What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336304 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 5336304?

Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336304?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336304?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12735841-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336304 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 5336304?

Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336304?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336304?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12735841-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5336304 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336304 — net $2,428.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failure to maintain heating, Healthy Homes Standards breaches - heating, ventilation	$2,400.00	failure to maintain heating, Healthy Homes Standards breaches - heating, ventilation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,428.00
Bond	$1,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,428.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336304 — net $2,428.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failure to maintain heating, Healthy Homes Standards breaches - heating, ventilation	$2,400.00	failure to maintain heating, Healthy Homes Standards breaches - heating, ventilation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,428.00
Bond	$1,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,428.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Violet E. Irwin must pay [The tenant/s] $2,428.00 immediately.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The tenant/s], the tenant, and Mrs Irwin, the landlord, and her lawyer, Mr McColgan, all attended the hearing in-person.
The tenant has applied for failure to maintain, breach of Healthy Homes Standards in relation to heating, ventilation, moisture ingress/drainage, quiet enjoyment, refund bond, exemplary damages, other miscellaneous orders, reimbursement of the filing fee.
During the hearing, the tenant withdrew the claim for other miscellaneous orders.
The tenancy ended on 31 July 2025. Burden of proof and evidence
The party making the claims bears the onus of proving them on a balance of probabilities, that is, that it is more likely than not that something occurred. This is called the burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
Where parties differ with each other in their evidence about an issue, the party seeking to prove their claims must provide additional supporting evidence to prove their claims.
All evidence provided by the parties has been considered, even if it is not directly referred to here. Refund of the bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 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. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately. Failure to maintain
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Under section 45(1)(b) RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problems might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach. 2 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 4
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 5
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards (“HHS”).
Section 45(1)(c) RTA requires the landlord to comply with all the requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment as far as they apply to the premises.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant said the landlord failed to maintain the premises by not metalling the driveway, by failing to control water around the outside of the house and by failing to maintain the interior of the property with heating and ventilation. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15] 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as LJ Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]-[11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016], NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. Metalling the driveway
The tenant said the landlord told him the tenant was responsible for metalling the driveway in the rural tenancy property. He said he paid twice to get the driveway metalled outside his property, firstly about 2 years after moving into the property and a second time just before he left the property in 2025. The tenant indicated he did not mention having metalled the driveway to the landlord the first time, as he thought it was his responsibility to do so. However, after the second time he paid to have the driveway metalled and, having been told by Tenancy Services that this was the landlord’s responsibility, he brought it up with the landlord. The tenant explained that this conversation did not go well, and the landlord denied having told him it was his responsibility to do this and said that she always intended to pay for this. The tenant confirmed he then received payment from the landlord for the second invoice metalling the driveway the day after their conversation.
The landlord denied having told the tenant it was his responsibility to metal the driveway and confirmed she had consistently maintained the main driveway to the 3 properties in the same area. I note the invoices provided by the landlord mention supplying and spreading metal to the properties, one to the landlord’s own property. The tenant said he did not dispute the landlord has maintained the main driveway around the 3 properties, just not the one in his property. The landlord then said that the tenant had told her he had “heaps of metal”, and given other neighbouring tenants did their own metalling, she would ask the tenant when he would do the metalling. She said she had not increased the tenant’s rent to account for this.
Metalling a driveway is a landlord’s maintenance responsibility generally. The landlord was clearly aware of this responsibility, having confirmed she maintained the metalling of the main driveway around the properties she owned. This landlord responsibility extends to maintaining the driveway with metal immediately around the tenancy property also. Whilst the tenant believed it was his responsibility as he was told by the landlord to do so, though denied by the landlord, the landlord acknowledged she had asked the tenant when he would metal the driveway, given he had metal himself. When the tenant brought up having paid for metalling the driveway on the second occasion, the landlord reimbursed the tenant immediately, which is a further indication the landlord recognised this was her responsibility.
That said, the tenant did not provide evidence supporting the requirement to get the driveway metalled on either occasion, such as photographs of the condition of the driveway on those occasions or copies of correspondence to the landlord about this, for example. The tenant did provide an invoice for the amount of the metalling on the second occasion in 2025, however, but this is different from demonstrating the requirement for this to be carried out. As such, the landlord was not notified in advance of this by the tenant on either occasion, nor was there evidence that the landlord should have known of the need for this repair. Without notice to the landlord of the need for repair or evidence supporting that the landlord likely knew of the need for repair on these occasions, I find there is insufficient evidence to support this claim that the landlord failed to maintain the metalling on the driveway, and so dismiss this claim. Water control outside the house
The tenant said there was forestry behind the three properties and the landlord’s property, and that he lived at the property for 5 years, which included through Cyclone Gabrielle and other weather events. He indicated that, once the water tank was full, with excess rain, water came through the retaining wall and would pool around the water tank for abound 3-4 days, and also would sit under the house. He said the water pump would sit in this pooling water, which was not healthy.
The tenant commented that he first mentioned to the landlord about the pooling water at the property about 3 years ago, when they both talked about how much water was coming off the hill onto both of their properties. He believed the landlord was aware it was an issue at his property and said she implied she would do something about it. The tenant said that, when it appeared that no action was taken to address this by the landlord and he followed up with her later towards the end of the tenancy, around 2-3 months before he left, the landlord told him she would get somebody to sort it out.
The landlord said initially that the issue turned out to be the overflow pipe, not water coming through the retaining wall, as indicated by the tenant. She agreed that she had known from around the time of Cyclone Gabrielle, in February 2023, and over the following weeks with further weather events, that water pooling was an issue. The landlord said she got a firm out to check the sewage and then got a plumber out on 3 occasions, one of which was on 21 October 2024, to check what was happening. The landlord said the pooling cause was discovered by the plumber. She then said they could not work out the cause until she followed a trail of water and saw the sump, where the house waste goes, was “covered”. She said the sewage containers were not near this tenancy property but were in front of a neighbouring rental property.
The landlord did not recall a conversation with the tenant a few years ago saying that water pooling was an issue at the property or at her place. The landlord believed the cause of the water pooling was that the drains were not cleared or cleaned out by the tenant and became blocked. She said the blocked drains were adjacent to the water tank and led to this water pooling. She provided photographs of drains with waste showing, which she said were taken on 9 September 2024, during the tenancy.
The tenant disputed the water pooling was connected to the waste in the drains. He said this water pooling went on for the whole period of the 5-year tenancy.
The landlord said the drainage at the property was compliant with building regulations and was engineered to drain water around the properties and not sit on the land.
The landlord acknowledged she knew about the water pooling from early 2023 and said she took steps to investigate it further and ascertain the cause of the water pooling. She said she initially thought it could be due to heavy rain and significant weather events. The landlord did not provide additional supporting evidence from any tradesperson, for example, linking the cause of the water pooling to a blocked drain, or indicating the tenant was at fault in this regard, as she alleged.
Similarly, the tenant’s evidence consisted of verbal evidence of two conversations with the landlord and a few photographs of water pooling by the water tank, which he said were taken around March or April 2025. The tenant did not provide additional supporting evidence, by way of any technical or other reports, email or text correspondence with the landlord about this, or other additional supporting evidence, about the cause of the water pooling either, to indicate this was likely an issue for the landlord to be obliged to maintain.
The landlord said she dealt with the issue, by calling out tradespeople and ascertaining what she believed to be the cause of the water pooling.
In the absence of any additional supporting evidence from the tenant of what the cause of the water pooling was or that the cause of the water pooling was an issue that the landlord was obliged to maintain, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary that the landlord failed to adequately address any such cause if there was such an obligation to maintain, I find the tenant has not met the burden of proof that it is more likely than not that the landlord failed to maintain this issue, and so dismiss this claim for insufficient evidence. Heating inside the property
The tenant said the landlord failed to maintain the interior of the premises in relation to heating and ventilation.
Regulation 6 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 provides that every living room shall be fitted with a fireplace and chimney or other approved form of heating.
The tenant said there was no heating provided at the property and he had to use his own portable heater. He said that, whilst he knew about this going into the tenancy, he later discovered towards the end of the tenancy, after a visit from a property manager from a local property management firm, that the property should have had a heater. He said when he brought this up with the landlord, it did not go well, that she told him she did not have money to buy heating and he would have to leave, which was denied by the landlord. The tenant said that a couple of days later he heard from the landlord’s daughter that there was to be work at the property to render it compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards.
The landlord admitted there was no fixed heaters at the property during the tenancy, nor did she provide any heating at all to the tenant over the tenancy period. She believed there was no need for heating as the property was well- built and warm.
Given the evidence outlined above confirming the landlord did not provide the property with any form of heating, contrary to Regulation 6 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947, I find the landlord has not provided a properly maintained property with appropriate heating.
In doing so, I find the landlord has breached section 45(1)(c) RTA and so has committed an unlawful act. I will deal with this in the Exemplary Damages section below. Ventilation inside the property
The tenant said he emailed the landlord in 2022 asking if he could purchase and install an extractor fan in the bathroom, but the landlord declined his request and suggested he open the windows instead.
The landlord confirmed she had declined the tenant’s request to purchase and install a fan in the bathroom. She said there was no need for it, that she could not afford it at that time, and that the property did not have to comply with Healthy Homes Standards at the time.
I will deal with the issue of ventilation under the Healthy Homes Standards section below. Healthy Homes Standards Heating
[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.
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. 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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenant said there was no heating provided in the property, including no fixed heaters. The landlord has confirmed there was no heating provided in the property. The landlord’s lawyer acknowledged the property was likely not compliant with the heating standard from 1 July 2025 to the end of the tenancy on 31 July 2025.
As the landlord has breached the heating standard, I find Violet E. Irwin committed an unlawful act.
I will deal with this claim further in the Exemplary Damages section below. Ventilation
[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 ventilation 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 ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenant confirmed the windows are the property were not an issue in this regard, only the lack of extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen.
The tenant asked the landlord in 2022 if he could purchase and install a bathroom extractor fan. This request was declined by the landlord, who suggested he open a window.
The landlord’s lawyer acknowledged the property likely did not comply with this standard, due to the lack of extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen, from the HHS deadline of 1 July 2025 to the end of the tenancy on 31 July 2025.
As the landlord breached the HHS ventilation standard by not providing extractor fans in the bathroom or kitchen, I find Violet E. Irwin committed an unlawful act.
I will deal with this claim further under the Exemplary Damages section. Moisture ingress and drainage
[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 moisture ingress and drainage 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 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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenant referred here to his evidence relating to the claim for failure to maintain relating to water pooling at the property and said that showed the property did not have adequate drainage systems.
The evidence provided by the tenant included some photographs of water pooling around the water tank, his verbal evidence about a conversation with the landlord 3 years ago discussing water coming off the hill onto their respective properties, which the landlord did not recall, and his verbal evidence about a conversation with the landlord towards the end of the tenancy when he said the landlord agreed to get somebody to sort out the issue. There was no additional supporting evidence provided by the tenant confirming the extent of this issue over the period of the tenancy, or about the inadequacy of the drainage system at the property, for example any Healthy Homes Standards or other technical report commissioned by the tenant about this, any witness statements or texts or emails to the landlord about this issue. The landlord denied there were issues with the drainage system, indicating the property gained Code Compliance from the local Council when built and provided plans of the property. Given the parties differ on this issue, and without any additional supporting evidence provided by the tenant on this matter, I must dismiss this claim for insufficient evidence. Quiet Enjoyment
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant said the landlord would just show up at his property with her dog, or when she was dealing with stock, without any notice to him. He said he did not have evidence of dates about this and said he did not raise this as an issue with the landlord as he was hesitant to upset her and did not want to lose his tenancy.
The tenant reported there was an incident about the water pump, which he acknowledged may have been in 2021 rather than in 2020 as first indicated, where the water pump had been broken and he was without water and the ability to shower and so on, for a few days. When he followed up after a few days about this with the landlord, he said the landlord became agitated and came straight over to his property, where she became nasty and got personal to him. The tenant said there were witnesses to this, but did not provide any witness statements about this.
The landlord denied going over to the property and said she had arranged to have the water pump fixed and provided an invoice to this effect.
The tenant said further that he emailed the landlord to invite her to his 50 th birthday party, only to be told by the landlord that he was not to have more than 20 people to such a party, and suggesting he hold his party at a venue in town instead, given the neighbouring properties.
The landlord admitted this, confirmed by an email to this effect, and said she was balancing the interests of all her tenants, the parking issue and people drinking and driving at a rural area.
The tenant said the landlord had assumed his birthday celebration would be rowdy but that he usually has BBQs, that most of his friends have families and many do not drink alcohol. The tenant said he felt he could not have his birthday celebration at his home and so instead held it at a friend’s house in town. He felt the landlord had interfered in his privacy and enjoyment of the premises in her actions in this regard.
In answer to a question from me about whether she explored further with the tenant whether the birthday party could have been held with due regard for the neighbours, she said she did not explore this further.
The tenant said the landlord also told him he had to raise his pot plants out on the verandah up off the deck, at least 2-3 times by email. He provided emails to this effect. The tenant said he eventually tipped out the contents of his pot plants, given the difficulties with the landlord about this.
The landlord agreed that she had asked the tenant to raise his pot plants off the decking on the verandah, as it had just been painted on 9 February 2024. She felt this was reasonable in the circumstances.
I find there is insufficient additional supporting evidence about the tenant’s claims that the landlord just showed up at his property with her dog or when dealing with stock, as and when she pleased, or about the water pump incident in 2021.
There is a fine line, in my view, between ensuring the property is not damaged by water marks from pot plants and ensuring the tenant does not cause undue discomfort to any neighbours against allowing the tenant to properly enjoy use of the premises.
Given the evidence here, I find the landlord’s email about the tenant’s birthday party, which she said balanced the tenant’s interests with the neighbours’ interests, and her emails asking the tenant to raise his pot plants off the decking, which the landlord said was to ensure the property was not damaged, did not amount to a pattern of harassment, which is required for any breach of quiet enjoyment to be considered unlawful. As such, I dismiss this claim. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are 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 when one party has proved has that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act.
I have determined that the landlord has committed unlawful acts, for which exemplary damages can be ordered.
The Tribunal must take a global approach to exemplary damages meaning one order to a single maximum irrespective of the number of breaches of a section. See MBIE v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583.
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA and the following apply: a. Landlord failing to meet obligations in respect of maintenance, the healthy homes standards, or buildings, health, and safety requirements - s 45 (1A) – maximum $7,500.00.
I must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA, specifically: a. The intent of that person in committing the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
Landlords are required to know the law and there is a public interest in ensuring landlords comply with the RTA.
The issue of whether an act is intentional has been considered in situations of damage caused in a tenancy. There, damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Exemplary damages – Failure to maintain heating, Healthy Homes Standards regarding heating and ventilation
Here, the landlord allowed the situation to continue in not providing a property with adequate heating pursuant to the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 for the whole 5-year period of the tenancy. This continued after the expiration of the deadline for all rental properties to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards on 1 July 2025, as the landlord did not rectify this situation until after the tenancy ended on 31 July 2025. The tenant also offered to purchase and install extractor fan in the bathroom in 2022, which was declined by the landlord. The Healthy Homes Standards Regulations came into force in 2019 so such an offer by the tenant could have been more helpfully worked with by the landlord, as the landlord would have needed to comply with the ventilation standards of the Healthy Homes Standards by the deadline of 1 July 2025 also, but the landlord continued to deny a need for such ventilation and the ventilation in relation to extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen was not rectified until after the tenancy ended also.
I have dealt with the landlord’s intent above. As a result of the landlord’s inaction, the premises had no adequate heating, other than the tenant’s portable heater, for the 5 years of the tenancy and the bathroom and kitchen did not have any extractor fans.
In terms of the effects on him, the tenant said he has a significant heart issue and does not deal well with confrontation. He said he was reluctant to bring up issues with the landlord, as he felt she would react negatively, and this would cause much stress for him. He said his family had some concern about his mental health towards the end of the tenancy, due to issues with the tenancy.
The public interest is served by landlords being penalised for providing premises that potentially jeopardise tenants’ health and which do not meet basic standards of living for health and welfare.
The maximum level of exemplary damages is $7,200.00. In this case I consider an order of one third of the maximum would be indicated. The landlord has committed an unlawful act, and I accept that there has been an impact for the tenant. I cannot see any aggravating or mitigating factors that would argue for a higher or lesser order. I therefore order exemplary damages of $2,400.00. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The tenant requested name suppression. The landlord did not request name suppression. As the tenant has been successful with the claim, he is entitled to name suppression. Therefore, I order that the tenant’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5336304 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5336304 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions