What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328846 about?

The tribunal order states: Ross Malone and Elevate Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $678.00 immediately, calculated as shown below:

How much money was awarded in case 5328846?

Compensation: $650.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328846?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328846?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12709131-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328846 about?

The tribunal order states: Ross Malone and Elevate Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $678.00 immediately, calculated as shown below:

How much money was awarded in case 5328846?

Compensation: $650.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328846?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328846?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12709131-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13 Hornsey Road, Bluff Hill, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5328846 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

13 Hornsey Road, Bluff Hill, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5328846 — Tenancy dispute | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328846 — net $678.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$650.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$678.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$678.00

Claims and awards for application 5328846 — net $678.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation

Amount: $650.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $678.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $678.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Filing Fee

Order

Ross Malone and Elevate Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $678.00 immediately, calculated as shown below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background
Ms von Olso first rented these premises from 14 September 2018 to 21 March 2022. They were listed as a 2 bedroom plus studio. Rent of $450.00 per week was paid.
The premises have a studio room off the deck. It has large French doors and its own toilet but not bathroom facilities.
During that first tenancy, particularly toward the end, Ms von Oslo used the studio as a bedroom.
Ms von Oslo ended the tenancy and went overseas between 1 April 2022 and 28 September 2022 .
During that time the premises were rented out as a 3 bedroom property on the basis that “A third bedroom [the studio] is located by the main house”
On her return, while looking for somewhere to rent, the landlord’s property manager asked Ms von Oslo if she would like to rent these premises again.
At that time the premises were listed as a 3 bedroom property. In terms of the work that had been done to the studio while Ms von Olso had been away, the property manager explained to Ms von Oslo by e-mail that, “.....I have attached a photo of the sleepout revamped. It will have floor length curtains on the French doors and a curtain that will just touch the bookcase over the side window. Because it has a flat roof it does not require insulation and the walls will be as before, the roof before had holes in the ceiling from memory so this should be an improvement. It is what it is though.”
The parties then entered into an agreement for Ms von Oslo to rent the premises for a term from 21 October 2022 to 6 April 2023 at a weekly rent of $650.00.
The agreement records the maximum number of occupants as 1 but early in tenancy it was agreed that the tenant could bring in a flatmate, Ms Simmons.
Ms Simons gave evidence at the hearing. She primarily occupied the studio, though used cooking, laundry and bathroom facilities in the main house. Ms Simmons was approved by the landlord as an occupant but did not sign the tenancy agreement to become a tenant, so she was a subtenant of Ms von Oslo.
On 12 August 2025 Ms von Oslo e-mailed the landlord demanding that she be paid compensation of $7,500.00 on the basis that she had discovered that after her tenancy, the premises had been listed as a 2 bedroom plus sleepout property at a lower rental. She asserted that the premises did not comply with Healthy Homes standards or the building code and that the studio was inadequate for use as a bedroom.
Essentially her claim was and is that the premises should never have been listed and priced as a 3 bedroom home because the studio could not properly be occupied as a bedroom and that she had been overcharged.
The landlord responded with a comprehensive explanation of the reasons why the listing and rent expectations for the premises had changed but the parties could not reach agreement.
The landlord’s evidence proves that: a. the premises were assessed as Healthy Homes compliant as at 21 September 2021; b. that assessment included an assessment that the studio met the Healthy Homes draft stopping standard; c. it was due to that assessment and the use of the studio as a bedroom by Ms von Oslo during her first tenancy, that after Ms von Oslo’s first tenancy ended, the premises were listed as having 3 bedrooms; d. the landlord had another Healthy Homes assessment completed in July 2024 which found gaps around joinery and in the structure of the studio that meant it did not comply with the Healthy Homes draught stopping standard. The landlord immediately changed the premises’ description from 3 bedrooms to 2 bedrooms plus storage. The rent was reduced to reflect that change. Analysis
Several of the tenant’s claims cannot be sustained. a. no claim for exemplary damages can be brought as such claims need to be brought within 12 months of the unlawful act on which the claim is based 1 ; b. there is no dispute that the skillion roof on the studio meant that it was exempt from the requirement to have ceiling insulation installed. Where an exemption applies, HH standards are not breached; c. I don’t make a finding that it was compliant, but the evidence does not prove any breach of the building code or other applicable legislation or that use of the studio as a bedroom was unlawful for lack of means of escape from fire. As this is the tenant’s application she is required to provide evidence to prove the claims.
During the hearing there was a suggestion that the landlord breached obligations owed to the tenant by not having a leaking toilet in the studio replaced soon enough but the evidence does not prove that breach or loss caused as a result. For reasons given, an award of exemplary damages could not in any event be made.
As a result, the questions the Tribunal needs to answer are: 1 S.109(2) RTA a. was the tenant entitled to expect that the premises would have three compliant and habitable bedrooms; b. if so, did the landlord breach that obligation; c. if so, what loss was caused to the tenant; d. should allowance be made for mitigation; e. what if any compensation should be awarded; Was the tenant was entitled to expect that the premises would have 3 compliant and habitable bedrooms?
The landlord does not dispute that the terms of the listing meant that the tenant was entitled to occupation of a compliant and habitable 3 bedroom property.

Did the landlord breach that obligation?

At some point between the September 2021 Healthy Homes assessment and the July 2024 Healthy Homes assessment, the studio became non-compliant with the Healthy Homes draft stopping standard.
Ms Simmons gave evidence of her experience of living in the sleepout. That was her main personal/ private space and where she kept her belongings. Ms von Oslo had primary use of the 2 bedrooms inside.
Ms Simmons paid 50% of the total rent for the premises throughout the tenancy.
She says that she experienced problems with water seeping under the French doors when it rained heavily and that it was very cold in the sleepout. On wet or clod days, more so later in the tenancy towards winter, she would go inside and sleep in the second indoor bedroom, which ws not occupied and which Ms von Oslo was happy to let her use.
I cannot determine precisely what point between 2021 and 2024 the sleepout became non-compliant for draughts.
However, the evidence Ms Simmons gave about her experience of occupying the studio, is consistent with what the Healthy Homes inspector reported when assessing the premises on 11 July 2024, that “....doors to sleepout are not compliant for draughts if the room is to be used for anything other than storage.” On that basis I consider it more likely than not that the sleepout did not comply with the Healthy Homes draft stopping standard for use as a bedroom, while Ms Simmons occupied it, during this tenancy.
The landlord was entitled to rely on the 2021 Healthy Homes assessment, so cannot be said to have intentionally breached its obligations. Nevertheless if there was in fact a breach and that breach caused Ms von Oslo loss, she is entitled to ask that compensation be considered.

Was loss caused to the tenant?

The aim of contractual compensation is to put a party in the position they would have been in if the other party had not breached their obligations.
I have struggled somewhat to identify a quantifiable loss caused to Ms von Oslo by the landlord’s breach.
She agreed to pay $650.00 for the premises on the basis that only one occupant was allowed. It was then agreed that Ms Simmons could also occupy the premises, which halved the rent Ms von Oslo herself was paying.
The intent of the arrangement after Ms Simmons moved in, was that Ms von Oslo would have primary use of the inside bedrooms, sharing facilities. For the most part, that is what happened.
Although Ms Simmons did sometimes sleep there when it was cold or wet, the evidence does not show that Ms von Oslo was unable to use the second inside bedroom for other purposes because it had to be kept free for Ms Simmons when the studio was not habitable.
It was Ms Simmons who suffered directly from the consequences of the draft and cold in the studio. Effectively, she was the one paying rent for that part of the premises. Ms von Oslo continued to receive Ms Simmons’ rent in full.
The evidence does show some disruption and interference with Ms von Oslo’s use of the premises by having concerns raised by Ms Simmons about how cold the studio was and sometimes having her stay in the second inside bedroom but the evidence does not suggest that it was, at the time, a major inconvenience.

Were reasonable mitigation measures taken?

Where a party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of the RTA, the other party must take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach.
Ms Simmons says that she mentioned concerns about water coming in and how cold it was in the studio to the former property manager but that there was no response. The landlord says that there is no record of those concerns having been raised.
The next step available to Ms von Oslo as the tenant, if the draughts and cold in the studio were a significant concern, was to formally bring those issues to the landlord’s attention through a written notice to remedy. Indeed tenants have a legal obligation to notify a landlord about the need for repair of premises 2 .
Had that been done, the landlord could have mitigated the situation by getting the updated Healthy Homes assessment done sooner. The evidence shows that as soon as the landlord became aware the sleepout was no longer compliant, immediate and appropriate steps were taken in response.
It seems to me more likely than not that some of the losses now claimed by the tenant would not have been incurred, if the concerns she now raises about the premises had been formally raised with the landlord at the time.

Should compensation be paid?

I find that some compensation should be paid to the tenant for the effects of the landlord’s breach on her use of the premises.
While I understand that the tenant has been confused and felt disadvantaged by the changing descriptions and rents charged for the premises over time, taking into account the factors I have identified, the compensation should be modest. I fix it at 1 weeks’ rent.
Because the tenant has had a claim upheld I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328846 — net $678.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$650.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$678.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$678.00

Claims and awards for application 5328846 — net $678.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation

Amount: $650.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $678.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $678.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Filing Fee

Order

Ross Malone and Elevate Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $678.00 immediately, calculated as shown below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background
Ms von Olso first rented these premises from 14 September 2018 to 21 March 2022. They were listed as a 2 bedroom plus studio. Rent of $450.00 per week was paid.
The premises have a studio room off the deck. It has large French doors and its own toilet but not bathroom facilities.
During that first tenancy, particularly toward the end, Ms von Oslo used the studio as a bedroom.
Ms von Oslo ended the tenancy and went overseas between 1 April 2022 and 28 September 2022 .
During that time the premises were rented out as a 3 bedroom property on the basis that “A third bedroom [the studio] is located by the main house”
On her return, while looking for somewhere to rent, the landlord’s property manager asked Ms von Oslo if she would like to rent these premises again.
At that time the premises were listed as a 3 bedroom property. In terms of the work that had been done to the studio while Ms von Olso had been away, the property manager explained to Ms von Oslo by e-mail that, “.....I have attached a photo of the sleepout revamped. It will have floor length curtains on the French doors and a curtain that will just touch the bookcase over the side window. Because it has a flat roof it does not require insulation and the walls will be as before, the roof before had holes in the ceiling from memory so this should be an improvement. It is what it is though.”
The parties then entered into an agreement for Ms von Oslo to rent the premises for a term from 21 October 2022 to 6 April 2023 at a weekly rent of $650.00.
The agreement records the maximum number of occupants as 1 but early in tenancy it was agreed that the tenant could bring in a flatmate, Ms Simmons.
Ms Simons gave evidence at the hearing. She primarily occupied the studio, though used cooking, laundry and bathroom facilities in the main house. Ms Simmons was approved by the landlord as an occupant but did not sign the tenancy agreement to become a tenant, so she was a subtenant of Ms von Oslo.
On 12 August 2025 Ms von Oslo e-mailed the landlord demanding that she be paid compensation of $7,500.00 on the basis that she had discovered that after her tenancy, the premises had been listed as a 2 bedroom plus sleepout property at a lower rental. She asserted that the premises did not comply with Healthy Homes standards or the building code and that the studio was inadequate for use as a bedroom.
Essentially her claim was and is that the premises should never have been listed and priced as a 3 bedroom home because the studio could not properly be occupied as a bedroom and that she had been overcharged.
The landlord responded with a comprehensive explanation of the reasons why the listing and rent expectations for the premises had changed but the parties could not reach agreement.
The landlord’s evidence proves that: a. the premises were assessed as Healthy Homes compliant as at 21 September 2021; b. that assessment included an assessment that the studio met the Healthy Homes draft stopping standard; c. it was due to that assessment and the use of the studio as a bedroom by Ms von Oslo during her first tenancy, that after Ms von Oslo’s first tenancy ended, the premises were listed as having 3 bedrooms; d. the landlord had another Healthy Homes assessment completed in July 2024 which found gaps around joinery and in the structure of the studio that meant it did not comply with the Healthy Homes draught stopping standard. The landlord immediately changed the premises’ description from 3 bedrooms to 2 bedrooms plus storage. The rent was reduced to reflect that change. Analysis
Several of the tenant’s claims cannot be sustained. a. no claim for exemplary damages can be brought as such claims need to be brought within 12 months of the unlawful act on which the claim is based 1 ; b. there is no dispute that the skillion roof on the studio meant that it was exempt from the requirement to have ceiling insulation installed. Where an exemption applies, HH standards are not breached; c. I don’t make a finding that it was compliant, but the evidence does not prove any breach of the building code or other applicable legislation or that use of the studio as a bedroom was unlawful for lack of means of escape from fire. As this is the tenant’s application she is required to provide evidence to prove the claims.
During the hearing there was a suggestion that the landlord breached obligations owed to the tenant by not having a leaking toilet in the studio replaced soon enough but the evidence does not prove that breach or loss caused as a result. For reasons given, an award of exemplary damages could not in any event be made.
As a result, the questions the Tribunal needs to answer are: 1 S.109(2) RTA a. was the tenant entitled to expect that the premises would have three compliant and habitable bedrooms; b. if so, did the landlord breach that obligation; c. if so, what loss was caused to the tenant; d. should allowance be made for mitigation; e. what if any compensation should be awarded; Was the tenant was entitled to expect that the premises would have 3 compliant and habitable bedrooms?
The landlord does not dispute that the terms of the listing meant that the tenant was entitled to occupation of a compliant and habitable 3 bedroom property.

Did the landlord breach that obligation?

At some point between the September 2021 Healthy Homes assessment and the July 2024 Healthy Homes assessment, the studio became non-compliant with the Healthy Homes draft stopping standard.
Ms Simmons gave evidence of her experience of living in the sleepout. That was her main personal/ private space and where she kept her belongings. Ms von Oslo had primary use of the 2 bedrooms inside.
Ms Simmons paid 50% of the total rent for the premises throughout the tenancy.
She says that she experienced problems with water seeping under the French doors when it rained heavily and that it was very cold in the sleepout. On wet or clod days, more so later in the tenancy towards winter, she would go inside and sleep in the second indoor bedroom, which ws not occupied and which Ms von Oslo was happy to let her use.
I cannot determine precisely what point between 2021 and 2024 the sleepout became non-compliant for draughts.
However, the evidence Ms Simmons gave about her experience of occupying the studio, is consistent with what the Healthy Homes inspector reported when assessing the premises on 11 July 2024, that “....doors to sleepout are not compliant for draughts if the room is to be used for anything other than storage.” On that basis I consider it more likely than not that the sleepout did not comply with the Healthy Homes draft stopping standard for use as a bedroom, while Ms Simmons occupied it, during this tenancy.
The landlord was entitled to rely on the 2021 Healthy Homes assessment, so cannot be said to have intentionally breached its obligations. Nevertheless if there was in fact a breach and that breach caused Ms von Oslo loss, she is entitled to ask that compensation be considered.

Was loss caused to the tenant?

The aim of contractual compensation is to put a party in the position they would have been in if the other party had not breached their obligations.
I have struggled somewhat to identify a quantifiable loss caused to Ms von Oslo by the landlord’s breach.
She agreed to pay $650.00 for the premises on the basis that only one occupant was allowed. It was then agreed that Ms Simmons could also occupy the premises, which halved the rent Ms von Oslo herself was paying.
The intent of the arrangement after Ms Simmons moved in, was that Ms von Oslo would have primary use of the inside bedrooms, sharing facilities. For the most part, that is what happened.
Although Ms Simmons did sometimes sleep there when it was cold or wet, the evidence does not show that Ms von Oslo was unable to use the second inside bedroom for other purposes because it had to be kept free for Ms Simmons when the studio was not habitable.
It was Ms Simmons who suffered directly from the consequences of the draft and cold in the studio. Effectively, she was the one paying rent for that part of the premises. Ms von Oslo continued to receive Ms Simmons’ rent in full.
The evidence does show some disruption and interference with Ms von Oslo’s use of the premises by having concerns raised by Ms Simmons about how cold the studio was and sometimes having her stay in the second inside bedroom but the evidence does not suggest that it was, at the time, a major inconvenience.

Were reasonable mitigation measures taken?

Where a party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of the RTA, the other party must take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach.
Ms Simmons says that she mentioned concerns about water coming in and how cold it was in the studio to the former property manager but that there was no response. The landlord says that there is no record of those concerns having been raised.
The next step available to Ms von Oslo as the tenant, if the draughts and cold in the studio were a significant concern, was to formally bring those issues to the landlord’s attention through a written notice to remedy. Indeed tenants have a legal obligation to notify a landlord about the need for repair of premises 2 .
Had that been done, the landlord could have mitigated the situation by getting the updated Healthy Homes assessment done sooner. The evidence shows that as soon as the landlord became aware the sleepout was no longer compliant, immediate and appropriate steps were taken in response.
It seems to me more likely than not that some of the losses now claimed by the tenant would not have been incurred, if the concerns she now raises about the premises had been formally raised with the landlord at the time.

Should compensation be paid?

I find that some compensation should be paid to the tenant for the effects of the landlord’s breach on her use of the premises.
While I understand that the tenant has been confused and felt disadvantaged by the changing descriptions and rents charged for the premises over time, taking into account the factors I have identified, the compensation should be modest. I fix it at 1 weeks’ rent.
Because the tenant has had a claim upheld I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328846 — Tenancy dispute at 13 Hornsey Road, Bluff Hill, Napier 4110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328846 — Tenancy dispute at 13 Hornsey Road, Bluff Hill, Napier 4110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach that obligation?

Was loss caused to the tenant?

Were reasonable mitigation measures taken?

Should compensation be paid?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach that obligation?

Was loss caused to the tenant?

Were reasonable mitigation measures taken?

Should compensation be paid?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions