What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331198 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 5331198?

Compensation: $199.60 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331198?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331198?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13471152-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331198 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 5331198?

Compensation: $199.60 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331198?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331198?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13471152-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

53 Neal Avenue, Glenfield, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5331198 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5331198 — net $1,177.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$200.00	Bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: Healthy Homes standards	$750.00	Healthy Homes standards
Compensation	$199.60	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,177.60
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,177.60

Both parties attended the hearing held on 20 April 2026.

The tenancy began on 31 July 2022 and ended on 15 August 2025.

The tenant applied for a claim relating to the Healthy Homes standards and compensation. Healthy Homes standards

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard, draught stopping standard and moisture ingress and drainage standard.

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. Tenancies started or renewed between 1 July 2021 and 27 August 2022 must have complied with the healthy homes standards within 90 days. As this tenancy started on 31 July 2022 the compliance date is 30 October 2022.

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. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/

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.

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

The landlord took compliance steps at the beginning of the tenancy, but the evidence is that there was no ground moisture barrier installed at any stage of the tenancy. It seems that at some stage the premises also did not comply in relation to draught stopping, even if there may have been compliance at the beginning. In relation to the heating standard there is conflicting evidence in relation to the level of heating required for these premises.

I find that the landlord has not complied with the Healthy Homes standards and has therefore committed an unlawful act.

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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant obtained and produced a Healthy Homes report dated 15 August 2025 prepared by Double Power. That report concludes that the premises did not comply on the date the premises was inspected in relation to the heating standard, the moisture ingress and drainage standard and the draught stopping standard.

At the hearing the landlord acknowledged that the ground moisture barrier was not installed until after the tenancy ended. The landlord said that he was not aware that it was missing and that access under the house was difficult due to building debris.

In relation to draught stopping the landlord addressed the issues raised in the tenant’s report but after the tenancy ended.

The landlord obtained and produced a Healthy Homes report dated 26 August 2025 prepared by Oncore. That report concludes that the premises complied with the Healthy Homes standards at that stage.

The two reports provide conflicting evidence in relation to the heating capacity required at the premises. Unfortunately, this issue cannot be resolved by the Tribunal because the calculation of the heating capacity required is specific for that particular property.

On the evidence before the Tribunal the landlord has failed to comply with the Healthy Homes standards in respect of the draught stopping and moisture ingress and drainage standards. The landlord’s obligation to comply with the standards is ongoing and not just at the beginning of the tenancy or on the compliance date.

While the tenant submits that the premises were cold and contributed to health issues for herself and her children, it is not clear that the health issues were caused by the premises noncompliance with the Healthy Homes standards. However, I accept that the landlord failed to comply at the end of the tenancy, so I consider that exemplary damages for each breach of the Healthy Homes standards is reasonable. I award $250.00 for breach of the draught stopping standard and $500.00 for the moisture ingress and drainage standard, being a total of $750.00.

The tenant sought compensation from the landlord to cover costs associated with obtaining treatment for health issues including travelling to Thailand and paying privately for treatment. As I have determined that there is no evidence that the health issues were caused by the premises noncompliance with the Healthy Homes standards the claim for compensation is dismissed.

The tenant claimed for compensation for reimbursement of the cost of obtaining the Healthy Homes report. I consider that this is reasonable given that the report confirmed that the premises did not comply in some respects. The tenant is reimbursed the cost of the report being $199.60. Bond not lodged

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord failed to lodge the bond at any stage during the three-year tenancy. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

The tenant said that she was concerned that the landlord would retain some of the bond at the end of the tenancy. While this did not happen one of the reasons for the landlord to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre is to ensure that the release of the bond is either agreed to or by order of the Tribunal. I acknowledge that the bond was refunded in full at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord said that the bond was not lodged due to an administrative error on his part. While this may be the case, he has acknowledged that the bond was not lodged when it should have been.

I consider it reasonable to award exemplary damages of $200.00.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason the tenant’s name is suppressed as sought.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5331198 — net $1,177.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$200.00	Bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: Healthy Homes standards	$750.00	Healthy Homes standards
Compensation	$199.60	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,177.60
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,177.60