the 120-day time frame for new tenancies to be HHS compliant.
- The Tribunal considers that compensation totalling $1200.00 for the breaches is appropriate. The tenant did not seek exemplary damages. Cook top
- The tenant seeks compensation from the landlord for failing to replace the cook top after it was smashed and unable to be used. The tenant relies on section 45(1)(b) of the Act and section 7(2)(b) of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 which state that there shall be in each kitchen adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food, both by boiling and baking.
- The tenant states that on 31 May 2025, King’s Birthday long weekend, she dropped a cast iron pot lid onto the cooktop, smashing it.
- A Tapi report for the damage was made on 3 June 2025 and the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend the property to assess the damage and provide a quote for a replacement.
- The tenant said that the contractor failed to attend the property as arranged and, on 10 June 2025, she contacted the landlord for an update on the situation.
- On 11 June 2025 the tenant said she spoke to the landlord’s contractor and was told that the damaged cooktop could not be assessed until 18 June 2025. The tenant said she sent a photograph of the cooktop’s model number to the contractor to help progress the cooktops replacement.
- The tenant said she was contacted by the landlord on 18 June 2025 and asked to provide the cooktop’s model and serial numbers and the bench cut out measurements. The tenant said obtaining these details meant having to lift the cooktop which she declined to do because the broken glass made lifting it unsafe. Instead, the tenant said she gave permission for the landlord to access the property to obtain these details, but the offer was declined. The tenant said she then forwarded through the photograph of the cooktops model number which had previously been provided to the contractor.
- On 27 June 2025, the tenant said she was told the broken cooktop constituted careless damage and she was required to pay the landlord’s $500 insurance excess. The tenant said she paid the insurance excess because she wanted the cooktop replaced, but disputed her actions were careless as dropping the lid had been accidental.
- The tenant said that between 3 July and 11 July 2025 there was correspondence between herself and the landlord over the replacement cooktop. The tenant said she was also copied into e-mails between the landlord and the insurer concerning insurance issues and the difficulty of securing a replacement cooktop of similar quality.
- Following the advice of Tenancy Services, the tenant said she issued a 14-day breach notice on 11 July 2025 requiring the landlord to replace the cooktop. The breach was remedied on 24 July 2025 when the cooktop was replaced.
- The tenant explained to the Tribunal that the period of time without a cooktop had been difficult and stressful. She said the broken glass presented a significant safety issue for anyone using the kitchen but particularly her young children. In addition, the tenant said the loss of amenity had limited the range of food she could prepare, which was particularly detrimental to one of her children who has a diagnosed condition and associated food issues. The tenant also took issue with the landlord’s lack of communication saying information was only provided when she asked for it.
- The landlord denies any liability for the delay in replacing the cooktop, claiming it was caused by and unfortunate chain of events involving a misunderstanding over the insurance claim and payout and the supplier not having an equivalent cooktop in stock. The landlord noted that the 14-day breach notice was remedied within the required timeframe and maintained that the loss of amenity was mitigated by the property having a working oven.
- The landlord provided the Tribunal with a timeline of events for the replacement of the cooktop. This is outlined briefly below: • The landlord was notified about the damaged cooktop on the 31 May 2025 and raised a job with a contractor to assess and quote to repair or replace the cooktop on 3 June 2025. • On 10 June 2025, after the tenant queried progress of the quote, the landlord said they contacted the contacted the Contractor. • The landlord received the quote to replace the cooktop on 11 June 2025. • On 12 June 2025, the tenant asked if the glass on the cooktop could be replaced instead of the whole unit. • On 13 June 2025, the contractor advised the landlord that the glass could not be replaced. This was communicated to the tenant. The landlord also told the tenant that the damage was classed as careless and that she was liable to pay the $500.00 insurance excess. The landlord said the tenant denied the damage was caused carelessly and challenged her liability for the insurance excess. • On 15 June 2025, the landlord said they received an email from the tenant continuing to challenge her liability for the damage. • On 16 June 2025, the landlord lodged an insurance claim and was told that the insurers required a quote from their own contractor to replace the cooktop. • On 18 June 2025, the landlord contacted the insurer for an update on the progress of the claim. The landlord said the tenant was then contacted and asked to supply details of the cooktops specifications and under bench cut out measurements. These details were provided to the insurer on 19 June 2025. • Between 23 - 24 June 2025, the landlord contacts the tenant and the insurer to query progress of claim. • The landlord said that on 26 June 2025, the claim was accepted, and the insurer required the $500.00 excess to be paid. The insurer advised the landlord that the wait time for the cooktop was ten working days. • On 1 July 2025, the landlord said they contacted the tenant and learnt the cooktop had not been installed. The tenant told the landlord that she had paid the $500.00 insurance excess. • On 2 July 2025, the landlord said they contacted the insurer who confirmed the insurance excess had been paid. • On 3 July 2025, the landlord said the tenant contacted them for a progress report on the replacement cooktop which prompted them to contact the insurer and emphasise the urgency of the situation. • Between 8-10 July 2025 the landlord said the tenant confirmed the cooktop had not been installed. The landlord said they contacted both the supplier and the insurer for an installation date for the cooktop. The landlord said that at that time they were informed the cooktop was out of stock. • On 11 July 2025, the landlord received the 14-day breach notice to remedy the broken cooktop. • Between 11 – 21 July 2025 the landlord said they negotiated with the insurer over the supply and installation of the cooktop. A cash settlement was accepted, however that increased the price of the cooktop through the supplier. The claim was reopened, the landlord refunded the cash settlement, and the insurer authorised the supplier to provide the cooktop. • On 23 July 2025 the landlord contacted the supplier to confirm the installation date for the cooktop. • On 24 July 2025 the cooktop was installed.
- The landlord states that the delay in installing the cooktop was outside of their control and arose due to an unfortunate chain of events involving the insurer and the supplier. The landlord denied failing to keep the tenant informed about the progress of the claim and maintained that they acted with urgency to resolve the issue. Analysis and decision
- Section 45(1)(b) of the Act requires landlords to provide and maintain properties in a reasonable state of repair. Section 7(2)(b) of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 requires landlords to provide kitchens with adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food, both by boiling and baking
- The tenant’s position is that there was an unreasonable delay in the cooktop being replaced and that it was only remedied after she served a 14-day breach notice on the landlord. The tenant believes she took all necessary steps to help facilitate the replacement of the hob including liaising with the landlord and their contractor, proactively providing details about the cooktop, and paying the $500.00 insurance excess - despite disputing the damage was caused carelessly.
- The landlord denies being responsible for the delay installing the new cooktop and attributes the delay to issues caused by the insurer and supplier stock shortages. The landlord’s position is that the tenant’s loss of amenity was mitigated by having a working oven.
- The Tribunal has not been asked to determine if the damage to the cooktop was caused carelessly. However, for completeness, the Tribunal considers the cooktop was damaged carelessly, and the tenant was liable to pay the $500.00 insurance excess.
- Tenants are liable for damage they (or their guests) cause intentionally or carelessly, see section 49B of the Act. Careless damage is not defined by the Act but is accepted to be damaged that occurs when a person fails to take a level of care a reasonable person would take. In this case the reasonable person would know to take care using cast iron cookware on a glass cooktop as dropping it could result in damage, this damage would be reasonably foreseeable.
- The Tribunal finds that there was an unreasonable delay in the cooktop being replaced. This delay was caused in part by a failure of the landlord to actively manage their contractor, lodge their insurance claim and understand the terms of the cash settlement. The cooktop was smashed and unable to be used from 31 May 2025 to 24 July 2025 – a period of seven weeks and four days. The Tribunal awards compensation of $250.00. The tenant did not seek exemplary damages. Costs
- Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name Supperssion
- Under section 95A of the Act, a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
- The tenant has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.