What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5335515 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 5335515?

Compensation: $1,540.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: loss of amenity at a w…: $3,300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Medical costs - by con…: $175.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5335515?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5335515?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12875460-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5335515 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 5335515?

Compensation: $1,540.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: loss of amenity at a w…: $3,300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Medical costs - by con…: $175.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5335515?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5335515?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12875460-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

80A Constable Street, Newtown, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5335515 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5335515 — net $3,963.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Less compensation already paid 7 x a week	$1,540.00		Less compensation already paid 7 x a week
Compensation: loss of amenity at a week		$3,300.00	loss of amenity at a week
Exemplary damages: HHS breaches		$2,000.00	HHS breaches
Compensation: Medical costs - by consent		$175.00	Medical costs - by consent
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,540.00	$5,503.00
Net award		$3,963.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,963.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Ez Property Management Limited As Agent For Mohan Parbhu James McCarthy must pay [the tenant/s] $3,963.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This fixed term tenancy started in December last year and ended by agreement on 21 July 2025. There was a roof leak and the tenants moved out while everyone was waiting for the roof to be replaced. The tenants have claimed compensation and exemplary damages because they believe the house was not in a fit state to be rented out. They are also questioning the healthy homes (HHS) compliance. The questions I have to decide include: • Were there breaches by the landlord? • Should the tenants get compensation? • Should I order exemplary damages?

Were there breaches by the landlord?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Repairs must be done in a timely manner.
On 18 February 2025 one of the tenants discovered the lightbulb in her bedroom did not work because it was full of water. The landlord was notified. The landlord sent a plumber, then an electrician, then a maintenance man who identified that the roof needed to be replaced. Roofers quoted and the landlord chose a company to replace the roof. There were more leaks in May. A temporary repair could not be made quickly because of electrical wires close to the house. The tenants moved out before the roof was repaired.
The tenant who used that room was very sick and developed asthma for the first time in her life. She has provided medical certificates and I can see she was unwell and also not able to attend university. The tenant in the room next door said she was also unwell during the tenancy. The tenants have proved there was a breach of the duty to repair the roof in a timely manner.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the draught stopping standard and the moisture ingress standard. Tenancies which started between 28 August 2022 and 2 March 2025 had 120 days to comply with the HHS after the start of the tenancy. I have calculated that the compliance date for this tenancy was 6 April 2025.
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 tenants have provided a photo showing a piece of guttering that was completely rusted through. This together with the need for a new roof suggests there was a breach of the moisture ingress standard. The work on the roof started after 6 April.
The tenants have not proved there was mould in the house. It is also impossible for me to tell from the photos if the wallpaper bubbled because of moisture or because it was old.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises are free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. There were three doors that were draughty. The landlord arranged for maintenance to be done and the unreasonable gaps around two of the doors were fixed. The front door was not fixed and this was especially draughty because the letter box flap was missing, meaning wind blew in and made the house cold. The tenants have proved this was an unreasonable gap. The draught stopping work was done after 6 April.
There was a breach because the landlord did not include the HHS statement in the tenancy agreement. This was not provided to the tenants until June, after they asked for a copy. Section 13A(1CA) RTA requires landlords to include in a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the HHS and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations. The tenants have proved there was a breach.
The tenants have not proved there was a breach of the duty to provide smoke alarms, and this claim is dismissed.

Should the tenants get compensation?

In June the tenant with the leaky room asked for a rent reduction. She could not use her room because of the leaks and because she was so sick. The landlord agreed to reduce the rent by $220 a week, starting from around 1 June and lasting for 7 weeks. The tenants have asked for additional compensation and for the rent to be refunded.
I have read the documents and considered the submissions. I am not persuaded the house could not be rented. It seems most likely to me the tenants were unlucky rather than taken advantage of. I am persuaded there was a loss of amenity because the tenants could not use the house as intended, the house was draughty and leaked, and they moved out in the middle of a university year, five months sooner than they were expecting.
I consider that $150 a week is a fair amount of compensation because the tenants could still use some of the house. The compensation should start on 18 February which is when the landlord first knew about the leak issue, and when the tenants were first inconvenienced. The communication I have been provided with shows the tenants had to keep asking for information and it was sometimes weeks before they heard back from the landlord. I have taken the seven weeks of rent reduction already accepted into account.
At the hearing the landlord offered to pay the medical expenses for the tenant who developed asthma. I checked the invoices after the hearing and I was only provided with evidence the tenant paid $175 in doctor’s fees, so I have made an order for that amount.
There are other claims for compensation because of illness. As I said at the hearing it is very hard to prove the house was the reason for the tenant’s illness. The general statements in the doctor’s reports don’t address if it was the house, or the virus the tenant had at the start of the year, that caused the poor health. The claims for compensation relating to health are dismissed.
The tenants have not proved there was a breach of quiet enjoyment as well. The difficulties they had were because of the maintenance and HHS breaches. This claim is dismissed.

Should I order exemplary damages?

Breaching the obligation to carry out maintenance is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I am not persuaded I should allow exemplary damage because of the leaks. I have read the emails and messages and it seems most likely to me the landlord was doing everything it could to get the roof repaired. I have allowed compensation for the delay. This part of the claim is dismissed.
Breaching the obligation to provide a house that complied with the HHS is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1)(bb) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find the landlord 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) RTA.
I find the landlord acted intentionally. The landlord knew about the HHS and the house should have been checked before this tenancy started. Once asked the work should have been carried out straight away. The effect for the tenants was a cold, draughty house. It is in tenants interests that houses can be warm and dry. There is public interest in landlord’s paying exemplary damages to encourage compliance. I allow $1500 which is at the lower end of the scale because there have been no similar orders against the landlord.
Breaching the obligation to include a healthy homes statement in the tenancy agreement is an unlawful act and Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $750. The landlord committed an unlawful act. See 13A(1F) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord said that not including the statement was an oversight. This may be so, but the standard form tenancy agreement the landlord used has the HHS statement attached, and it seems unlikely to me an experienced landlord would forget to fill it out. Taken together with the draughts and the broken gutter it seems most likely to me the landlord acted intentionally. The affect for the tenants was uncertainly. Not having the information most likely delayed their request for draught stopping. Tenants should have all the HHS information before the tenancy starts so they can choose which house to rent. There is public interest in exemplary damages when there is a breach of the RTA. I allow $500 which is mid-range because of the problems for the tenants. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlord’s pay exemplary damages. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5335515 — net $3,963.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Less compensation already paid 7 x a week	$1,540.00		Less compensation already paid 7 x a week
Compensation: loss of amenity at a week		$3,300.00	loss of amenity at a week
Exemplary damages: HHS breaches		$2,000.00	HHS breaches
Compensation: Medical costs - by consent		$175.00	Medical costs - by consent
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,540.00	$5,503.00
Net award		$3,963.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,963.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Ez Property Management Limited As Agent For Mohan Parbhu James McCarthy must pay [the tenant/s] $3,963.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This fixed term tenancy started in December last year and ended by agreement on 21 July 2025. There was a roof leak and the tenants moved out while everyone was waiting for the roof to be replaced. The tenants have claimed compensation and exemplary damages because they believe the house was not in a fit state to be rented out. They are also questioning the healthy homes (HHS) compliance. The questions I have to decide include: • Were there breaches by the landlord? • Should the tenants get compensation? • Should I order exemplary damages?

Were there breaches by the landlord?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Repairs must be done in a timely manner.
On 18 February 2025 one of the tenants discovered the lightbulb in her bedroom did not work because it was full of water. The landlord was notified. The landlord sent a plumber, then an electrician, then a maintenance man who identified that the roof needed to be replaced. Roofers quoted and the landlord chose a company to replace the roof. There were more leaks in May. A temporary repair could not be made quickly because of electrical wires close to the house. The tenants moved out before the roof was repaired.
The tenant who used that room was very sick and developed asthma for the first time in her life. She has provided medical certificates and I can see she was unwell and also not able to attend university. The tenant in the room next door said she was also unwell during the tenancy. The tenants have proved there was a breach of the duty to repair the roof in a timely manner.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the draught stopping standard and the moisture ingress standard. Tenancies which started between 28 August 2022 and 2 March 2025 had 120 days to comply with the HHS after the start of the tenancy. I have calculated that the compliance date for this tenancy was 6 April 2025.
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 tenants have provided a photo showing a piece of guttering that was completely rusted through. This together with the need for a new roof suggests there was a breach of the moisture ingress standard. The work on the roof started after 6 April.
The tenants have not proved there was mould in the house. It is also impossible for me to tell from the photos if the wallpaper bubbled because of moisture or because it was old.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises are free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. There were three doors that were draughty. The landlord arranged for maintenance to be done and the unreasonable gaps around two of the doors were fixed. The front door was not fixed and this was especially draughty because the letter box flap was missing, meaning wind blew in and made the house cold. The tenants have proved this was an unreasonable gap. The draught stopping work was done after 6 April.
There was a breach because the landlord did not include the HHS statement in the tenancy agreement. This was not provided to the tenants until June, after they asked for a copy. Section 13A(1CA) RTA requires landlords to include in a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the HHS and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations. The tenants have proved there was a breach.
The tenants have not proved there was a breach of the duty to provide smoke alarms, and this claim is dismissed.

Should the tenants get compensation?

In June the tenant with the leaky room asked for a rent reduction. She could not use her room because of the leaks and because she was so sick. The landlord agreed to reduce the rent by $220 a week, starting from around 1 June and lasting for 7 weeks. The tenants have asked for additional compensation and for the rent to be refunded.
I have read the documents and considered the submissions. I am not persuaded the house could not be rented. It seems most likely to me the tenants were unlucky rather than taken advantage of. I am persuaded there was a loss of amenity because the tenants could not use the house as intended, the house was draughty and leaked, and they moved out in the middle of a university year, five months sooner than they were expecting.
I consider that $150 a week is a fair amount of compensation because the tenants could still use some of the house. The compensation should start on 18 February which is when the landlord first knew about the leak issue, and when the tenants were first inconvenienced. The communication I have been provided with shows the tenants had to keep asking for information and it was sometimes weeks before they heard back from the landlord. I have taken the seven weeks of rent reduction already accepted into account.
At the hearing the landlord offered to pay the medical expenses for the tenant who developed asthma. I checked the invoices after the hearing and I was only provided with evidence the tenant paid $175 in doctor’s fees, so I have made an order for that amount.
There are other claims for compensation because of illness. As I said at the hearing it is very hard to prove the house was the reason for the tenant’s illness. The general statements in the doctor’s reports don’t address if it was the house, or the virus the tenant had at the start of the year, that caused the poor health. The claims for compensation relating to health are dismissed.
The tenants have not proved there was a breach of quiet enjoyment as well. The difficulties they had were because of the maintenance and HHS breaches. This claim is dismissed.

Should I order exemplary damages?

Breaching the obligation to carry out maintenance is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I am not persuaded I should allow exemplary damage because of the leaks. I have read the emails and messages and it seems most likely to me the landlord was doing everything it could to get the roof repaired. I have allowed compensation for the delay. This part of the claim is dismissed.
Breaching the obligation to provide a house that complied with the HHS is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1)(bb) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find the landlord 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) RTA.
I find the landlord acted intentionally. The landlord knew about the HHS and the house should have been checked before this tenancy started. Once asked the work should have been carried out straight away. The effect for the tenants was a cold, draughty house. It is in tenants interests that houses can be warm and dry. There is public interest in landlord’s paying exemplary damages to encourage compliance. I allow $1500 which is at the lower end of the scale because there have been no similar orders against the landlord.
Breaching the obligation to include a healthy homes statement in the tenancy agreement is an unlawful act and Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $750. The landlord committed an unlawful act. See 13A(1F) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord said that not including the statement was an oversight. This may be so, but the standard form tenancy agreement the landlord used has the HHS statement attached, and it seems unlikely to me an experienced landlord would forget to fill it out. Taken together with the draughts and the broken gutter it seems most likely to me the landlord acted intentionally. The affect for the tenants was uncertainly. Not having the information most likely delayed their request for draught stopping. Tenants should have all the HHS information before the tenancy starts so they can choose which house to rent. There is public interest in exemplary damages when there is a breach of the RTA. I allow $500 which is mid-range because of the problems for the tenants. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlord’s pay exemplary damages. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5335515 — Healthy homes at 80A Constable Street, Newtown, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5335515 — Healthy homes at 80A Constable Street, Newtown, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Were there breaches by the landlord?

Should the tenants get compensation?

Should I order exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Were there breaches by the landlord?

Should the tenants get compensation?

Should I order exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions