What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5335021 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5335021?

Compensation: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $792.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5335021?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5335021?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13005809-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5335021 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5335021?

Compensation: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $792.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5335021?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5335021?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13005809-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Flat 2, 603 Whangaparaoa Road, Stanmore Bay, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5335021 — Smoke alarms

Tenantcheck Insights

Flat 2, 603 Whangaparaoa Road, Stanmore Bay, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5335021 — Smoke alarms | 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 5335021. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages for breach of smoke alarms duties	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages for breach of smoke alarms duties
Compensation for insecure door	$150.00	Compensation for insecure door
Compensation for breach of HHS insulation	$792.86	Compensation for breach of HHS insulation
Compensation for breach of HHS ventilation	$300.00	Compensation for breach of HHS ventilation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Claims and awards for application 5335021. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages for breach of smoke alarms duties

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Exemplary damages for breach of smoke alarms duties

Compensation for insecure door

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation for insecure door

Compensation for breach of HHS insulation

Amount: $792.86
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation for breach of HHS insulation

Compensation for breach of HHS ventilation

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation for breach of HHS ventilation

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Filing Fee Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.
Cameron Hirst and Yunhong Li must pay [the tenants] $2,770.86 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below.
The claims are allowed as set out in this order. All other claims are dismissed. DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages for breach of smoke alarms duties$1,500.00 Compensation for insecure door$150.00 Compensation for breach of HHS insulation Compensation for breach of HHS ventilation $792.86
00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$2,770.86 1 The original order was issued yesterday 20 January 206. This amended order is issued to amend an error in the original order, which incorrectly stated the landlords’ liability to the tenants at $2,278.00 rather than $2,770.86.

Reasons

The tenants appeared in person.
One of the landlords, Mr Hirst appeared. Cecilia Huang, a property manager, appeared for McGill Solutions and for the landlords.
The landlord did not pursue its claims in consideration for the tenants not pursuing their failing to maintain claim. The landlord’s claims are dismissed.
The tenants claim that the landlords: a. Did not comply with their smoke alarm duties. 2 b. Did not ensure the premises were reasonably secure. 3 c.Breached their Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) duties for insulation, draught stopping, and ventilation. 4 d. Failed to provide HHS information upon request. 5

Did the landlords comply with their smoke alarms duties?

The tenants claim that the landlords (but not McGill Solutions because it only began managing the premises at a later date) breached their obligations to ensure the premises had smoke alarms.
The tenants say the premises had no smoke alarms at all.
The landlords had been living in the premises immediately before the tenancy began. Mr Hirst says he thought there was a (possibly non-compliant) smoke alarm upstairs not far from the master bedroom. He was unsure whether there was any smoke alarm downstairs where two other bedrooms were situated.
The parties agree that the landlord did install smoke alarms on 13 March 2025, about four weeks after the tenancy began. 2 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 46(1). 4 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. 5 RTA s 45(1AC). Legal principles
under s 45(1)(ba) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. Regulation 5(6) requires: (6) There must be at least 1 qualifying smoke alarm installed— (a) in the sleeping space; or (b) otherwise at the premises within 3 metres of the entrance (or main entrance) to the sleeping space.
Under reg 5(2) “[t]he requirements must be met as at the commencement of the tenancy and at all subsequent times during the tenancy”. Under reg 7(1)(a) the smoke alarms must “be fully operational and otherwise in full working order, with no faults, defects, or damage”.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 6 Discussion
It is more probable than not that the premises had no smoke alarms at all. Mr Hirst’s recollection of whether there were smoke alarms was vague. Mr [tenant’s surname] recollection was definite. In any event, even if there were an upstairs smoke detector, by Mr Hirst’s own admission, it was liable to be non-compliant.
Working smoke alarms were not installed until 13 March 2025, about four weeks the tenancy began as a result of the tenants raising the issue with the landlords.
The tenancy agreement has a series of tick boxes designed to ensure that landlords provide working smoke alarms. The landlords ticked none of the boxes because they knew they could not honestly assert compliance. I am satisfied the landlords knew the premises’ smoke alarms were not up to the required standard.
Mr Hirst says that he and his wife thought that they had 90 days to comply with the standard. However, that is not the law. The premises had to comply from the beginning of the tenancy. The law clearly states that landlord must provide residential premises with working smoke alarms. If the landlords did not know the law, it is no excuse.
I am satisfied that the landlords committed the unlawful act of breaching their smoke alarm obligations. 6 RTA s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A.
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. 7
The landlords gave their obligation little thought. They were content to delay installing smoke alarms. The effect of the unlawful act was to make the tenants more at risk of injury or death in the event of fire. It is in the tenants’ interest that an award of exemplary damages is made. Most importantly, it is the public interest to order exemplary damages for breaches such as this, so landlords are deterred from failing in their smoke alarm duties.
I am satisfied that it is just to order exemplary damages and set them at $1,500.00.

Did the landlords ensure the premises were reasonably secure?

The tenants claim the upstairs balcony doors could not be locked. It took the landlords several days to have the lock replaced.
A landlord must provide and maintain locks to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. 8
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 9
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
I am satisfied that the balcony doors could not be secured at the beginning of the tenancy and that therefore the premises were not reasonably secure even though the balcony was about 2.6m above the ground.
However, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlords’ failure was without reasonable excuse. Mr Hirst said that he and his wife could operate the locks with some difficulty, so they were unaware that the door lock had ceased working when the tenancy began.
The landlords did not commit an unlawful act. Exemplary damages are not available. 7 RTA s 109(3). 8 RTA s 46(1). 9 RTA s 46(3) and Schedule 1A.
The Tribunal awards the tenants nominal damages of $150.00 to acknowledge the breach of s 46(1).

Did the landlords breach the HHS?

The tenants claim the premises did not meet the HHS for insulation, ventilation, and draught stopping. 10
The landlords commissioned a HHS report near the beginning of the tenancy. The contractor attended the premises on about 26 February 2025 to assess them. The only non-compliant issue the contractor reported was that the downstairs bathroom’s extractor fan needed replacing. The landlords attended to that prior to 12 May 2025.
However, the tenants did not accept the house complied with the HHS. They observed that the kitchen extractor fan and the upstairs ensuite extractor fan did not vent to the outside, the upstairs insulation appeared non-compliant, there was a section of the garage ceiling that was not insulated, and the wood burner, front door, and windows let in excessive drafts.
The landlords commissioned a second HHS report, the inspection for which took place on about 12 July 2025. On this occasion, the landlords say (there is no written report recording the initial findings) the assessor found the premises’ ceiling insulation needed topping up and the ensuite and kitchen extractor fans were non-compliant. The landlords had the insulation topped up and compliant extractor fans installed on 17 July 2025.
The landlords also had draught seals installed although they say, the premises did not fail the draught standard. Insulation standard
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3. 10 RTA s 45(1)(bb).
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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 11
I note that the compliance date for insulation is the beginning of the tenancy (not 120 days after the tenancy began as I mistakenly mentioned during the hearing). 12
The premises was not properly insulated. I find the landlords have 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.
I am not satisfied that the landlords committed the unlawful act intentionally. The first HHS assessor advised the landlords of only one deficiency in the premises HHS compliance. The landlords addressed that. Only subsequent events revealed that the initial assessment was questionable.
Therefore, exemplary damages are unavailable.
The Tribunal will award compensation for loss of amenity. I quantify the loss of amenity at 5 per cent of the weekly rent. The amount is $37.50. The relevant period is 20 February to 17 July 2025. The total amount is $792.86. Ventilation standard
Again, the second HHS found contrary to the first HHS assessor that the ensuite bathroom and kitchen extractor fans were not compliant at least in part because they did not ventilate to the outside.
Compliance dates for the HHS (other than for the insulation standard) 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 11 RTA s 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A. 12 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 Schedule 1, Part 1, clause 3. 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.
In this case the compliance date was 120 days after the tenancy began, which was 19 June 2025.
The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
Failing to meet the standard is 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.
As discussed above, the landlords have committed an unlawful act. However, for the reasons mentioned I am not satisfied the landlords committed the unlawful act intentionally.
It is appropriate to order compensation. I set the loss of amenity at 10 percent of the weekly rent, which is $75.00. The relevant period is 20 June to 17 July 2025. The total amount ordered is $300.00. Draught stopping
The tenants alleged the word burner chimney, front door, and various windows had excessive gaps.
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 landlords had the contractors install additional seals but do not concede the premises had excessive gaps.
The tenants did not provide evidence that satisfies me on the balance of probabilities that the landlords breached the draught standard.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlords fail to provide HHS information on request?

The tenants claimed the landlords failed to provide a HHS report that the tenants requested a copy of.
However, the landlords maintain that the HHS report never existed because the assessors only provided reports after compliance had been achieved.
The tenants were not able to rebut the landlords’ evidence. It follows, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlords failed to provide HHS information as alleged.
This claim is dismissed. Filing fee
The landlords must reimburse the tenants for the filing fee. Non-publication
The tenants seek an order for non-publication.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 13
The tenants have substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified by the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances.
Non-publication is allowed.

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 5335021. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages for breach of smoke alarms duties	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages for breach of smoke alarms duties
Compensation for insecure door	$150.00	Compensation for insecure door
Compensation for breach of HHS insulation	$792.86	Compensation for breach of HHS insulation
Compensation for breach of HHS ventilation	$300.00	Compensation for breach of HHS ventilation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Claims and awards for application 5335021. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages for breach of smoke alarms duties

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Exemplary damages for breach of smoke alarms duties

Compensation for insecure door

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation for insecure door

Compensation for breach of HHS insulation

Amount: $792.86
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation for breach of HHS insulation

Compensation for breach of HHS ventilation

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation for breach of HHS ventilation

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Filing Fee Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.
Cameron Hirst and Yunhong Li must pay [the tenants] $2,770.86 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below.
The claims are allowed as set out in this order. All other claims are dismissed. DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages for breach of smoke alarms duties$1,500.00 Compensation for insecure door$150.00 Compensation for breach of HHS insulation Compensation for breach of HHS ventilation $792.86
00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$2,770.86 1 The original order was issued yesterday 20 January 206. This amended order is issued to amend an error in the original order, which incorrectly stated the landlords’ liability to the tenants at $2,278.00 rather than $2,770.86.

Reasons

The tenants appeared in person.
One of the landlords, Mr Hirst appeared. Cecilia Huang, a property manager, appeared for McGill Solutions and for the landlords.
The landlord did not pursue its claims in consideration for the tenants not pursuing their failing to maintain claim. The landlord’s claims are dismissed.
The tenants claim that the landlords: a. Did not comply with their smoke alarm duties. 2 b. Did not ensure the premises were reasonably secure. 3 c.Breached their Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) duties for insulation, draught stopping, and ventilation. 4 d. Failed to provide HHS information upon request. 5

Did the landlords comply with their smoke alarms duties?

The tenants claim that the landlords (but not McGill Solutions because it only began managing the premises at a later date) breached their obligations to ensure the premises had smoke alarms.
The tenants say the premises had no smoke alarms at all.
The landlords had been living in the premises immediately before the tenancy began. Mr Hirst says he thought there was a (possibly non-compliant) smoke alarm upstairs not far from the master bedroom. He was unsure whether there was any smoke alarm downstairs where two other bedrooms were situated.
The parties agree that the landlord did install smoke alarms on 13 March 2025, about four weeks after the tenancy began. 2 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 46(1). 4 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. 5 RTA s 45(1AC). Legal principles
under s 45(1)(ba) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. Regulation 5(6) requires: (6) There must be at least 1 qualifying smoke alarm installed— (a) in the sleeping space; or (b) otherwise at the premises within 3 metres of the entrance (or main entrance) to the sleeping space.
Under reg 5(2) “[t]he requirements must be met as at the commencement of the tenancy and at all subsequent times during the tenancy”. Under reg 7(1)(a) the smoke alarms must “be fully operational and otherwise in full working order, with no faults, defects, or damage”.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 6 Discussion
It is more probable than not that the premises had no smoke alarms at all. Mr Hirst’s recollection of whether there were smoke alarms was vague. Mr [tenant’s surname] recollection was definite. In any event, even if there were an upstairs smoke detector, by Mr Hirst’s own admission, it was liable to be non-compliant.
Working smoke alarms were not installed until 13 March 2025, about four weeks the tenancy began as a result of the tenants raising the issue with the landlords.
The tenancy agreement has a series of tick boxes designed to ensure that landlords provide working smoke alarms. The landlords ticked none of the boxes because they knew they could not honestly assert compliance. I am satisfied the landlords knew the premises’ smoke alarms were not up to the required standard.
Mr Hirst says that he and his wife thought that they had 90 days to comply with the standard. However, that is not the law. The premises had to comply from the beginning of the tenancy. The law clearly states that landlord must provide residential premises with working smoke alarms. If the landlords did not know the law, it is no excuse.
I am satisfied that the landlords committed the unlawful act of breaching their smoke alarm obligations. 6 RTA s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A.
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. 7
The landlords gave their obligation little thought. They were content to delay installing smoke alarms. The effect of the unlawful act was to make the tenants more at risk of injury or death in the event of fire. It is in the tenants’ interest that an award of exemplary damages is made. Most importantly, it is the public interest to order exemplary damages for breaches such as this, so landlords are deterred from failing in their smoke alarm duties.
I am satisfied that it is just to order exemplary damages and set them at $1,500.00.

Did the landlords ensure the premises were reasonably secure?

The tenants claim the upstairs balcony doors could not be locked. It took the landlords several days to have the lock replaced.
A landlord must provide and maintain locks to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. 8
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 9
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
I am satisfied that the balcony doors could not be secured at the beginning of the tenancy and that therefore the premises were not reasonably secure even though the balcony was about 2.6m above the ground.
However, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlords’ failure was without reasonable excuse. Mr Hirst said that he and his wife could operate the locks with some difficulty, so they were unaware that the door lock had ceased working when the tenancy began.
The landlords did not commit an unlawful act. Exemplary damages are not available. 7 RTA s 109(3). 8 RTA s 46(1). 9 RTA s 46(3) and Schedule 1A.
The Tribunal awards the tenants nominal damages of $150.00 to acknowledge the breach of s 46(1).

Did the landlords breach the HHS?

The tenants claim the premises did not meet the HHS for insulation, ventilation, and draught stopping. 10
The landlords commissioned a HHS report near the beginning of the tenancy. The contractor attended the premises on about 26 February 2025 to assess them. The only non-compliant issue the contractor reported was that the downstairs bathroom’s extractor fan needed replacing. The landlords attended to that prior to 12 May 2025.
However, the tenants did not accept the house complied with the HHS. They observed that the kitchen extractor fan and the upstairs ensuite extractor fan did not vent to the outside, the upstairs insulation appeared non-compliant, there was a section of the garage ceiling that was not insulated, and the wood burner, front door, and windows let in excessive drafts.
The landlords commissioned a second HHS report, the inspection for which took place on about 12 July 2025. On this occasion, the landlords say (there is no written report recording the initial findings) the assessor found the premises’ ceiling insulation needed topping up and the ensuite and kitchen extractor fans were non-compliant. The landlords had the insulation topped up and compliant extractor fans installed on 17 July 2025.
The landlords also had draught seals installed although they say, the premises did not fail the draught standard. Insulation standard
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3. 10 RTA s 45(1)(bb).
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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 11
I note that the compliance date for insulation is the beginning of the tenancy (not 120 days after the tenancy began as I mistakenly mentioned during the hearing). 12
The premises was not properly insulated. I find the landlords have 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.
I am not satisfied that the landlords committed the unlawful act intentionally. The first HHS assessor advised the landlords of only one deficiency in the premises HHS compliance. The landlords addressed that. Only subsequent events revealed that the initial assessment was questionable.
Therefore, exemplary damages are unavailable.
The Tribunal will award compensation for loss of amenity. I quantify the loss of amenity at 5 per cent of the weekly rent. The amount is $37.50. The relevant period is 20 February to 17 July 2025. The total amount is $792.86. Ventilation standard
Again, the second HHS found contrary to the first HHS assessor that the ensuite bathroom and kitchen extractor fans were not compliant at least in part because they did not ventilate to the outside.
Compliance dates for the HHS (other than for the insulation standard) 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 11 RTA s 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A. 12 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 Schedule 1, Part 1, clause 3. 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.
In this case the compliance date was 120 days after the tenancy began, which was 19 June 2025.
The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
Failing to meet the standard is 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.
As discussed above, the landlords have committed an unlawful act. However, for the reasons mentioned I am not satisfied the landlords committed the unlawful act intentionally.
It is appropriate to order compensation. I set the loss of amenity at 10 percent of the weekly rent, which is $75.00. The relevant period is 20 June to 17 July 2025. The total amount ordered is $300.00. Draught stopping
The tenants alleged the word burner chimney, front door, and various windows had excessive gaps.
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 landlords had the contractors install additional seals but do not concede the premises had excessive gaps.
The tenants did not provide evidence that satisfies me on the balance of probabilities that the landlords breached the draught standard.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlords fail to provide HHS information on request?

The tenants claimed the landlords failed to provide a HHS report that the tenants requested a copy of.
However, the landlords maintain that the HHS report never existed because the assessors only provided reports after compliance had been achieved.
The tenants were not able to rebut the landlords’ evidence. It follows, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlords failed to provide HHS information as alleged.
This claim is dismissed. Filing fee
The landlords must reimburse the tenants for the filing fee. Non-publication
The tenants seek an order for non-publication.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 13
The tenants have substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified by the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances.
Non-publication is allowed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5335021 — Smoke alarms at Flat 2, 603 Whangaparaoa Road, Stanmore Bay,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5335021 — Smoke alarms at Flat 2, 603 Whangaparaoa Road, Stanmore Bay,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlords comply with their smoke alarms duties?

Did the landlords ensure the premises were reasonably secure?

Did the landlords breach the HHS?

Did the landlords fail to provide HHS information on request?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlords comply with their smoke alarms duties?

Did the landlords ensure the premises were reasonably secure?

Did the landlords breach the HHS?

Did the landlords fail to provide HHS information on request?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions