What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5323359 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5323359?

Compensation: $2,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5323359?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5323359?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12668714-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5323359 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5323359?

Compensation: $2,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5323359?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5323359?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12668714-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Flat 2, 73 Tancred Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5323359 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5323359 — net $2,378.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,200.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$150.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,378.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,378.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5323359 — net $2,378.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,200.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$150.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,378.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,378.00

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details are suppressed.
Maree Quinn must pay Lorinda Nottingham $2,378.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The tenant’s claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Perriam, the property manager, represented the landlord.
The tenant claims compensation and exemplary damages for various alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations in relation to the condition of the premises. It seems that the tenant also wants to be released early from the tenancy although that is not mentioned in her application. There is no legal basis for the Tribunal to make an order in relation to the term of the tenancy. Both parties accept that the tenancy has ended, and the landlord has not made any claim for rent, therefore this appears not to be a live issue in any case. Background
The tenancy began in November 2022 and ended on 16 May 2025. The Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) applied to the tenancy from 16 March 2023.
The tenancy agreement came with an insulation statement but no HHS information other than a statement that the premises will comply with the HHS “as required”.
The premises are part of a converted house built in the early 1900s. The landlord has owned it since 2019.
There was very little written communication between the parties during the tenancy. The tenant said that she raised issues concerning the premises, including HHS non-compliance, with Mr Perriam when he attended the premises for regular inspections. Mr Perriam denied that said that he reported any issues raised by the tenant to the landlord who took any required action promptly.
The tenant has produced two reports on the condition of the premises which she obtained during the tenancy. The landlord has produced two reports obtained since the tenancy ended and a pre-purchase report and an insulation report obtained in 2019.
The tenant provided her reports to Mr Perriam on 9 May 2025. She received the HHS report in October 2024. The tenant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for waiting five months before providing that report to the landlord. Obviously, the sooner the landlord was made aware of any deficiencies, the sooner she could take (and would be obliged to take) remedial action. She has since taken the necessary action. Relevant Law
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), a landlord must 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 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed.
The landlord must also provide HHS information with respect to the premises.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to certain minimum standards.
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.
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 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 moisture ingress and drainage standard requires 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.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum that varies for each breach.
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. Claims Insulation and Ground Vapour Barrier
The landlord accepts that the premises should have had insulation and ground vapour barrier (gvb) installed under the floor from the beginning of the tenancy and there was neither.
The insulation report in 2019 that the landlord produced sates that the premises were exempt from the requirement due to the limited sub-floor space. That was incorrect. There is enough space, and the insulation and gvb have been installed since the tenancy ended.
The pre-purchase report that the landlord produced sates that there is insulation under the floor. One possible explanation for that is that there was insulation under the floor in other areas of the building but not under the premises.
The insulation information with the tenancy agreement (provided by the tenant) states that the subfloor space is not accessible, presumably based on the earlier insulation report.
In any case, I accept that the landlord made an honest attempt to complete the insulation information and that the failure to complete it accurately and the failure to ensure that the subfloor was insulated, was not intentional. It follows that there can be no award of exemplary damages for these breaches.
But breaches there were, and the tenant is entitled to be compensated for the consequences them. It is inevitable that without insulation and a gvb under the floor, the premises were colder, damper and more difficult to heat and keep warm than they should have been. The tenant complained of mould in the premises, but there was little evidence to support that. Aside from the bathroom, which is discussed below, there was not much evidence to support the claim that the fabric of the premises suffered from high levels of moisture.
There is no scientific way of assessing compensation in this situation. The tenant occupied the premises during two full winters and those are the times when heating and warmth in the premises were most needed. The tenant said that she was often unwell during the tenancy, and she linked that to the condition of the premises. There was no medical evidence, and I note that she was happy to extend the tenancy. I find that an award of $2,000 is reasonable compensation.
The tenant claimed that her reports state that the ceiling insulation was non- compliant. That is incorrect. The landlord’s evidence shows that it was compliant and there is no evidence to contradict that.
There should have been HHS information provided with the tenancy agreement. I have found that the premises were largely compliant with HHS and so there would not have been much in the information that would have raised concerns. But it was still a significant omission and given the importance of the information generally, and there should be an award of exemplary damages. It put it at the lower end of the scale and award $150. Ventilation
The tenant’s HH report found that the extractor fan in the bathroom was not externally vented. It found that the window in the bathroom was openable, and I note that this contradicts the landlord’s house inspection report that states the window has no opening mechanism. The tenant’s report strikes me as being thorough and so I assume that it is correct.
The landlord relied on a contractor to install the bathroom fan, and she assumed that it had been installed correctly. I note that the landlord has carried out substantial work to the premises at considerable cost and I accept that she was let down by her contractor in this instance. She put it right when she became aware of the fault. There is therefore no justification for an award of exemplary damages for the failure.
There is evidence that the tenant did not use the fan but that may be because it was not effective. The fan venting into the roof space would likely have contributed to the moisture levels in the premises but given that the fan would be needed only intermittently for relatively short periods the effect would be minor. I note as well that the window opened and could be used for ventilation.
Nevertheless, some award of compensation is warranted for the loss of the amenity, and I award $200. Drainage
The tenant’s HH report states that a down pipe does not direct water to an appropriate outfall. There is a photograph purporting to showing this defect and the problem appears to be that it discharges over a grill rather than directly into a gully. I do not regard that as significant, and it is not something that warrants an award of either exemplary damages or compensation. Bedroom Window
The tenant’s HH report states that the openable part of the sash bedroom window allows less than 5% of the floor area for ventilation. That requirement comes from the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947. I would say that most people would find that degree of ventilation adequate.
The landlord points out that there is another window in the bedroom that is openable and that has not been considered in the report. I accept that.
For both these reasons I find that there has been no breach of the Regulations requiring the Tribunal’s intervention.
There is a difference of opinion as to whether the bedroom window could stay open. I note that there is no clear evidence that there was a fault with the sash mechanism of the window. The landlord’s pre-purchase report notes that sash cords in some windows need repair but it is not clear what that meant in practice.
The tenant said that she used a block of wood to hold the window open, but she didn’t feel safe. It is not clear to me what the difference would be in terms of safety between a block hold holding the window open and the sash mechanism holding it open.
Overall, I am not satisfied that the window did not stay open. I note that if the tenant had raised that as a problem during the tenancy, it is likely that the landlord would have fixed it. Draughts
The tenant’s report states that there is a draught at the front door and “possibly ceiling above kitchen, skylight, fireplace and main bedroom”. It is not clear whether the word “possible” relates just to the ceiling above the kitchen or to the other areas as well. There are no photographs in the report showing the gaps.
The tenant has provided some photographs showing screwed up paper blocking the flue and folded paper between the bedroom window and the frame. The tenant said that she was not aware of a draught from the fireplace.
The sash window must have some play to be able to operate and the paper pushed between the window and the frame does not prove an unreasonable gap. There was a draught excluder fitted to the door and I accept that the landlord reasonably believed that it was working as intended.
Overall, I am not satisfied that there should be any award under this head. Bathroom
The tenant reported dampness in the bathroom during the tenancy and the landlord essentially replaced the bathroom. Water had been leaking under the floor and timbers were damaged. It was also found that pipework under the floor was faulty. The landlord was not aware of or responsible for that.
The tenant said that wastewater from the shower was found to be discharging onto the ground under the premises. Mr Perriam denied that. There was no evidence supporting the tenant’s claim that it was, and I find that it is unlikely.
There can be no criticism of the landlord in this regard. She responded appropriately when the problem was drawn to her attention.
The tenant also said that there was a leak at the corner of the shower allowing water to escape onto the floor. She produced photographs showing small amounts of water on the floor by the shower. She said that she wiped it up after showering.
The landlord sent a contractor who applied sealant, but the tenant said it did not fix the problem. If that is correct, I am not satisfied that the tenant raised the issue again. In any case, the leak was, at worst, a minor inconvenience. Filing Fee and Suppression
The tenant has had some success and so I have awarded her the filing fee and granted her name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5323359 — Exemplary damages at Flat 2, 73 Tancred Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5323359 — Exemplary damages at Flat 2, 73 Tancred Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

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