What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5313679 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Rent People Limited $747.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5313679?

Compensation: $1,303.57 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,278.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313679?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5313679?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12633582-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5313679 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Rent People Limited $747.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5313679?

Compensation: $1,303.57 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,278.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313679?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5313679?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12633582-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

39A Saint Lukes Road, Auckland 1025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5313679 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5313679 — net $747.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 26 August 2025	$3,278.57		Rent arrears to 26 August 2025
Compensation for breach of s45(1)(ba) of the RTA obligations		$1,303.57	Compensation for breach of s45(1)(ba) of the RTA obligations
Compensation for breach of s45(1)(bb) of the RTA obligations		$1,200.00	Compensation for breach of s45(1)(bb) of the RTA obligations
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$3,278.57	$2,531.57
Net award	$747.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$747.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5313679 — net $747.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 26 August 2025	$3,278.57		Rent arrears to 26 August 2025
Compensation for breach of s45(1)(ba) of the RTA obligations		$1,303.57	Compensation for breach of s45(1)(ba) of the RTA obligations
Compensation for breach of s45(1)(bb) of the RTA obligations		$1,200.00	Compensation for breach of s45(1)(bb) of the RTA obligations
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$3,278.57	$2,531.57
Net award	$747.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$747.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Rent People Limited $747.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 29 October 2025.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed term tenancy, compensation/general damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord made a cross application 5360901 on 7 October 2025, which is still under assessment. The landlord did not send a copy of this application and its filed evidence to the tenant. Tenancy Services will not send a copy of these documents to the tenant until the application has been processed. The processing of the application has been delayed due to the landlord taking 13 days to file additional evidence Tenancy Services requested. Therefore, I was unable to hear the landlord’s cross application for rent and water rates arrears, compensation for cleaning, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord’s cross application will be heard separately.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. TENANT’S CLAIMS

Should the fixed term tenancy be ended early?

The tenant has applied for reduction of her fixed-term tenancy, due to end on 26 August 2025. The basis for her application for the Tribunal to end her tenancy earlier (on the 21 st day she had given notice to the landlord that she wanted to move out, being 31 July 2025) is: a. The premise did not meet the healthy homes standards by the statutorily required date and the landlord had been misleading when it had provided her with an old healthy homes assessment report at the beginning of the tenancy that claimed the house was fully compliant; b. The tenant and the other occupants had an issue with a leak coming through a light switch in one of the bedrooms, which she says she raised with the landlord by email and video on 10 June 2025 and then again on 15 July 2025, that she claims caused mould and dampness in the premise that resulted in the occupants experiencing health issues and damage to the tenant’s belongings, such as back packs and clothing stored in the wardrobe of the bedroom with the alleged leak; and c. The landlord took too long to advertise the premise, and this caused a delay in a new tenant moving in. Had the landlord advertised the premise as soon as the tenant made it aware that she intended to move out by 31 July 2024, the tenant would not be held liable for rent until the end of the fixed term tenancy, being 26 August 2025.
The landlord has confirmed that took time for the property management company to advertise the premise on 11 August 2025.
The tenant first discussed wanting to move out as soon as possible with the landlord on 5 July 2025, but the landlord refused to end the fixed term tenancy early. After that discussion, the tenant gave notice on 10 July 2025, by email, of her intention to move out by 31 July 2025, being 32 days. The landlord says that this 32-day delay was caused by: a. The property manager primarily responsible for managing this premise was on leave overseas from 30 June 2025 to 11 August 2025; b. The property manager looking after the property, in the primary agent’s place, was made aware that the owners may be considering selling the property, so delayed advertising it. There was never any confirmation given to the agency that the owners were serious about selling it; c. They were under no obligation to release the tenant from the fixed term tenancy any earlier than the contractual date of 26 August 2025 and they had taken steps in a reasonable timeframe to address the leak and healthy homes standards issues raised by the tenant. The law
Parties enter a fixed term tenancy for security. For tenants this is security of tenure; they can be sure they have a home for at least the agreed term. For landlords it is security of income; they can rely on a set amount of income from their investment.
If a tenant wishes to default on that contract, and the landlord accepts the repudiation, then the tenancy ends on the terms agreed. In such a situation of surrender the landlord does not have to agree and can stipulate terms provided they are reasonable. Such reasonable terms can be to ensure the aggrieved party (here the landlord) be placed in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement.
If the parties cannot agree to end the tenancy, it is open to the tenants to apply to the Tribunal to reduce the term pursuant to section 66(1) RTA.
The Tribunal reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced.
Section 66 sets a high threshold for reducing fixed term tenancies. The jurisdiction in this section is an extension to the doctrine of frustration found in the general law of contract. In most cases, s66 is used to seek a balance between the competing interests of applicant tenants, for whom significant obligations under fixed term agreements can create severe hardship when circumstances unexpectedly turn against them, and landlords, who have financial obligations and expectations of their own arising from the same bargain.
The term “unforeseen” is a legal term defined by reference to the reverse (“foreseeability”) in cases relating to negligence (in determining whether a duty of care is owed and what damages are reasonably foreseeable) and in cases assessing damages for breach of contract (also in assessing the remoteness of damage). In both contexts, there is a body of case law which has established that: a. Foreseeability must be assessed objectively through the eyes of a reasonable person who has taken all reasonable steps to inform himself of the circumstances; b. an outcome is foreseeable in legal terms if it is “liable to result”, “not unlikely”, “quite likely”, a “real danger”, a “serious possibility” or a “real risk”; c. The term “unforeseen” has few if any direct dictionary definitions, but by thesaurus is aligned with such concepts as “unexpected” and “without warning”. In a legal context, it must also be taken as the reverse of what is “foreseen”, thus being “not liable to result”, “unlikely”, “not a real danger”, “not a serious possibility” or “not a real risk”. Analysis & findings
The parties were unable to come to an agreement to end the tenancy early. The tenant initially sent an email on 5 July 2025, wanting to end the tenancy as soon as possible. This was followed up by an email confirming the tenant would move out on 31 July 2025.
The landlord did not take all reasonably practicable steps to find tenants to take over the lease. The premise was not advertised for 32 days after the tenant made it clear she was moving out on or by 31 July 2025 and 37 days after she first asked to be released from the fixed term tenancy as soon as possible. The evidence given at the hearing proves the key reason or this delay in advertising the property was that the property manager responsible for managing the property was away on leave and the interim property manager left the early termination of the tenancy to her to address when she returned from leave on 11 August 2025.
The tenant moved out of the premise on 30 July 2025 but are seeking to have the tenancy reduced to 31 July 2025, as she says the landlord’s deliberate delay advertising the premise led to the additional rent the tenant is now being asked to pay to 28 August 2025. The landlord confirmed the new tenant did not move into the premise until 22 September 2025, being 42 days. It could be argued that if the landlord had advertised the premise on 10 July 2025, it would have been tenanted in the same 42 days, being 21 August 2025. This is 5 days less than the rent being sought by the landlord. However, there is no legal obligation on the landlord to take steps to mitigate the losses that flow from a tenant abandoning a fixed term tenancy early when the parties have been unable to reach an agreement for that tenancy to end early.
The tenant has sought relief from the Tribunal in the form of an application pursuant to s66 for her tenancy to be ended on 31 July 2025.
I now turn to an application of s66 of the RTA to this situation. Having considered the facts, I find that there has been no unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances.
Section 66 of the RTA is clear that it must the applicants’ circumstances that have changed in an unforeseeable way, not external factors such as the rental market not being conducive to the landlord being able to sublet the premise for the remainer of the fixed term lease or repair and maintenance issues.
I find that under all the circumstances it would not be just for the Tribunal end the fixed term early.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim to reduce their fixed term tenancy for all the reasons set out above. Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b), (ba) and (bb) obligations to the tenant?
The tenant clams the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b), (ba) and (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA requires a landlord to comply with the smoke alarm regulations as set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016. A. Failure to maintain
The tenant gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to her attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. Leaks, mould and dampness
The tenant says she first reported the leak to the property manager on 10 June 2025, that she sent a video with the email and that no one came to solve this problem by the end of the tenancy. I was not provided with a copy of the video, but the landlord stated it showed three drops of water on a wooden floor with no context. Further, the email was not clear as it stated “As I said last email that it is too damp indoors. Even I found the water dripping from the ceiling”.
The property manager stated that: a. She had carried out a routine property inspection on 20 May 2025 and there was a slight bit of mould around the top of the shower, but no sign of any leak in the bedroom. She noted in the inspection report that no windows or doors were open even though it was a sunny day and that the tenant was drying clothes in the dining/lounge area which had caused condensation; b. On 7 June 2025, she went to the premise to let the healthy homes assessor in to carry out an assessment and she could see condensation on all the windows, and it was dripping off the ceiling at 11am. She also noted there were three racks of clothes drying in the house, no heat pump on and no windows opened; c. The healthy homes assessor spoke to the property manager about discussing the need to ventilate the premise better to keep it free from dampness and mould and ways she could do this. The landlord says she did discuss using the security latches on the windows to leave the windows open when she was out to allow air to flow through the premise, to open the windows and doors when she was home and to use the heat pump on dry mode to help dry the house out when she was trying to dry washing in the premise. This conversation is noted in the property manager’s records but the tenant denies that she was told about the security latches or to ventilate the house. She states that she used a dehumidifier for at least half the tenant at great cost and provided electricity records that show her electricity bills doubled over this period; d. When she received the tenant’s 10 June 2025 email, she thought the tenant was referring to the water dripping from the ceiling because she was not properly ventilating the house on an ongoing basis.
I accept that the tenant’s 10 June 2025 email was the first time she had raised the alleged leak with the landlord, and that the landlord had good cause to form a reasonable belief this email related to the tenant not ventilating the house enough to keep it free from condensation forming on windows and ceilings during the winter months.
The landlord says the first this email she received specifically about there being a leak in the bedroom light switch was on 15 July 2025. It says the leak was investigated and addressed on 18 July 2025 by a contractor called Andy after Shaun O Mera (another property manager) informed the assessor of the tenants 15 July 2025 email. The landlord confirmed the assessor investigated the roof and applied sealant to an area of the roof he believed may have caused what the property manager understood to be a small one-off leak that occurred during heavy rain.
The tenants claims she didn’t hang wet clothes inside. She says she took the damp clothes out of the wardrobe of the room where the leak was as it was causing mould to form on her clothes and bags. She says she moved her mouldy clothes from wardrobe to racks to the dining and lounge areas to dry out and also used a dehumidifier most of the time. She stated that she could not open the doors and windows when she was at work but that she did open them when she and the other occupants were at home. She says she did not know about the security latches as no one told her they were there or how to use them.
On the day the sealant was applied to the roof there was another contractor onsite working on ensuring the extractors were externally venting. Shaun O Mera (another agent) was there and looked at mould. He confirmed that he told the tenant to use exit mould and vinegar to clean it.
Shaun confirmed he went back to the premise on 31 July 2025, that the tenant was there and that there were no signs of a leak or dampness on the bedroom floor or ceiling.
The landlord stated that when the tenant left there was quite a lot of mould, despite the agent having shown the tenant how to clean this mould off, as it was surface at that stage and did not need professional treatment. This meant the owner had to spend $850.00 getting the walls and ceilings cleaned in the lounge, dining room and a small area of the bathroom before they advertised it.
The property managers also confirmed: a. There had been no further complaints from the tenant about the alleged leaks after 15 July 2025; b. There have been no leaks raised by the new tenants that have been living in the premise from 22 September 2025 and it has rained and there has been storms between then and the date of the hearing; c. There was no evidence of any leak related moisture or mould found by the assessor in the bedroom during the healthy homes assessment; d. From 31 July to 22 September 2025 the house was locked up and there was no mould. Cleaners had cleaned all the mould in the dining and lounge areas that the tenant had not taken steps to clean with exit mould or vinegar and the house stayed clean with no windows opened and there was no evidence of any further leaks; e. The prior tenants rented this house for 5 years and never had any issues with dampness and mould; and f. The owner had security stays/latches installed on all the windows to allow the house to be ventilated when tenants were at work or out.
I find that the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities and dismiss it accordingly. B. Smoke alarms- breach of TA and breach of regulations
Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA states the landlord “shall comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A”.
The tenant has provided evidence that the tenancy agreement did not contain any of the statutorily required smoke alarm information and that when the healthy homes assessment was completed it was confirmed that, from the commencement of the tenancy, four out of about six smoke alarms were expired, and two were not compliant with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016 and needed to be replaced. Further, the two non- compliant smoke alarms were not checked and replaced until around 30 June 2025, being 123 days.
The landlord says there were more smoke alarms in the premise than is required by law. Therefore, after the healthy homes assessment, the landlord only replaced and/or replaced batteries in those smoke alarms that were required by law. This meant that two of the four smoke alarms that failed the assessment were addressed and the other two left as those were considered not to be necessary by law.
From 1 July 2019, all residential tenancies have been required to have fully compliant smoke alarms in place at the start of a tenancy. These smoke alarms are to be photoelectric and there must be one within 3 metres of each bedroom/sleep quarter door and at least one on each level of a multi-story home, including the basement. On floors without bedrooms, smoke alarms should be installed in or near living areas, living rooms, or family rooms.
Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) website, www.fire.org, confirms both landlords and tenants take some responsible for smoke alarms as follows: a. Landlords must ensure smoke alarms: i. are working at the start of each new tenancy; ii. remain in working order during the tenancy; and iii. That are not working are replaced with photoelectric smoke alarms. b. Tenants must: i. not damage, remove, or disconnect a smoke alarm; ii. replace dead batteries during the tenancy if there are older-style smoke alarms with replaceable batteries; and iii. let the landlord know if there are any problems with the smoke alarms as soon as possible.
I am satisfied that the tenant has proven that the landlord failed to ensure the rental premise were fitted with compliant and working smoke alarms that met the regulatory requirements referred to in the RTA in that at least two alarms, and potentially up to four alarms located in the premise were not working/compliant from 27 February 2025 to 30 June 2025.
I find that the tenants should be awarded compensation for this breach of the landlord’s obligations to provide smoking smoke alarms for the period 27 February 2025 to 30 June 2025, being 17 weeks 4 days, at $50.00 per week. I award total compensation of $1,303.57 this breach. I find this quantum of compensation to be appropriate because: a. The owner of the premise has engaged and experienced property management company to manage this tenancy so that the landlord is fully compliant with its statutory obligations to the tenant; b. The property management company ought to have reasonably known that it had to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016 by 1 July 2019 and that this required the landlord to check every smoke alarm prior to a tenancy commencing, after that date, to ensure: i. They were all working; ii. They were in the statutorily required positions in the home; iii. They had not expired; and iv. They were photoelectric and compliant with the regulations. c. The tenant was not aware the smoke alarms did not work as there was no smoke alarm information in the tenancy agreement. The tenant was entitled to rely on the landlord providing her with this statutorily required information in the tenancy agreement and to the landlord having examined all smoke alarms and ensuring they worked and were compliant; d. It is in the tenant’s interest to receive compensation for the significant risk the landlord’s breach posed to her life and the life of the other occupants in the house; and e. It is in the public interest for landlords that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide working and compliant smoke alarms, to pay the tenant compensation for the risks to them and the other occupants of the premise from this breach.
The tenant did not apply for exemplary damages, so this type of remedy has not been considered. C. Failure to meet healthy homes standards
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 27 February 2025. Therefore, the landlord had 120 days from the commencement date to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards, being Friday, 27 June 2025.
The landlord stated that it initially thought the premise was fully healthy homes compliant, based on a very old healthy homes assessment that was out of date and did not contain all the statutorily required information that the landlord needed to include in the tenancy agreement. It also stated that it knew it had to ensure the premise was fully compliant within 90 days of the commencement of the tenancy. In reality it had 120 days.
Despite thinking it had 90 days from the start of the tenancy to ensure the premise was fully compliant, it took no steps to arrange a new healthy homes assessment until 17 May 2025. This left very little time for the busy assessor to conduct the assessment and for the landlord to ensure any areas the assessment found to be non-complaint were remedied by 27 June 2025.
During the hearing the landlord blamed the tenant for the delay in the assessment and the remedial work being carried out. It claimed she did not make herself available to answer the assessor and contractors’ communications or to let them into the premise on days and times that they were available. The landlord was not able to provide the Tribunal with any proof to support this allegation. A tenant does not have to take calls from assessors or contractors. It is up to the landlord to make arrangements with the tenant for contractors to attend the premise for these types of purposes and where a tenant cannot be available, then the landlord can meet the contractors on site so the works can be carried out in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances. Based on the evidence before me, I do not accept the tenant was obstructive in any way, nor that any alleged tardiness in her responding to the contractors caused the breach of the healthy homes standards. A. Ventilation
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the ventilation standard by 27 June 2025.
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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant says when the healthy homes assessor came to assess the premise on 7 June 2025 and that he confirmed that the rangehood and bathroom extractor fan were not externally vented and were required to be under the healthy homes regulations.
The landlord confirmed that on 18 July 2025 these two extractor fans were vented outside. The landlord stated that the roof cavity contained its own vents, so the landlord did not think the extractor fans venting into the ceiling cavity was problematic. It did accept that it had to comply with the law.
In this case I have determined that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to ensure the premise met the ventilation standard by being Friday, 27 June 2025 and that the landlord could have met the compliance date if it had taken steps to engage the healthy homes assessor earlier to allow time for any identified necessary remedial works to be carried out before 27 June 2025.
I find that the tenants should be awarded compensation for this breach of the landlord’s obligations to meet the ventilation standard for the period 27 June 2025 to 18 July 2025and award compensation of $700.00 for this breach.
The tenant did not apply for exemplary damages, so this type of remedy has not been considered. B. Moisture Ingress and Drainage
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard by 27 June 2025.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require 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 if it is reasonably practical to do so.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The landlord confirmed that the 7 June 2025 healthy homes inspection showed the gutters needed clearing and a ground moisture barrier needed to be installed. Further, the landlord confirmed the ground moisture barrier was installed on 4 July 2025 and the gutters were cleaned seven days after the assessor completed the healthy homes assessment report.
In this case I have determined that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to ensure the premise met the moisture ingress and drainage standard by Friday, 27 June 2025 and that the landlord could have met the compliance date if it had taken steps to engage the healthy homes assessor earlier to allow time for any identified necessary remedial works to be carried out before 27 June 2025.
I find that the tenants should be awarded compensation for this breach of the landlord’s obligations to meet the moisture ingress and drainage standard for the period 27 June 2025 to 4 July 2025 and award compensation of $500.00 for this breach.
The tenant did not apply for exemplary damages, so this type of remedy has not been considered. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313679 — Rent arrears at 39A Saint Lukes Road, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313679 — Rent arrears at 39A Saint Lukes Road, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Should the fixed term tenancy be ended early?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Should the fixed term tenancy be ended early?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions