What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5318568 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5318568?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $1,210.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5318568?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5318568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13317412-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5318568 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5318568?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $1,210.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5318568?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5318568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13317412-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

27 Cook Street, Foxton, Foxton 4814 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5318568 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5318568 — net $1,988.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of amenity	$1,210.00	loss of amenity
Exemplary damages: tenancy agreement deficiency	$250.00	tenancy agreement deficiency
Exemplary damages: delay in repairs	$500.00	delay in repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,988.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,988.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Seddon Street Property Management Limited As Agent For Catherine Geraghty must immediately pay [the tenant] the sum of $1,988.00 as calculated in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for: a. rent reduction and hardship, inconvenience, stress and loos of amenity for lack of heating; b. failure to comply with the heating standard of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019; c. failure to provide a Healthy Homes compliance statement with the tenancy agreement.
The onus of proof is on the tenant to establish her claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Background
The tenancy began on 16 August 2024. The premises were new.
In May 2025 the heat pump in the lounge stopped working. In an email dated 12 July 2025 asking the landlord to remedy the issue, the tenants provided a detailed chronology of events, showing that they lodged a work order via the tenancy portal on 7 May 2025. The request was acknowledged, but there was no further communication, prompting the tenants to follow up three weeks later on 27 May.
On 4 June 2025, technicians assessed the unit.
The landlord said that because the heat pump was under warranty, the owners had to use the technical suppliers approved under the warranty.
On 26 June 2025, the tenants emailed the property manager for an update. She replied that she would follow up.
On 12 July 2025, the tenants had still heard nothing and had been without the use of the heat pump for over two months. They then issued a notice to remedy.
An update was provided on 14 July, and the heat pump was fixed on 15 July 2025. Tenancy agreement
Sections 13 and 13A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) set out the mandatory contents of a tenancy agreement. Since 1 July 2016, all tenancy agreements have been required to include a signed statement about insulation 1 and since 1 July 2019, they have been required to include a statement about compliance with the healthy homes standards (HHS) as required under section 45(1)(bb).
Section 13(1D) makes it clear that this the requirement that the landlord’s statements about insulation and other under subsection (1A) or (1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement. 1 See section 13(1A)
The landlord is not required to provide evidence of compliance at the same time as the tenancy agreement is signed. The obligation is to confirm that the premises comply with the HHS requirements or will comply within the timeframe designated under the Act. 2 An obligation to provide the evidence of compliance arises only if the tenant requests the information relating to HHS. 3
The tenancy agreement is deficient because it contains none of the statements of compliance regarding insulation, heating, moisture ingress and drainage, ventilation or draught stopping.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. 4
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. 5
The act has been committed intentionally, in that the landlord knew that the agreement did not contain these statements. The landlord may not have been aware of the legal requirements, but that is not a defence.
I do not consider that this failure had a significant impact on the tenants. This was a new house and so it is more likely than not that all aspects of the HHS were compliant. This contrasts with the situation where a tenant is moving into an older home and wants to be assured that the landlord has complied with the HHS and that if there are deficiencies, it is because of an exemption under the HHS.
However, a property management company should have known about these requirements which had been in force for five years at the start of the tenancy. There is a public interest in reinforcing the message to this landlord and others that compliance with the legislation is required. Accordingly, I order the landlord to pay exemplary damages of $250.00 to the tenant. That is one third of the maximum. Heating
[The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard. She seeks: a. Rent Reduction: $2500 40% for 10 Weeks being without the only source of heating; 2 Since 1 July 2025, all premises have had to comply. 3 See section 45(1AC) 4 See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A. 5 See section 109. b. General Damages: $1000 for Loss of amenity, hardship, inconvenience, and stress during pregnancy while caring for two preschool children; c. Exemplary Damages: $1500 for reckless failure to comply with healthy homes obligations.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all HHS.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. This tenancy began on 16 August 2024 and so the property had to comply within 120 days, which is approximately 16 December 2024.
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. Compensation may also be ordered.
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.
There is no evidence that the property was non-compliant with HHS. I do not accept that there was a reckless failure to comply, as claimed in the tenant’s application.
Rather, the issue is that the source of heating in the lounge stopped working and was not repaired for 10 weeks. I have therefore considered whether there was a failure to provide or maintain the premises.
There was a delay in having the heating fixed. Regardless of whether the delay was the fault of the landlord, the tenant was paying rent for a property that no longer had a functioning heat pump. The tenant should be compensated for that loss of an amenity. That is often calculated as a rent reduction. The impact on the tenant is taken into account when fixing that amount.
The tenant was given a heater by her father to assist. She does not recall the landlord offering her a heater during this time.
I find that being without the use of the heat pump during the winter is relevant. Although the tenant had access to heater, she was paying rent from a property that included a heat pump which was to heat the lounge and dining area. She was a stay-at-home mum with two pre-school children and was expecting her third child. She should be compensated with a rent reduction of 20% over 10 weeks. The weekly rent was $605.00 and so that comes to $1,210.
I have also considered whether exemplary damages should be ordered. Although delays in having the matter repaired may have been partly as a result of the warranty requirements, there were delays that sit with the landlords.
On 7 May the tenants notified the property manager of the issue. This was acknowledged on 8 May. The tenants heard nothing. On Tuesday 27 May the tenants followed up. On Sunday 1 June, the property manager replied saying: I have not heard from the owners, so I have sent a job to my guys, and asked them to get out to you on Tuesday, they should call you.
That indicates that no steps had been taken to have the heat pump looked at until 1 June. Because of a power outage on 3 June, the technicians attended on Wednesday 4 June. They told the tenants that it required warranty parts.
The tenants heard nothing and followed up with the property manager on 26 June. They received a reply: Have not been advised anything but will follow up with the team
By 12 July, the tenants had heard nothing. They issued a 14-day notice to repair, and it was repaired on 15 July.
The landlord has provided an email from S and R Solutions which includes the following: Unfortunately, we initially had a bit of a mix-up with the diagnosis we replaced the inverter board on the outdoor unit which is a fairly common fault caused by a spike in the power and it turned out the issue was more complex than we first thought. Being burnt compressor contacts. We ordered the new compressor that had to be shipped from overseas, which took longer than expected. As soon as the compressor arrived we headed back to address and installed. We tested the system and all working within manufacturers specifications.
The landlords have provided no evidence that they had attempted to get someone to see the heat pump between 7 May and 26 May. The email does not explain when the parts were ordered or that they were waiting on them between 4 June and 15 July 2025. There is also no evidence that the cause for any delays was explained to the tenants while they waited for the heat pump to be fixed.
Accordingly, I find Seddon Street Property Management Limited As Agent For Catherine Geraghty is responsible for some of the delay and has therefore failed to maintain the premises and has committed an unlawful act.
The maximum exemplary damages for this is $7,200. In deciding whether to order exemplary damages, I must have regard to the tenant’s interest, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.
By the order made above, the tenant will now compensated $1,210 for the loss of amenity. However, when they asked the landlord for compensation they were declined on the basis that the heat pump had been fixed within 14 days of the notice. The landlord does not seem to have had any concern for the preceding 9 weeks during which they were on notice that the heat pump did not work. It was not repaired within 14 days at all.
I have taken into account the following factors: a. the impact on the tenant of receiving no communication or updates throughout the winter, unless she or her partner asked for them; b. the need to remind this landlord of their obligations when an item requires repair. c. the public interest in reminding other landlords of their obligations when an item requires repair.
I have decided that a modest award of $500.00 exemplary damages is appropriate. That is less than 10% of the maximum and takes into account that compensatory damages have been ordered.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and order name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5318568 — net $1,988.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of amenity	$1,210.00	loss of amenity
Exemplary damages: tenancy agreement deficiency	$250.00	tenancy agreement deficiency
Exemplary damages: delay in repairs	$500.00	delay in repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,988.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,988.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Seddon Street Property Management Limited As Agent For Catherine Geraghty must immediately pay [the tenant] the sum of $1,988.00 as calculated in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for: a. rent reduction and hardship, inconvenience, stress and loos of amenity for lack of heating; b. failure to comply with the heating standard of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019; c. failure to provide a Healthy Homes compliance statement with the tenancy agreement.
The onus of proof is on the tenant to establish her claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Background
The tenancy began on 16 August 2024. The premises were new.
In May 2025 the heat pump in the lounge stopped working. In an email dated 12 July 2025 asking the landlord to remedy the issue, the tenants provided a detailed chronology of events, showing that they lodged a work order via the tenancy portal on 7 May 2025. The request was acknowledged, but there was no further communication, prompting the tenants to follow up three weeks later on 27 May.
On 4 June 2025, technicians assessed the unit.
The landlord said that because the heat pump was under warranty, the owners had to use the technical suppliers approved under the warranty.
On 26 June 2025, the tenants emailed the property manager for an update. She replied that she would follow up.
On 12 July 2025, the tenants had still heard nothing and had been without the use of the heat pump for over two months. They then issued a notice to remedy.
An update was provided on 14 July, and the heat pump was fixed on 15 July 2025. Tenancy agreement
Sections 13 and 13A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) set out the mandatory contents of a tenancy agreement. Since 1 July 2016, all tenancy agreements have been required to include a signed statement about insulation 1 and since 1 July 2019, they have been required to include a statement about compliance with the healthy homes standards (HHS) as required under section 45(1)(bb).
Section 13(1D) makes it clear that this the requirement that the landlord’s statements about insulation and other under subsection (1A) or (1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement. 1 See section 13(1A)
The landlord is not required to provide evidence of compliance at the same time as the tenancy agreement is signed. The obligation is to confirm that the premises comply with the HHS requirements or will comply within the timeframe designated under the Act. 2 An obligation to provide the evidence of compliance arises only if the tenant requests the information relating to HHS. 3
The tenancy agreement is deficient because it contains none of the statements of compliance regarding insulation, heating, moisture ingress and drainage, ventilation or draught stopping.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. 4
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. 5
The act has been committed intentionally, in that the landlord knew that the agreement did not contain these statements. The landlord may not have been aware of the legal requirements, but that is not a defence.
I do not consider that this failure had a significant impact on the tenants. This was a new house and so it is more likely than not that all aspects of the HHS were compliant. This contrasts with the situation where a tenant is moving into an older home and wants to be assured that the landlord has complied with the HHS and that if there are deficiencies, it is because of an exemption under the HHS.
However, a property management company should have known about these requirements which had been in force for five years at the start of the tenancy. There is a public interest in reinforcing the message to this landlord and others that compliance with the legislation is required. Accordingly, I order the landlord to pay exemplary damages of $250.00 to the tenant. That is one third of the maximum. Heating
[The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard. She seeks: a. Rent Reduction: $2500 40% for 10 Weeks being without the only source of heating; 2 Since 1 July 2025, all premises have had to comply. 3 See section 45(1AC) 4 See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A. 5 See section 109. b. General Damages: $1000 for Loss of amenity, hardship, inconvenience, and stress during pregnancy while caring for two preschool children; c. Exemplary Damages: $1500 for reckless failure to comply with healthy homes obligations.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all HHS.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. This tenancy began on 16 August 2024 and so the property had to comply within 120 days, which is approximately 16 December 2024.
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. Compensation may also be ordered.
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.
There is no evidence that the property was non-compliant with HHS. I do not accept that there was a reckless failure to comply, as claimed in the tenant’s application.
Rather, the issue is that the source of heating in the lounge stopped working and was not repaired for 10 weeks. I have therefore considered whether there was a failure to provide or maintain the premises.
There was a delay in having the heating fixed. Regardless of whether the delay was the fault of the landlord, the tenant was paying rent for a property that no longer had a functioning heat pump. The tenant should be compensated for that loss of an amenity. That is often calculated as a rent reduction. The impact on the tenant is taken into account when fixing that amount.
The tenant was given a heater by her father to assist. She does not recall the landlord offering her a heater during this time.
I find that being without the use of the heat pump during the winter is relevant. Although the tenant had access to heater, she was paying rent from a property that included a heat pump which was to heat the lounge and dining area. She was a stay-at-home mum with two pre-school children and was expecting her third child. She should be compensated with a rent reduction of 20% over 10 weeks. The weekly rent was $605.00 and so that comes to $1,210.
I have also considered whether exemplary damages should be ordered. Although delays in having the matter repaired may have been partly as a result of the warranty requirements, there were delays that sit with the landlords.
On 7 May the tenants notified the property manager of the issue. This was acknowledged on 8 May. The tenants heard nothing. On Tuesday 27 May the tenants followed up. On Sunday 1 June, the property manager replied saying: I have not heard from the owners, so I have sent a job to my guys, and asked them to get out to you on Tuesday, they should call you.
That indicates that no steps had been taken to have the heat pump looked at until 1 June. Because of a power outage on 3 June, the technicians attended on Wednesday 4 June. They told the tenants that it required warranty parts.
The tenants heard nothing and followed up with the property manager on 26 June. They received a reply: Have not been advised anything but will follow up with the team
By 12 July, the tenants had heard nothing. They issued a 14-day notice to repair, and it was repaired on 15 July.
The landlord has provided an email from S and R Solutions which includes the following: Unfortunately, we initially had a bit of a mix-up with the diagnosis we replaced the inverter board on the outdoor unit which is a fairly common fault caused by a spike in the power and it turned out the issue was more complex than we first thought. Being burnt compressor contacts. We ordered the new compressor that had to be shipped from overseas, which took longer than expected. As soon as the compressor arrived we headed back to address and installed. We tested the system and all working within manufacturers specifications.
The landlords have provided no evidence that they had attempted to get someone to see the heat pump between 7 May and 26 May. The email does not explain when the parts were ordered or that they were waiting on them between 4 June and 15 July 2025. There is also no evidence that the cause for any delays was explained to the tenants while they waited for the heat pump to be fixed.
Accordingly, I find Seddon Street Property Management Limited As Agent For Catherine Geraghty is responsible for some of the delay and has therefore failed to maintain the premises and has committed an unlawful act.
The maximum exemplary damages for this is $7,200. In deciding whether to order exemplary damages, I must have regard to the tenant’s interest, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.
By the order made above, the tenant will now compensated $1,210 for the loss of amenity. However, when they asked the landlord for compensation they were declined on the basis that the heat pump had been fixed within 14 days of the notice. The landlord does not seem to have had any concern for the preceding 9 weeks during which they were on notice that the heat pump did not work. It was not repaired within 14 days at all.
I have taken into account the following factors: a. the impact on the tenant of receiving no communication or updates throughout the winter, unless she or her partner asked for them; b. the need to remind this landlord of their obligations when an item requires repair. c. the public interest in reminding other landlords of their obligations when an item requires repair.
I have decided that a modest award of $500.00 exemplary damages is appropriate. That is less than 10% of the maximum and takes into account that compensatory damages have been ordered.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and order name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5318568 — Exemplary damages at 27 Cook Street, Foxton, Foxton 4814

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5318568 — Exemplary damages at 27 Cook Street, Foxton, Foxton 4814

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions