What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317179 about?

The tribunal order states: Mohan Trust Jyotsna Narsinh must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $5,059 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 5317179?

Compensation: Increased Power Costs: $239.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Out of pocket costs in…: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317179?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317179?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12557421-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317179 about?

The tribunal order states: Mohan Trust Jyotsna Narsinh must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $5,059 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 5317179?

Compensation: Increased Power Costs: $239.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Out of pocket costs in…: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317179?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317179?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12557421-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21 Ropata Crescent, Boulcott, Lower Hutt 5010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5317179 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5317179 — net $5,059.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failures to maintain, premises not reasonably clean and tidy	$1,200.00	failures to maintain, premises not reasonably clean and tidy
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge bond	$500.00	failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Healthy Homes breaches	$2,400.00	Healthy Homes breaches
Compensation: Out of pocket costs incurred	$720.00	Out of pocket costs incurred
Compensation: Increased power costs	$239.00	Increased power costs
Net award	$5,059.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,059.00

the tenants attended the hearing. The landlord did not. I waited a reasonable period of time beginning the hearing, however after no appearance was made I decided to hear the matter in the landlord’s absence. The landlord had provided submissions in the form of a letter which responded to the tenants claims for compensation, and describe an offer to settle the matter. To allow for the landlord’s position to be considered and tested I had the tenants respond to the points made by the landlord and the letter. I am satisfied that the landlord knew the hearing was going ahead and was given the opportunity to make an appearance. Background

The tenancy began on 21 March 2025. It appears that there were some issues from the outset, including that the initial draft of the tenancy agreement wrongly stated that five weeks bond was required. Can query this with the landlord and was advised that new copy of the lease would be sent however it never was. Upon moving on it was discovered that there were issues with various fittings in the tenancy including: a. the bathroom extractor fan was not working; b. a smoke alarm was faulty and was prone to beeping loudly at night; c. three of the five burners on the gas hob did not work; d. the main heat sources were to un-flued gas heaters; e. a derelict shed on the property had broken timbers, exposed nails sticking out, and flaking lead paint; and f. the deck to the rear of the house had rotten structural timbers and rails; and g. the space under the deck had broken glass and rotting detritus.

The tenants found it difficult to heat the tenancy, and were concerned about the extremely high gas consumption in the early months of the tenancy. A healthy home report was obtained which identified a number of issues. As a result the landlord provided a portable convection heater.

The tenants bring this application seeking compensation for the out-of-pocket costs they had to address issues such as draughty windows, and faulty or nonworking lights. In the letter referred to above landlord has accepted liability for these costs. However, the claim for compensation for the increased power costs is opposed. The tenants also seeking the pre-damages for the alleged issues with the tenancy agreement, the alleged failure to lodge bond, various alleged healthy homes breaches, the alleged failures to maintain, and the allegation that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy when the tenancy began. The landlord’s letter is silent on these issues. Exemplary damages

The tenants claim exemplary damages on a number of grounds. The tenancy agreement

The tenants claim the a landlord has breached section 13(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), and seek exemplary damages as a result. Section 13 RTA requires that a landlord must provide a signed copy of the tenancy agreement to tenant before the tenancy commences. Subsection 13(4) makes a breach of this obligation unlawful acts for which exemplary damages of up to $750 may be awarded.

On 11 March 2025, the landlord provided a draft of the tenancy agreement which sought five weeks rent as bond. The following day Mr Mukherjee asked for this to be amended to reflect the requirements of the act which limits bond to 4 weeks rent. Following this bond of 4 weeks rent was paid. However, an updated tenancy agreement was not provided. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act, albeit a technical one due to the fact that an incorrect agreement had been provided.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages 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 interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Taking these factors into account I declined to exemplary damages for this breach. The breach was technical it appears to occur due to an oversight. The landlord had provided a valid lease, but for the issue relating to bond which was immediately dealt with by the tenant. Failure to lodge bond

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claim the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The landlord did not lodge the bond at the Bond Centre. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

I have no evidence of the landlord’s intent and not lodging the bond. The effect of the failure to lodge the bond was that the tenants’ funds were not secure while the tenancy was on foot. While the bond was refunded at the end of the tenancy, had there been any issues it would have been the tenant who bore the risk of loss due to the fact that the bond was not held securely by an independent third party. The Bond Centre exists to protect the interests of tenants and landlords and making sure that bonds are secure and are not affected should a party have cash flow issues. Moreover, the tenancy system is partially funded by the earnings of the funds held in bond. It is neither on the parties interests nor in the public interest that bonds are not lodged.

Considering the circumstance of the beginning of the tenancy, that it does not appear that the landlord has committed this breach in the past, and that no bond was lodged at all, I consider that $500 is an appropriate award of exemplary damages in this instance. Failure to maintain, and condition of the tenancy

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 RTA to: a. provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; and b. provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The tenants claim relates to: a. the condition of the shed and deck; b. the space under the deck; and c. a non-functioning smoke alarm, heated towel rail, lights, gas hob, and bathroom extractor fan.

Photos have been provided of the shed and deck, and the author of the healthy homes report provided by the tenant commented on their condition. Both the shed and deck were in poor condition, with obviously rotten members, nails sticking out of timbers, and the shed had flaking lead paint. After the tenancy ended landlord had the shed and deck demolished. The tenants concerns about these issues largely relates the fact that their daughter is a young toddler, and the condition of the shed and deck constituted a risk to her safety.

The space under the deck was full of broken glass, and discarded material. This constituted both a health and risk, as the area would be easily accessible to a small child and was unpleasant when during rain the material soaked up water and emitted and unpleasant smell.

The smoke alarm would randomly make a loud beeping noise, often during the early hours of the morning. The issue was raised with the landlord early on in the tenancy, who said that he would look at getting it replaced under warranty. However, this did not happen until the end of the tenancy. The tenant had to deactivate the alarm to stop it from disturbing his and his wife and child sleep.

The heated towel rail and lights were issues raised with the landlord and some action occurred. However, three of the five burners of the gas hob did not work when the tenancy began. The tenant attempted to solve the problem by cleaning the stove, but this was not successful. The landlord provided a copper cleaning brush, however, this was not successful. Eventually some four months after the issue had been reported to the landlord the Gasfitter who attended to remove the gas heaters fix the issue.

The bathroom extractor fan did not work at the outset of the tenancy. This was raised with the landlord, on 25 March 2025. Due to the lack of ventilation the tenants are forced to leave a window open in the adjoining laundry, which was problematic during colder winter months. The extractor was replaced in late June 2025, some three months after initially reported.

The rubbish and broken glass under the deck meant that the tenants had to be on alert the daughter was not crawling under the deck. They did their best to clean up this area but were limited in what could be achieved

The landlord had reasonable notice of these issues, and should have been aware of them before the tenancy began. Despite this any action to correct the issues was slow in coming, if it came at all. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

Considering the requirements of S109(3): a. A failure to maintain, particularly where the landlord has been notified of issues, or should reasonably have been aware of the issues, as in this case, may be presumed to be motivated by a wish to avoid paying the costs of maintaining the property. b. The effect of the unlawful act is that there were sections of the backyard which the tenants were unable to use out of concerns for the safety of their child. They were also unable to use the kitchen hob, an essential part of domestic life, and the man of which have been designed. Sleep was disturbed by the defective smoke alarm, and they were forced to ventilate the bathroom by opening a window in an adjoining room, which was problematic due to winter. In effect they were denied the full use of parts the property, and of the full facilities, for which they were paying rent. c. It is in the interests of tenants that they receive value for the rent they are pain, which includes those facilities in areas which are part of normal domestic life. This includes the areas of referred to above. In saying this these were not reaches which caused serious distress although I acknowledge they were significant irritants to the tenants. d. It is in the public interest that tenants are provided with clean safe tenancies. The costs of public health caused by failures to provide such premises are plain to see.

Taking these factors into account, and considering that the landlord does not appear to have previously had such issues before the Tribunal. Therefore, I conclude that an award of $1,200 exemplary damages appropriate. Healthy homes issues

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA 1986 by failing to: a. insulate the premises 1 ; b. provide adequate heating in the premises 2 ; c. provide adequate ventilation in the premises 3 ; d. comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) draft stopping standard; and e. comply with the HHS moisture ingress standard which requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.

Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A). Installation

From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.

Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.

There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated. 1 in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 2 In accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) 3 ibid

In this case the healthy homes report advises that ceiling insulation is not in good condition. The landlord in their letter say that the insulation was 2.9 when installed, which is compliant with the level required by the standard. Against this we have the healthy homes report on the photos which show that the insulation in the ceiling has sagged. The healthy homes requirements are ongoing. It is not sufficient for a landlord to do work that meets the standard and then failed to maintain the insulation so it fails to continue to comply. I find there is a breach. Heating standard

The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.

The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. Compliance dates for the HHS in this instance require that the tenancy meet the standard within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy, which was July 19, 2025.

At the outset the tenancy was heated by two unflued fixed gas heaters. These were non-compliant, as such heaters introduce carbon monoxide and other dangerous gases into the home. A portable heater was provided by the landlord however this was not sufficiently powerful to heat the area under the formula set out in the HHS. I find there is a breach. Ventilation

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. As above compliance was required by July 19, 2025.

Between the start of the tenancy and late June 2025 the bathroom extractor was not operational. However, compliance was not necessary before July 19, 2025, therefore this was not a breach of the HHS. Draft stopping

The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. As above compliance was required by July 19, 2025.

The healthy home report identifies the louvre windows the drafts around doors and windows as being instances in which the property fails to comply. The tenants dealt with these issues by obtaining and installing their own draft stopping strips. However, it is the landlord who is obliged to provide the premises in a compliant state. This had not occurred by July 19, 2025. I find there is a breach. I find Mohan Trust Jyotsna Narsinh committed an unlawful act. Drainage and Moisture ingress

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. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. As above compliance was required by July 19, 2025.

In this instance the healthy homes report identified that there was damp earth under the house and no ground moisture barrier. It is noted that the area is accessible. I find there is a breach. Outcome

Considering the requirements of S109(3): a. As above with the maintenance issue and may be implied that the motivation for failing to provide a compliant premises is financial. I am satisfied in this instance that the correspondence shows that the landlord was aware of the obligations. Moreover, the correspondence between the parties also shows that the landlord was aware of their obligations and was aware that the various aspects discussed above were non-compliant. b. The effect of the non-compliance was that the home was draughty, difficult to heat, and cold. The tenant has provided photos of the temperature readout on the heater provided by the landlord which shows that the temperature in the kitchen at times fell to 1°C on winter mornings, and

5°C at midday on a winter’s day. These are around the same temperature range as most domestic refrigerators use. c. It is in the interests of tenants to be provided with warm, draught free, dry homes. d. As above the public health effects of non-compliant premises have broad societal effects.

Taking the above into account, and noting that this is the first time the landlord has come before the Tribunal with these issues I award $2400 and exemplary damages. Compensation

The landlord has accepted liability for the out-of-pocket costs but for the increased power costs. $720 is awarded for these costs. However, the tenants have also claimed $862.50 which they say are the increased costs of heating the premises due to the healthy homes issues referred to above.

Viewing the bills provided by the tenant, I note that there was very high gas usage for the month to 21 May 2025; $312.67 compared with a monthly approach of approximately $73 for the rest of the tenancy. This corresponds with the time during which the un-gas heaters were being used.

As above I found that there were breaches. I conclude that there was an increased cost of heating the house due to the landlord’s non-compliance. Therefore, the tenant has suffered a loss which may be remedied by the payment of damages.

The $862 figure claimed does not account for ordinary background usage. However, a fair figure may be calculated by adjusting the May bill with the average monthly usage, this results in a figure of $239.

I award $239 in damages for the increased costs of heating.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5317179 — net $5,059.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failures to maintain, premises not reasonably clean and tidy	$1,200.00	failures to maintain, premises not reasonably clean and tidy
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge bond	$500.00	failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Healthy Homes breaches	$2,400.00	Healthy Homes breaches
Compensation: Out of pocket costs incurred	$720.00	Out of pocket costs incurred
Compensation: Increased power costs	$239.00	Increased power costs
Net award	$5,059.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,059.00