Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5317846 — Healthy homes at 36 Kings Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041
Decided 21 Jul 2026 · Published 21 Jul 2026 · Application 5317846
- Healthy homes
Order
- Austar Property Services Limited as Agent for Vu Quang Van emma luetich must pay [The party] and [The party] $4528.00 immediately, for compensation, as calculated and set out below: DescriptionTenant Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Compensation (loss amenity- kitchen) $1026.00 Compensation (loss amenity – privacy) $1000.00 Compensation (HHS) $2400.00 Compensation (Lock) $100.00 Total award $4528.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $4528.00
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. This is a tenant application.
- The tenants claim the landlord failed to maintain the property during the tenancy, breached Healthy Homes Standards, failed to provide and maintain locks and breached their quiet enjoyment. The tenants seek compensation, exemplary damages, and a rent reduction. RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS – Burden and standard of proof
- 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 3 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 can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach.
- Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
- Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional.
- Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behaviour provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA.
- The issues I must consider are: a. Did the landlord fail to maintain the property regarding the windows, back door repairs, exactor fan, rotten kitchen wall, leaks. b. Did the landlord fail to comply with Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), relating to moisture ingress, extraction fan, insulation. c. Did the landlord provide back door locks. d. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment as a result of the work being carried out in the property over 3 months. Failure to Maintain:
- [The party] and [The party] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
- Breaching any of 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenants say that there were ongoing issues with maintenance during the tenancy, such as the following: Back door:
- The back door had a 50mm wide gap allowing draught to directly enter. The tenants provided photographs proving the back door had a large gap of about 50mm width which allowed draught to enter. The tenants first raised concerns with the landlord about the back door gap on 7 August 2023. The landlord did do several repairs to try to remedy the gap, but it was not fully addressed and a satisfactory repaired was not made until 31 May 2025. Wall in kitchen:
- There was a leak around Christmas 2023, when a water pipe burst behind a cabinet in the rear corner of the kitchen. The landlord had a plumber promptly repaired the leak. However, the damage caused by the leak lead to a significant repair needing to be carried out.
- The kitchen wall had to be removed and replaced. This took a period of time to complete. The bathroom fan:
- The bathroom extractor fan ran off the bathroom light and stopped working in August 2023. The tenants say it took till 14 February 2024 to be repaired. The tenants complained of the mould and excessive moisture that built up as a result of the lack of an extractor fan in the bathroom.
- The landlord said that the tenants deferred the repair of the extractor fan until the New Year period, which appears to be accepted by the tenants. I cannot see that the landlord has failed to remedy the extractor fan within a reasonable time given the deferment requested by the tenants.
- It was at the time that the extractor fan broke that the tenants became aware of rats in the ceiling. The tenants fixed the rat infestation without recourse to the landlord. The tenants claim they was unaware that they could have asked the landlord to fix the problem. Other maintenance issues:
- The tenants raise several other maintenance issues such as the insinkerator was faulty, worn carpet and broken floor tiles, mould on the ceilings and walls, jammed timber window frames and a misaligned back door lock.
- The tenants provided detailed emails to the landlord over the tenancy highlighting the issues and the lack of resolution of the repairs in addition to giving this evidence at the hearing.
- The tenants claim that the effect of the lack of maintenance had affected the tenant’s health and presented as a health and safety risk to themselves and the subtenants residing in the property. Landlord’s response:
- The landlord said that they have acted immediately and promptly to attend to maintenance and repair issues raised by the tenant. The landlord that all the work was carried out promptly with the exception of the kitchen wall. The landlord claimed that the kitchen wall repair was a significant job that required suitable weather conditions as it was mid-winter at the time the repairs were being carried out.
- The landlord said the owner was responsive throughout and approved all necessary work as required. The landlord said that the work was carried out by approved licenced building contractors, who worked diligently to resolve the issues as quickly and professionally as possible.
- In May 2025, the landlord’s contractor opened up the bottom section of wall under the kitchen cabinet and had to remove the wall linings. The removal of the linings also created a large gap between the flooring and weatherboards creating damp and draught and allowing rats to enter the house. Furthermore, exposing the tenants to the mould, and mould spray being used to decontaminate the area from 5 May 2025 to 30 July 2025 when the work was completed.
- The tenant says that from May 2025, the kitchen was not in a reasonable state of repair and presented a significant risk to the tenants’ health. The tenant says the food preparation and cooking areas was adjacent to the mouldy wall and gap. The kitchen hob was disconnected and unable to be used for 4 days, the cabinetry was dismantled during this time frame.
- The tenant seeks a rent reduction for loss of amenity over the repair period. The tenant claims that they needed to run a dehumidifier over this time which caused significant power bill increases.
- I find the leaks to the kitchen and the consequent repair works caused the tenants significant loss of amenity. The tenants claim compensation for loss of amenity and increased power costs arising from maintenance issues at the premises, including a major water leak in the kitchen, breakdowns of the extractor fan and insinkerator, and gaps in door frames. The premises are an older home, built in the 1930s but renovated over the years. The tenants allege that repairs took an unreasonably long time, particularly the kitchen leak, which took nearly three months to resolve. The tenants seek compensation for the loss of use of the kitchen, exposure to mould, and increased power costs from running a dehumidifier. Findings:
- The landlord is required under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable.
- The evidence shows that the maintenance issues were largely due to the natural age and deterioration of the property. The landlord responded to requests for repairs and took reasonable steps to address the problems, including the major kitchen leak, which required significant work and coordination of tradespeople.
- While the repairs took some time, I am satisfied that the landlord did not fail to maintain the premises or act unreasonably in the circumstances. There is no breach of section 45 established.
- However, the tenants experienced a significant loss of amenity, particularly during the four days when the kitchen was completely unusable, and to a lesser extent over the three months while repairs were ongoing. The tenants were also exposed to mould and incurred additional power costs from running a dehumidifier.
- It is appropriate to award compensation for the loss of use of the kitchen and the increased power costs, reflecting the inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants, even though there was no breach by the landlord. Compensation:
- The weekly rent was $855.00. I consider that compensation equivalent to 10% of the weekly rent for a period of 12 weeks (the duration of the major repair) is fair and reasonable to reflect both the loss of amenity and increased power costs. The calculation: -10% of $855.00 is $85.50 per week. -$85.50 x 12 weeks = $1,026.00.
- The landlord is to pay the tenants $1,026.00 as compensation for loss of amenity and increased power costs during the period of repair.
- No finding is made that the landlord breached section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Reasons:
- The compensation awarded reflects the inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants, not a finding of fault by the landlord.
- The landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances, given the age and character of the premises and the nature of the repairs required.
- The Tribunal has the power to award compensation for loss of amenity under section 77(2)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards (HHS):
- The tenant claim that the landlord failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), specifically in relation to draught stopping, ventilation, moisture ingress, and insulation. The evidence establishes that: -There was a gap in the front door frame causing draughts. -Window frames were difficult to open and close. -The bathroom extractor fan failed, resulting in mould and condensation. -Lack of underfloor insulation and/or moisture barrier
- There is no dispute that there was a failed head flashing above the kitchen window which caused water ingress and exposed advanced decay of the kitchen wall framing.
- Underfloor insulation and a moisture barrier were not present or compliant until 2025, despite advice received by the landlord in 2019 that the property was exempt from these standards.
- The landlord relied on this advice and included it in tenancy agreements, but the property was not compliant until remedial work was completed in 2025.
- The property was not compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards for a period of the tenancy, particularly in relation to draught stopping, ventilation, moisture ingress, and insulation.
- The landlord’s reliance on incorrect professional advice does not excuse the breach, although it is relevant to the question of intention for exemplary damages.
- The tenants suffered significant hardship, including cold, damp, draughts, mould, and water ingress, until the property was brought into compliance.
- The landlord acted to remedy the issues once the true requirements were known, and there is insufficient evidence to find that the breach was intentional for the purposes of exemplary damages at the highest level. However, the breach persisted for a significant period and caused real hardship to the tenants.
- The tenants are entitled to compensation for the hardship suffered during the period of non-compliance.
- Taking into account the duration and severity of the failures and the hardship suffered, I consider an award of $2,400.00 to be fair and reasonable. This amount reflects both compensation for the landlord’s failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.
- The award of $2,400.00 reflects the seriousness of the breach, the hardship suffered, and the need to deter similar conduct, in accordance with section 109(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Breach Quiet Enjoyment:
- [The party] and [The party] claims the landlord has harassed them.
- A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.
- The tenants say that during the three-month repairs in the kitchen they were subjected to intrusions by contractors who were working at the site and council compliance inspectors. There was noise and interruptions from the contractors, and a lack of communication with the landlord. The workers did not protect the tenant’s property by use of drop clothes and the tenants had to clean up behind the workers as there was excessive dust and mess left behind.
- While it is clear that the tenants experienced significant disruption and inconvenience during the three months of repairs, including daily visits from workers, noise, mess, and a lack of consideration for their property, I am satisfied that the repairs were necessary, and the landlord was fulfilling their obligation under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to maintain the premises. Some level of disruption is inevitable in such circumstances.
- However, the landlord and their contractors are still required to take all reasonable steps to respect the tenants’ privacy and property. The evidence indicates that the level of disruption was significant, and there were instances where the tenants’ property was not treated with due care. While I do not find that the landlord or their contractors engaged in harassment or acted unlawfully under section 38(3), I accept that the tenants suffered a loss of amenity and enjoyment of the premises during this period.
- Accordingly, I have awarded compensation for the loss of amenity suffered by the tenants during the repairs, as set out above. This compensation reflects the inconvenience, loss of privacy, and disruption experienced, even though the landlord was not at fault for undertaking necessary repairs.
- I am awarding the tenant the sum of $1000.00 in compensation for the inconvenience and loss of privacy during the repair period. Locks:
- The landlord claims the tenant has altered the locks without consent.
- A landlord must provide and maintain locks to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. Neither the landlord nor the tenant may alter or remove any locks without the other party's consent. See section 46(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 46(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenants say that the back door lock was inoperable for a period of time and reported the problem to the landlord on 16 August 2023. The tenants followed up with the issue several more times in the year.
- The landlord said that they sent a handyman to repair the lock, and they believed it was repaired.
- The tenants say that they felt unsafe in the house with a broken door lock, particularly if they had to get out of the property in a hurry. Eventually the tenants fixed the door lock themselves.
- The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
- The landlord took steps to address the issue by sending someone to repair the lock. However, the repair was not effective, and the lock remained faulty until the tenant fixed it.
- There is no evidence that the landlord intentionally failed to provide reasonable security or deliberately ignored the tenant’s concerns. The landlord believed the issue had been resolved.
- While the landlord is responsible for ensuring the premises are reasonably secure, and the lock was not effectively repaired, the lack of intention means exemplary damages are not appropriate in this case.
- However, the tenant experienced a period where the security of the premises was compromised, and some compensation for inconvenience is appropriate.
- The landlord is to pay the tenant compensation of $100.00 for the period the back door lock was not functioning, reflecting the inconvenience and loss of security. There is no order for exemplary damages, as the landlord did not intentionally breach their obligations under section 46. The landlord attempted to meet their obligations, but the repair was not successful. There is no evidence of intentional or reckless disregard for the tenant’s security. Filing Fee:
- Because [The party], [The party] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.