Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5326459 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat Caravan 4, 26 Marjorie Jayne Crescent, Otahuhu,
Decided 28 Dec 2025 · Published 28 Dec 2025 · Application 5326459
Tenant favoured
- Healthy homes
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Tenant favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
V Pasupati
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $100.00
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $100.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compensation: HHS | $100.00 | HHS | |
| Net award | $100.00 | ||
| Bond | $100.00 | ||
| Total payable by Landlord to Tenant | $100.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5326459 — net $100.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Compensation: HHS
- Amount
- $100.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- HHS
Net award
Tenant $100.00
Bond
Tenant $100.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant
Tenant $100.00
Dismissed claims
- Other Claims — All other claims dismissed
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $800.00 (6201168-020) to Chris Robert O'Halpin immediately.
- MSA Investments Limited must pay Chris Robert O'Halpin $100.00 immediately, as shown in the table below.
- All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing, with Mr Koh and Ms Job attending for the landlord. Following the hearing, the Tribunal issued an order determining that the landlord’s termination notice was not retaliatory. Therefore, that part of the tenant’s claim was dismissed.
- The balance of the claims are considered below. Background
- As noted in the earlier order, the tenant occupies a caravan at the Otahuhu Caravan Park, which is owned by the landlord. The caravan is self-contained, with living, sleeping and cooking facilities. The tenant shares bathroom and laundry facilities with other occupants of the park. The Tribunal has previously ruled that the tenant’s occupation of caravan 4 and the use of shared facilities at the caravan park constitute a residential tenancy under section 4 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). 1
- The tenant has filed an application claiming as follows: a. The landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy is retaliatory b. The landlord did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) with reference to heating. c. The landlord breached his quiet enjoyment. d. The rent increase ought to be reversed as he never received notice of it.
- The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages. General principles
- In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
- 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. In general, 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. 1 Halpin v MSA Investments Ltd [2022] NZTT 4329496
- Exemplary damages are penalties and can only be awarded for an unlawful act, as set out in various sections of the RTA and as listed in Schedule 1A of the Act. They are different from compensation and are designed to punish and deter, more like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
- Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion. Where one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act, before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA. Healthy Homes Standards
- The tenant claims the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
- Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
- 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. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. See section 45(1A).
- The tenant’s evidence is that there is no heater or air conditioning system in his unit. He has referred to previous findings made by the Tribunal.
- In response, the landlord accepts there is no fixed heater in the caravan. The landlord has not obtained an HHS assessment of the caravans. The landlord notes there are 5 flats that were found to be compliant with the HHS and he believed the caravan did comply.
- In his written submissions the landlord states that the accommodation provided is of high standard. The caravan is well appointed with modern amenities, including double glazed windows. The tenant has been provided with a dehumidifier and has always been able to use a portable plug in heater. The tenant had resided peacefully for 7.5 years without prior complaint regarding heating. The van is classified as being safe and warm, with appliances that were suited to the van. It was fully insulated and suitable for occupation by one to two people.
- In this case, I acknowledge the landlord’s submissions concerning the features of the caravan and the amenities provided. This tenancy has been found to come within the RTA. This means that the landlord needs to meet the requirements under the HHS. In this case, there is no qualifying heater within the premises with the capacity to heat the room to the required level. While there are exemptions in specific circumstances, the landlord has not demonstrated that an exemption applies to this tenancy. In the absence of any heating, the premises does not comply with the heating standard required under the HHS.
- The tenancy agreement records that this tenancy began on 6 March 2018. The Tribunal order issued on 29 July 2022 found that this was not a boarding house tenancy. 2 Therefore, the compliance date for this tenancy is 1 July 2025. So, for the 5 month period from 1 July 2025 to the landlord’s notice ending the tenancy on 5 November 2025, it can be said that the premises did not comply with the HHS heating standard.
- In terms of compensation for the landlord’s breach, I consider $100.00 to be fair, reasonable and proportionate compensation to the tenant for the breach and loss of amenity.
- For exemplary damages to be awarded, the test set out in section 109(3) of the RTA must be met. This requires, as a precondition, that the person against whom the order is sought committed the unlawful act intentionally. An intentional act is a deliberate act, not a negligent or careless oversight, or an act resulting from incompetence. 2 See at paragraph 32, Halpin v MSA Investments Ltd [2022] NZTT 4329496
- In this case, I find that the required intent for exemplary damages is not met. While the landlord did not address the HHS heating requirements, taking into account the landlord’s evidence, I am unable to find that the landlord turned their mind to the act and deliberately set out to commit it. Therefore, there is no separate award for exemplary damages. Breach of quiet enjoyment
- In his application the tenant states that the landlord has breached his reasonable peace, comfort and privacy, and he is under stress and duress. At the hearing, the tenant said that the landlord’s claim about rent arrears was fictitious. He noted previous Tribunal orders. The breach of quiet enjoyment arose from the fact that he had been put through this process multiple times, which he found unconscionable. He states he enjoyed living there. He claims he was filmed by a property manager when an inspection was being carried out.
- In response, the landlord states that the tenant had prevented them from carrying out inspections as directed by a previous adjudicator. The landlord’s evidence is that his staff are afraid of approaching the tenant.
- Section 38(1) of the RTA states that the tenant is entitled to have “quiet enjoyment” of the premises without interruption by the landlord or anyone acting on the landlord’s behalf. This provision imposes a limited duty on the landlord not to do anything to interrupt the tenant’s use of the premises. 3 Section 38(2) of the RTA further provides that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
- The right to ‘reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy’ is often described as the right to quiet enjoyment. In this context “quiet” means peaceful, not merely free from noise, and “enjoyment” means the right to full use and benefit of the tenancy property. 4 This right is commonly used in reference to the uninterrupted use of the premises, and can include the right not to have the tenancy significantly impaired by the actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents.
- Where this obligation has been breached in circumstances that amount to harassment, this is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, 5 up to a maximum of $3,000.00. 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." 6 3 ‘Residential Tenancies: The Law and Practice’ 4 th edition, D. Grinlinton (2012) 4 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson (2018) 5 See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the RTA 6 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
- Overall, having considered the evidence and submissions, I find the tenant has not established, to the required standard, that the landlord has breached his quiet enjoyment. In terms of the landlord’s communication concerning rent, I do not find this to reach a level where it has interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace or comfort. As noted in my earlier order, a landlord is entitled to follow up on late or unpaid rent with a tenant as part of their role in managing the tenancy. Some of the issues raised by the tenant appear to have been dealt with in previous Tribunal hearings. In terms of the inspection, it is unclear from the available evidence whether the inspection was filmed. I have previously ruled that the landlord’s notice to end the tenancy was not retaliatory, and therefore, there has been no breach of his quiet enjoyment as a result of this notice.
- Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord. Balanced against that, however, landlord/tenant relationships tend to be between individuals. That will inevitably involve some interaction between them, on a personal level. While acknowledging that the tenant felt upset, I do not find the landlord’s overall conduct has reached a level where his rights have been breached.
- Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Rent increase
- The tenant claims that the landlord’s rent increases were invalid as he did not receive notice of them. The landlord has provided copies of the two notices. These are dated 24 June 2022 and 12 October 2023. The tenant denies receiving either of them. In response, the landlord states that the notices were emailed and placed in the tenant’s mailbox. However, in both instances, the landlord has not been able to provide copies of the relevant emails or other evidence to show that the notices were delivered to the tenant.
- Therefore, based on the current evidence, the Tribunal is unable to conclude that the landlord has validly notified the tenant of the rent increases on 24 June 2022 and 12 October 2023.
- I further note that the landlord claims rent arrears, However, as the landlord has not filed its own application, no findings are made. Bond
- In the application, the tenant sought a return of his bond. At the time the application was made, the tenancy had not ended. It has now come to an end. While the landlord may have a claim against the bond, it has not filed its own application.
- Section 22B(2) of the RTA provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. If the landlord does not file a claim, the bond may be refunded to the tenant.
- In this case, because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim, the bond is refunded to the tenant. Filing fee and name suppression
- The tenant has not been substantially successful with his application, so there is no reimbursement of the filing fee.
- Neither party seeks name suppression.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s1, s10, s109, s109(3), s22B(2), s38(1), s38(2), s38(3), s4, s45(1), s45(1A), s6
Key findings
- Dispute theme: healthy homes
Property management
- MSA INVESTMENTS LIMITED (respondent)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5326459?
The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $800.00 (6201168-020) to Chris Robert
How much money was awarded in case 5326459?
Compensation: HHS: $100.00 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5326459?
The primary dispute was Healthy homes.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5326459?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12910392-Tribunal_Order.pdf.