How much money was awarded in case 5316019?

Compensation: Failure to comply with…: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $129.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316019?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316019?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12819485-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5316019?

Compensation: Failure to comply with…: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $129.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316019?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316019?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12819485-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

9 Poutini Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5316019 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316019 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5316019 — net $470.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates: 14/04/2025 - 15/08/2025	$129.88		Water rates: 14/04/2025 - 15/08/2025
Compensation: Failure to comply with healthy		$600.00	35. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach.
Total award	$129.88	$600.00
Net award		$470.12
Bond		$3,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$470.12

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

[The landlord/s] must pay Charm Ratima-Gallagher $470.12 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 immediately to Charm Ratima- Gallagher.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which took place over two days on 9 October 2025 and 20 November 2025.

On 26 April 2024, Charm Ratima-Gallagher entered into a tenancy with [the landlord] for the premises at 9 Poutini Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102. The relationship between the parties deteriorated over the course of the tenancy, which ended on 6 September 2025. The tenant disputes that they owe $129.88 in outstanding water rates invoices and claims their water account was in a credit of $800.00 in April 2025. The tenant also claims the ceiling insulation does not comply with the healthy homes standards. The landlord claims the ceiling insulation complied at the beginning of the tenancy and if it no longer complies, this is because the tenant has damaged or removed it. The issues I must determine are: a. Does the tenant owe $129.88 in outstanding water rates invoices? b. Does the ceiling insulation comply with the healthy homes standards? If not, is the tenant responsible for damaging or removing the insulation? Standard of proof

Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.

I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Does the tenant owe $129.88 in outstanding water rates invoices?

Throughout the tenancy, the landlord moved funds between the tenant’s water and rent account. The purpose of this was to avoid the tenant falling into arrears in either account and 14-day notices being sent. The tenant was not informed of these transfers and their consent was not obtained beforehand, which it should have been. As a result, the tenant was understandably confused by the fact that they were apparently in water arrears at the end of the tenancy, when only four months prior, on 4 April 2025, the landlord had advised them that their water account was in a credit of $880.41.

The landlord submitted copies of the rent summary and tenant invoice summary. These show transfers of funds between the tenant’s rent and water accounts. In particular, a credit of $800.00 in the tenant’s water account was transferred to the tenant’s rent account on 19 May 2025. Rent of $750.00 was due on 16 May 2025 and had not been paid, which appears to have been the reason for the transfer. As it transpired, the tenant paid $1,350.00 on 19 May 2025, which resulted in a credit in the rent account.

The tenant submitted their own water invoice summary, which I have considered, alongside the landlord’s rent and invoice summary. I am satisfied that all funds are accounted for, and the tenant owes $129.88 in outstanding water rates invoices. The landlord submitted original copies of the outstanding invoices from Watercare.

In the future, the landlord should obtain consent from tenants before transferring funds between rent and water accounts.

The landlord’s claim for outstanding water rates invoices is granted for $129.88. Does the ceiling insulation comply with the healthy homes standards? If not, is the tenant responsible for damaging or removing the ceiling insulation? The law

Section 45(1)(bb) RTA requires a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards.

The healthy homes standards are found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. The regulations set minimum standards for things such as, insulation, heating, draughts, moisture and drainage.

The regulations require each domestic living space to be fully covered with qualifying insulation, unless certain exceptions apply. 1 For rental premises in Auckland, qualifying insulation means: 2 a. The insulations R-value, was at least 2.9 when it was installed; and b. The insulation was installed in accordance with NZS 4246:2016; and c. The insulation is in a reasonable condition (or better).

Where a landlord seeks compensation for repairs, they must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 3 Evidence and submissions of the parties

The tenancy began on 26 April 2024. The landlord needed to comply with the healthy homes standards within 120 days of this date.

The tenant claims the premises did not comply with the ceiling insulation requirements in the healthy homes standards. The tenant relies on the findings in the report completed by Healthy Homes New Zealand dated 11 August 2025.

The landlord claims the premises were compliant at the beginning of the tenancy and relies on the report by Affordable Energy Solutions dated 15 August 2022. The landlord claims the reason for any non-compliance is because the tenant has removed or damaged the insulation. The landlord seeks compensation of $460.00 to repair and replace the insulation. Analysis

The report completed by Healthy Homes New Zealand states that the ceiling insulation is not in a reasonable condition, because there are gaps in the new insulation and the old insulation is broken and not fluffy. The new insulation is glass wool and the old insulation is insulfluff. The photographs show that glass wool insulation has not ben laid on top of insulfluff insulation in the areas immediately to the left and right of the entrance into the ceiling. The photographs also show some gaps in the glass wool insulation towards the middle of the ceiling. 1 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, regulations 13, 19 and 19A. 2 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, regulation 16. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B.

The landlord called Mohammed Shoebuddin as a witness. Mr Shoebuddin is the director of Affordable Energy Solutions Ltd and a member of the Insulation Association of New Zealand (IAONZ). Mr Shoebuddin gave evidence that he completed an assessment of the premises on 15 August 2022 to determine compliance with the healthy homes standards. Mr Shoebuddin identified the ceiling insulation as an area that needed remediation. In particular, glass wool insulation needed to be laid on top of the insulfluff insulation. On 19 September 2022, Affordable Energy Solutions Ltd installed new insulation in the ceiling. The work was not completed by Mr Shoebuddin, but by a different employee.

The landlord submitted a copy of the email sent from Affordable Energy Solutions Ltd following completion of the work. It is dated 19 September 2022 and photographs of the work are attached. These photographs show the majority of the ceiling, but they do not show the areas immediately to the left and right of the entrance. Mr Shoebuddin gave evidence this is because the photographs are taken from the entry point. He claims the purpose of the photographs is to show the majority of the ceiling, and it is unusual to take photographs of the areas immediately to the left and right. This may be the case however, the absence of photographs of these areas is a problem for the landlord.

Mr Shoebuddin gave evidence that glass wool insulation would have been installed on 19 September 2022 in the areas to the left and right of the entrance, because that is what was required. Further, Mr Shoebuddin completed a reinspection of the ceiling in early October 2025 after learning about the tenant’s application. He gave evidence that the insulfluff insulation to the left and right of the entry was compressed. Mr Shoebudding claims insulfluff insulation is fluffy and the fact it was compressed indicates that glass wool insulation was previously installed on top of it and had been removed. Mr Shoebuddin submitted photographs of these areas taken at the reinspection. The insulfluff insulation appears compressed in square-like patches, which is consistent with the claim that glass wool insulation was previously installed on top of it. Glass woold insulation is rectangular in shape.

The tenant submitted evidence that counters Mr Shoebuddin’s evidence. This is a photograph of the entrance taken from below the ceiling in the wardrobe looking up. The photograph was taken on 29 April 2024 and sent to [the landlord], an employee of the landlord’s. The landlord gave evidence that [the landlord] had not commenced her employment by this date however, the tenant submitted a copy of an email sent by [the landlord] to the tenant on 26 April 2024. The tenant also showed the email in their “sent” items, which proves the date the photograph was taken and sent. I am not convinced there is anything untoward about the photograph. I find it was taken and sent to the landlord on 29 April 2024.

The tenant gave evidence that they took the photograph, because the entrance was uncovered and they wanted it covered. In the photograph, glass wool insulation is visible on one side of the ceiling looking up, but not the other. This suggests that glass wool insulation was not installed in the areas immediately to the left and right of the entrance at the time the photograph was taken on 29 April 2024. If it had been, it would most likely have been visible.

The landlord claims the tenant removed the glass wool insulation to the left and right of the entrance however, I am not convinced of this. The landlord claims residue from where glass wool insulation was installed on top of the insulfluff can be seen in the photographs taken in early October 2025. I cannot see any such residue in the photographs. The landlord seemed to suggest that the tenant had intentionally damaged or removed the insulation in order to file this claim with the Tribunal. The relationship between the landlord and tenant deteriorated over the course of the tenancy however, the photograph submitted by the tenant was taken only three days into the tenancy. Whilst the relationship might have deteriorated over time, it was not that bad only three days into the tenancy. There was no motive for the tenant to remove the insulation at the time the photograph was taken.

The photograph submitted by the tenant is the best and only evidence of the state of the ceiling insulation to the left and right of the entrance at the beginning of the tenancy. Whilst Mr Shoebuddin claims these areas would have been covered with glass wool insulation, he did not complete the installation himself on 19 September 2022 and therefore, he cannot give evidence about whether this actually occurred. The photographs taken immediately after the installation do not show these areas.

On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that glass wool insulation was not present in the areas to the left and right of the entrance at to the beginning of the tenancy. No glass wool insulation was installed in these areas during the tenancy. I accept the findings in the report completed by Healthy Homes New Zealand that the insulfluff was not in a reasonable condition, because it was broken and not fluffy. Therefore, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities the premises did not comply with the ceiling insulation requirements and there has been a breach of the healthy homes standards.

Because I am convinced that the areas to the left and right of the ceiling entrance did not have glass wool insulation at the beginning of the tenancy, the landlord has not proven that any damage occurred during the tenancy.

The report completed by Healthy Homes New Zealand on 11 August 2025 identifies another area of non-compliance. This is towards the middle of the ceiling and relates to the glass wool insulation. There is a small – moderate gap in the insulation.

The photographs taken by Affordable Energy Solutions Ltd on 19 September 2022 show this same area of the ceiling. No gaps are present. The two sets of photographs are taken at slightly different angles, which might explain why the gaps are able to be seen in one set of photographs and not the other. On the other hand, the insulation appears to provide good coverage in the photographs taken on 19 September 2022, which suggests no gaps were present at this time.

The landlord claims the tenant damaged or removed insulation from this area of the ceiling however, I am not convinced of this. The tenant denies this and gave evidence that as a solo-mother of young twins, they have better things to do with their time. The insulation is in the middle of the ceiling and not easily accessible from the entrance. The tenant would have had to walk or crawl across the ceiling to get to the area, which I consider unlikely. The tenant is not a tradesperson and does not possess the relevant skills to do this. There are also other reasonably possible explanations such as, the insulation has deteriorated or shrunk between 19 September 2022 and 11 August 2025, although I accept this would be unusual. It is also possible that rodents have eaten away at the insulation.

Whilst I might be convinced that gaps to the insulation in the middle of the ceiling occurred during the tenancy, the tenant has proven they are not responsible for this on the balance of probabilities.

The landlord has not proven their claim for damage in relation to this area of insulation either.

The report from Healthy Homes New Zealand is dated 11 August 2025. It was completed closer in time to the duration of the tenancy than the report dated 11 August 2022. For this reason, it provides better evidence of the state of the ceiling insulation during the tenancy. I accept the findings in the report dated 11 August 2025 and find the ceiling insulation did not comply with the healthy homes standards because there are gaps in the middle of the ceiling. These gaps were present on 11 August 2025, which is more than 120 days after the beginning of the tenancy.

On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord failed to comply with the ceiling insulation requirements of the healthy homes standards and there has been a breach of section 45(1)(bb) RTA.

The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $600.00 to be reasonable. In settling on this amount, I have had regard to: a. The cost incurred by the tenant in commissioning their own healthy homes report, which was $255.65. b. The length of the tenancy, which was 1.5 years long. c. The majority of the ceiling was properly insulated, and the areas that were not are small – moderate. d. The areas that were not properly insulated had insulfluff insulation underneath them. This is not a case where there was no insulation at all, although I accept the insulfluff insulation was non-compliant. e. The lack of amenity is likely to have been on the lower end, given the extent of non-compliance. f. The tenant claims the premises were mouldy, damp and that one of their children had two surgeries during the tenancy. No photographs of mould were submitted. The report by Healthy Homes New Zealand does not include any high moisture readings taken inside the premises. No medical evidence was submitted by the tenant.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

The law

Failure to comply with the healthy homes standards is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered. 4

Exemplary damages can only be ordered if the landlord has acted intentionally. 5

In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal that: 6 Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. Analysis

I decline to order exemplary damages, because I am not convinced the landlord acted intentionally. The landlord instructed Affordable Energy Solutions Ltd to complete a healthy homes report on 11 August 2022. The landlord took steps to address areas of non-compliance, including installing glass wool insulation in the ceiling. Thereafter, the landlord was assured the ceiling insulation complied with the healthy homes standards. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the assurances of experts. Filing fee and name suppression 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1. 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 109(3). 6 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92

Both parties have been substantially successful with their claims and therefore, I do not order either party to reimburse the filing fee.

The landlord applied for name suppression. Because they have been substantially successful with their claim, their application for name suppression is granted.

The tenant did not seek name suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5316019 — net $470.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates: 14/04/2025 - 15/08/2025	$129.88		Water rates: 14/04/2025 - 15/08/2025
Compensation: Failure to comply with healthy		$600.00	35. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach.
Total award	$129.88	$600.00
Net award		$470.12
Bond		$3,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$470.12

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

[The landlord/s] must pay Charm Ratima-Gallagher $470.12 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 immediately to Charm Ratima- Gallagher.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which took place over two days on 9 October 2025 and 20 November 2025.

In the future, the landlord should obtain consent from tenants before transferring funds between rent and water accounts.

Section 45(1)(bb) RTA requires a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards.

The tenancy began on 26 April 2024. The landlord needed to comply with the healthy homes standards within 120 days of this date.

The landlord has not proven their claim for damage in relation to this area of insulation either.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

The law

Failure to comply with the healthy homes standards is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered. 4

Exemplary damages can only be ordered if the landlord has acted intentionally. 5

Both parties have been substantially successful with their claims and therefore, I do not order either party to reimburse the filing fee.

The landlord applied for name suppression. Because they have been substantially successful with their claim, their application for name suppression is granted.

The tenant did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5316019 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Poutini Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5316019 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Poutini Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions