What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336485 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 5336485?

Compensation: Breach of s 45 RTA - o…: $60.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Breach of s 45 RTA - w…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Breach Of S 45 RTA HHS: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336485?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336485?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13224907-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336485 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 5336485?

Compensation: Breach of s 45 RTA - o…: $60.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Breach of s 45 RTA - w…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Breach Of S 45 RTA HHS: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336485?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336485?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13224907-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

18A Stewart Street, Whakatane, Whakatane 3120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5336485 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

18A Stewart Street, Whakatane, Whakatane 3120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5336485 — State of repair | 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 5336485 — net $688.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach of s 45 RTA - oven	$60.00	Breach of s 45 RTA - oven
Compensation: Breach of s 45 RTA - water pump connection	$300.00	Breach of s 45 RTA - water pump connection
Compensation: Breach of s 45 RTA HHS	$300.00	Breach of s 45 RTA HHS
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$688.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$688.00

Claims and awards for application 5336485 — net $688.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: Breach of s 45 RTA - oven

Amount: $60.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of s 45 RTA - oven

Compensation: Breach of s 45 RTA - water pump connection

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of s 45 RTA - water pump connection

Compensation: Breach of s 45 RTA HHS

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of s 45 RTA HHS

Filing fee reimbursement

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

Net award

Tenant $688.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $688.00

Dismissed claims

Property Damage — Market rent claim
Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Filing Fee Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay Graham Albert Rough $688.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

By way of declaration, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the septic system and the tenant is to ensure that he does not carelessly or intentionally block the wastewater and sewage pipelines.
By way of declaration, the landlord is responsible for ensuring the shared driveway is maintained and weeded and the tenant is not responsible for ensuring the shared driveway is tidy and weeded.
[Property manager] is removed as a party and her name and identifying details are suppressed.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced in 2023 and is ongoing.
The tenant entered into a tenancy agreement on 9 August 2023 with Slade Property Management as agent for Millenial Real Estate Limited named as the landlord. The property was sold to a new owner in early 2025 and on 7 May 2025 Property Brokers began managing the tenancy and have done so since that time.
The tenant has filed a claim against “Property Brokers Wairarapa Limited [Property manager]” as the landlord. The tenant says that the landlord has failed to comply with its responsibilities in terms of maintenance, healthy homes standards and requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety enactments. The tenant has also applied for a reduction in rent. The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages. The tenant also seeks declarations regarding the parties’ rights and obligations in respect of the exterior of the premises and the septic tank.
The premises is a modern one-bedroom tiny-home or cabin situated next to a shared driveway. The address of the home is within the Whakatane township.
The issues I must determine are: a. Who is the landlord? b. What are the parties’ respective rights and obligations with respect to the septic tank? c. What are the parties’ respective rights and obligations with respect to the driveway? d. Did the landlord fail to maintain the tenant’s water supply? e. Did the landlord fail to maintain the driveway? f. Did the landlord fail to meet its responsibilities by not providing an oven? g. Did the landlord fail to meet its responsibilities with respect to the water pump power connection? h. Did the landlord fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards? i. What, if any, remedies should be made in respect of compensation and exemplary damages, if any of the tenant’s claims are proven? j. Should an order be made reducing the tenant’s rent? k. Should the tenant be reimbursed the filing fee? l. What, if any, order should be made with respect to name suppression? Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.” Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 2 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 2 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 3 the Court of Appeal 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 that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. Before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the intent of the person in committing the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed, the public interest and whether it is just to make the award. 4
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA.
Exemplary damages must be ordered on a global basis, rather than for each separate breach that may have occurred under the same provision of the RTA 5 . Preliminary comments about the tenancy agreement
The tenant appeared uncertain about whether the original tenancy agreement still applies to this tenancy. The tenant said that he has been told by the landlord that some provisions of the tenancy agreement do not follow the RTA. To assist the parties moving forward, I record my view that the tenancy agreement applies, and this decision reflects that. I also note that where any provision of a tenancy agreement is inconsistent with the RTA and disadvantages the tenant, the RTA will apply unless the Tribunal orders otherwise. 6

Who is the landlord?

3 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 (Cooke P). 4 RTA, s 109 5 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583 6 RTA, s 11.

The tenant has named “Property Brokers Wairarapa Limited [Property manager]” as the landlord in this claim.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between tenants and landlords. A property manager can only be an applicant or respondent if they have status as a landlord. The definition of a landlord includes an agent where appropriate. 7
In this case Property Brokers have transferred the bond into their name, they accept rent from the tenant, and they have conducted all day-to-day management of the tenancy from 7 May 2025. I find it appropriate that Property Brokers be named as the landlord for the purposes of this claim.
In this case however the tenant has also named the Property Brokers employee as the landlord. I am not satisfied that the employee of Property Brokers is a landlord for the purposes of the RTA. Accordingly, the claim against the employee is dismissed and she is removed as a party. Septic tank
The tenant seeks clarification about the parties’ respective rights and obligations with respect to the septic tank. The tenant would like to ensure he is not responsible for any issues with the septic tank.
The “Special conditions for 18A Stewart St, Whakatane” provided with the tenancy agreement say: The Tenant shall keep the drains and the sanitary appliances (Showers, sink, toilet, bath,) and sink waste clear, and taps in good order. It is important that you do not put wet wipes, nappies and sanitary pads down the toilet, if these go into the toilet then the system will block. The invoice for fixing any blockages will be passed on to the tenants. So please make sure no person put wet wipes etc. down the toilet. 8
There is no mention of a septic tank, and the tenant says he was unaware of the property having a septic tank until 2024 when the alarm system alerted him to a blockage for which the landlord initially claimed he was liable for.
The landlord has provided the tenant with an “Amendment to the agreement 18a Stewart Street” dated 14 July 2025 in which the existence of the septic tank is recorded. The tenant has not signed the amendment, but the proposed clause reads: Septic System 7 RTA, s 2 8 Tenancy agreement, Clause 16. The Tenant acknowledges that they have been advised that the property is connected to a septic tank for the removal of wastewater and sewage. The Tenant has been advised that no grease, oil, or food scraps are to be washed down the drains, fabric softeners are not to be used, and nothing other than toilet paper is to be flushed down the toilet. In addition, where an alarm is present on the system, the Tenant will notify the Property Manager should the alarm light or siren activate.
The landlord said the alarm is on the tenant’s fence. The tenant agreed that if he notices the alarm alerting him to an issue with the septic tank, he will inform the landlord.
In any tenancy, regardless of whether the property has a septic tank or is connected to a main sewage line a tenant is responsible for ensuring that they do not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises. 9 Placing items down the drains that might block it, may give rise to a claim by the landlord against the tenant for damage.
In this case I consider the appropriate declaration is to record that the landlord must ensure it maintains the septic system and the tenant is to ensure that he does not carelessly or intentionally block the wastewater and sewage pipelines.
In any event, if a blockage occurs in the future and there is a dispute about liability, then either party can bring a claim to the Tribunal to have the dispute determined.
The tenant has said there has been issues with the septic tank prior to the landlord taking over management of the property and he also raises a query as to why there is a septic tank when the wastewater and sewage could be connected to the council sewer system. There is no documentary evidence that the septic tank has overflowed or failed in any way, and it is not for the Tribunal to comment on why the property relies on the septic tank in the absence of any evidence of that being unlawful. Driveway
The tenant seeks clarification as to whether he or the landlord is responsible for clearing the weeds and grasses from the driveway.
The tenant seeks this clarification because the front neighbour’s weeds are encroaching on the driveway the tenant shares with his other neighbour (at the back property). The tenant says up until recently the occupants at the back property would remove the weeds on the driveway. The tenant has never had to remove the weeds himself but says they have recently become very high. The 9 RTA, s 40 (2) (a). tenant says he served the landlord with a 14 day notice to remove the weeds on the driveway on 19 September 2025.
The tenant says the landlord is responsible for clearing the weeds and grasses as part of the landlord’s general responsibility for maintenance. 10
The landlord says the front neighbours have sprayed the weeds and they are dying away.
A tenant must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 11 The premises includes any part of the premises and includes land and appurtenances. Facilities provided by the landlord for the non-exclusive use and enjoyment by the tenant, such as shared lawns and gardens are not considered to be part of the tenant’s premises. 12
The driveway is a shared driveway; therefore, the tenant does not have exclusive use of the driveway. I understand the landlord owns both properties that share the driveway. Accordingly, I make a declaration that the tenant is not responsible for ensuring the shared driveway is tidy and without weeds. I find that it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the shared driveway is maintained by way of ensuring that the weeds are removed from time to time as required.
The “Special conditions for 18A Stewart St, Whakatane” provided with the tenancy agreement says: The tenant will keep the interior and exterior of the premises clean and tidy and free from rubbish, bottles and cigarette butts all like matters. Lawns are to be mowed fortnightly and gardens kept tidy. Tenants will be responsible for removing garden refuse including fallen leaves and branches. Weeding must be done monthly. Any cost involved to make good non-compliance with this clause will be chargeable to the Tenant. 13
There does not appear to be any gardens or trees on the land provided for the tenant’s exclusive use. However, for the avoidance of doubt I record that the tenant is responsible for keeping the land for which he has exclusive use of, reasonably clean and tidy and therefore he should ensure he removes weeds around the back and sides of the premises. Failure to maintain premises 10 RTA, s 45 11 RTA, s 40 (1)(c). 12 RTA, s 2 13 Tenancy agreement, clause 1.
The tenant says the landlord failed to maintain the driveway and the water supply/pipes.
A landlord must provide and maintain the premises (including the facilities) in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. 14
Where a premises does not have a reticulated water supply, the landlord must provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water. 15 In this case the water supply is reticulated. The tenant claims the water supply was inadequate. This is a maintenance issue.
The extent of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 16 The Court noted that there was no absolute liability or responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. 17 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time.
In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd 18 the Court stated: [15] I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, 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 problem may be. Water supply
The tenant says there was an issue with the reticulated water supply which has impacted the water pressure to his premises. The tenant says the water supply is shared with two other properties which was reducing water pressure or flow to his premises. He seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
In reviewing the correspondence, it appears the tenant raised the issue with the water pressure in April 2025, shortly before the landlord took over management of the property. 14 RTA s 45 (1)(b). 15 RTA, s 45 (1) (ca). 16 Barfoot & Thompson v Casey CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007. 17 RTA, s 40(1)(d). 18 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15].
The landlord says they effectively addressed the tenant’s concern about the water with the information they had from him by having a plumber investigate and install a water pump. The water line was further repaired following an issue with rust being found by the plumber. By late November 2025 the issue with the tenant’s water supply appears to have been resolved.
It is for the tenant to prove that there is an issue with the water supply. There is no video footage of the water running in the tenant’s premises for me to assess if and when the water pressure was insufficient. Photographs could have been taken of the tap running, which could give an indication of any issue with the water pressure.
I am not satisfied on the evidence provided that the tenant clearly raised his concerns in a way that would help identify the issue. It appears the landlord required clarification from the tenant a number of times about his concern with the water supply. In addition, I consider that the landlord has rectified the tenant’s concern (by way of a water pump and new water pipeline) in a reasonable time frame, having regard to the lack of information the landlord had available from the tenant from the outset to enable them to easily identify and resolve the issue.
I therefore consider the tenant has not proven the landlord has failed to maintain the premises in respect of the water supply.
The tenant says the current water pump is increasing his electricity costs. The tenant did not provide any evidence of increased electricity bills.
I therefore dismiss the claim for compensation and exemplary damages in respect of the water supply. Failure to maintain the driveway
The tenant seeks compensation of $60 for a claimed failure to maintain the driveway. The tenant says there was an issue with gravel displacement causing ruts in the driveway.
The tenant provided a letter he sent to the landlord in July 2025 in which he raises an issue with the “park space” however it is not clear he was raising an issue with the driveway and that letter did not require the landlord to undertake any maintenance with respect to the driveway. It appears from the communication between the parties that the issue was formally raised in correspondence in September 2025. The tenant has not provided any photographs of the driveway in support of the claim. He relies on his oral evidence and the correspondence he has sent to the landlord in support of the claim. The tenant said the driveway has now been remedied.
The landlord provided confirmation (by way of the invoice) of further gravel being added to the driveway on or about 17 November 2025. The landlord said this work was undertaken, having regard to the tenant’s personal requirements, which I took to mean that they did not necessarily agree the driveway had not been appropriately maintained, but they added gravel in any event.
The tenant has not provided any photographs of the driveway for me to make an assessment as to whether the driveway was in a poor state of repair.
Further, I am not satisfied that the time frame in which the landlord attended to the tenant’s concern about the driveway is unreasonable. I decline to find the landlord has failed to meet its obligations with respect to maintenance of the driveway and this claim is dismissed. Failure to comply with building, healthy and safety enactments
The tenant says he did not have an oven and raises a concern about electrical wiring put in place for the water pump.
A landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. 19 No oven
The tenant claims $60 compensation for the premises having no oven.
The RTA requires landlords to comply with any requirements as they relate to buildings. 20 The Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) 21 provides that every kitchen or kitchenette must have adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food, both by boiling and baking.
The tenant says there is no oven in the home, and he therefore is limited in what he can cook. He says he owns a microwave, and a cook top has been provided. There is no dispute that the premises does not have an oven. Food cannot be baked on a cooktop or microwave. The landlord is therefore in breach of s 45(1)(c) of the RTA and HIR by not having an oven.
At the hearing the tenant indicated that he would like a bench top oven, but as this was not recorded in the case conference order that the tenant sought a work order in relation to the oven and the landlord did not agree to that claim being heard I cannot make a work order in relation to the oven. At the hearing the landlord was advised of the requirement to provide an oven.
I consider the tenant should be compensated for the inconvenience of not having an oven and I consider the amount claimed of $60 is reasonable and it is ordered. Water pump wiring 19 RTA, s 45 (1)(c) 20 RTA, s 45 (1) (c) 21 HIR, regulation 7.
The landlord’s plumber installed a water pump to see if this would address the tenant’s concerns with the water flow.
The tenant says the plumber used an interior power board to connect the water pump to an exterior power supply. The tenant advised the landlord that the electrical connection was unlawful and creating an electrical hazard.
The landlord promptly made enquiries with the plumber who advised by letter dated 19 September 2025: In regard to the water pump, the pump comes pre-wired with a standard 3 pin plug like you would find of any appliance i.e. your toaster etc. The pump is installed underneath the tiny home. We ran a short extension cord to an outside power switch which was already there for the gas califont and has a switch that has a residual current device built into the switchboard as all outside plugs have to have. An RCD is a lifesaving device which is designed to prevent you getting a fatal electric shot. As both the califont and the pump come prewired with a standard 3 pin plug and are plugged onto a socket that has an RCD (residential current device) I believe this does not require an electrician to plug in the 3 pin plug. This pump has been installed as a trial to see if this helps overcome water low pressure that the tenant has issues with.
On 19 September 2025 the landlord checked this position with their electrician who, on 22 September 2025 advised: “no electrician required, it is no different to the tenant plugging in a toaster or jug inside as the outlet is already there. As long as the join in lad is under the building all good and up off the ground”
The landlord provided photographs of the water pump connection; however, it appears the electrician did not see the photographs.
Shortly thereafter the tenant contacted the electrician and on 7 October 2025 the landlord wrote to the tenant to confirm that the water pump connection was not connected correctly. The landlord promptly arranged for this to be remedied.
The tenant says there has been a breach of the Electricity (Safety) Regulations 2010 (ESR) which he says require the water pump connection to have a Certificate of Compliance. The tenant served a 14-day notice of the landlord in respect of this breach on or about the 19 September 2025.
The landlord did not dispute that the water pump did in fact require installation by an electrician, which they arranged, and a Certificate of Compliance was issued.
I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to ensure all requirements in respect of the ESR were met. I will address the claim for exemplary damages below.
Even though the tenant has not specifically claimed compensation in respect of this breach I consider that it is open to me to award compensation for the landlord’s breach (as I have declined to award exemplary damages later in this decision). 22 I consider the tenant should be compensated for this breach.
I consider $300 is reasonable, taking into account the worry that this issue would have caused the tenant from 4 September 2025 (when the water pump was installed) to 10 October 2025 (when the Code of Compliance was issued). $300 compensation is ordered in respect of this breach. Healthy homes standards
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations as they relate to the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The Law: Healthy Homes Standards
A landlord must comply with the HHS. 23 The HHS provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in relation to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For private rentals, 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 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. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. I note here that the obligation to comply with the HHS in this case commenced 120 days after the commencement of the tenancy.
There is no claim in respect of the heating or draught stopping standard.
The tenancy agreement was provided with a “Healthy Homes Standards – current level of compliance” statement (HHSC statement) The HHSC statement is in the form of the Tenancy Services template and is dated 9 August 2023.
In January 2025 the premises was sold to the current owner (the owner). The owner had a Healthy Homes Standards Assessment undertaken by Active Testing Solutions (ATS assessment) on 10 February 2025 and it updated on 5 March 2025. The landlord relies on the findings in the ATS assessment as evidence of full compliance with the HHS. Insulation standard 22 Maria Cavanagh v Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities [2022] NZDC 7003. 23 RTA, s 45 (1) (bb)
The insulation standard requires that the premises have qualifying insulation in the ceiling cavity, and under the floor if the floor is a suspended floor. To be considered ‘qualifying insulation’ the insulation must meet a minimum R value. 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. The insulation must also be in a reasonable condition. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances 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. 24
The tenant claims the property does not comply with the insulation standard and claims compensation of $150 for this breach. The tenant says that the property is not compliant with the insulation standard as he believes there is only insulation underneath the floor. The tenant says the underfloor insulation does not connect with the underfloor, creating a gap. The tenant says much of the west wall is made up of windows, making the premises either very hot or very cold.
The tenant says that the ceiling could be insulated with an alternative form of insulation such as foam.
On my enquiry the tenant said he has not looked into the ceiling cavity, he says he is unsure what insulation, if any, is present.
The HHSC records that the ceiling insulation had an R-value when it was installed of 2.9 and it was installed in October 2020 with 75 mm insulated panels.
The landlord says the ATS assessment confirms that the premises complies with the insulation standard. The ATS assessment records the property has a mono pitched roof and while there may be insulation present in the ceiling (installed at the time of construction), the property is exempt from healthy home standards ceiling insulation criteria. The ATS assessment says the sub floor insulation is in excellent condition with an R-value of 1.5.
Because the tenant has not provided any photographs of the insulation (or lack of) and any supporting documentary information about its R-value or condition I consider the tenant has not proven the claim in respect of the insulation standard. I am not satisfied on the evidence that the tenant has proven that the exemption in respect of the ceiling insulation does not apply. No independent evidence was provided to support a finding that insulation is reasonably practicable to install. 24 HHS, regs 13-20
The tenant raises a concern about the premises not having insulation in the walls. While the HHSC statement recorded that there was wall insulation, I note that the HHS does not require the premises to have wall insulation.
The claim in respect of the insulation standard is dismissed. Ventilation standard
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. 25 An extractor fan means an extractor fan that vents extracted air to the outdoors. 26 The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. I address these further below.
The tenant said that the premises did not comply with the ventilation standard because the kitchen extractor fan did not vent outside. The tenant claims compensation and exemplary damages in respect of this breach.
The tenant says the HHSC statement records that the kitchen has a rangehood with 150mm diameter ducting, that vents to the outside. He says that the HHSC statement was incorrect. The tenant says the lack of a compliant extractor has meant there is increased moisture in his home.
The landlord says the issue with respect to the extractor fan was raised with them by the tenant and they relied on and provided the tenant with a copy of the ATS assessment. The ATS assessment states the kitchen extractor does not vent to the outside and initially noted that adaption or replacement is required.
The ATS assessment then updates this note by saying a registered electrician has exempted the current inbuilt rangehood from external venting. The electrician’s reasons to apply the exemption were: The only way to vent the extractor fan to the outside would be to drill through the top cupboard and then the side cupboards to the outside and through the metal skin of the cabin. Due to the amount of work involved and the fact that this is a tiny house with very restricted storage space I would recommend that this property would be excluded from the ventilation requirement due to the excessive cost to vent outside. When the new recirculating range fails then I would recommend getting it vented as the new range hood would need to be an outside vent able version. 25 HHS, regs 21-24 26 HHS, s 3 (1).
The landlord says that they subsequently arranged for a plumber to attend at the premises to undertake an assessment of the extractor fan and when the plumber went to the premises the tenant required them to leave. Following communication between the parties the landlord was able to arrange for the plumber to install ducting to enable the extractor fan to ventilate outside. There appears to have been some delay, which the tenant contributed to by not allowing the plumber to install the side venting kitchen extractor on 21 August 2025 for reasons that are not apparent. On 4 September 2025 a ducting kit was installed. The cost for the installation of the water pump (referred to above in this decision) and the ducting kit on the kitchen extractor fan was a total of $2,152.88.
The HHS provisions in relation to the ventilation exemption say: 24 Exemption from mechanical ventilation standard if extractor fan not reasonably practicable to install (1) A kitchen or bathroom need not comply with regulation 23 if all of the following apply: (a) at the commencement of the tenancy,— (i) the room does not have an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation: (ii) it is not reasonably practicable to install an extractor fan so as to comply with the requirements of regulation 23(2) and (3): (b) when the room was built or converted into a kitchen or bathroom, not having an extractor fan was lawful: (c) if not having an extractor fan was lawful only because the room met alternative ventilation requirements, at the commencement of the tenancy the room still meets those requirements. (2) This exemption ceases to apply if, during the term of the tenancy, it becomes reasonably practicable to install an extractor fan so as to comply with the requirements of regulation 23(2) and (3). 4Meaning of not reasonably practicable to install It is not reasonably practicable to install something at any premises or tenancy building if, because of the way the premises or tenancy building is designed or built,— (a) a professional installer cannot access the relevant area of the premises or tenancy building to install the thing without— (i) carrying out substantial building work; or (ii) causing substantial damage to the premises or tenancy building; or (b) a professional installer cannot install the thing without creating greater risks to the health or safety of any person than are normally acceptable when something of that kind is being installed by a professional installer; or (c) it is otherwise not reasonably practicable for a professional installer to install the thing.
It appears that initially the landlord relied on the exemption that it was not reasonably practicable to install an extractor fan, however I consider the intention of this exemption is to avoid substantial damage to the premises, risk to the health and safety of the installer or a grossly disproportionate cost is involved.
The landlord properly had the owner to get a second opinion to see whether an installation might be feasible to vent the extractor fan outside. It appears it was feasible as the work was undertaken to vent the extractor fan outside.
The ATS assessor did not attend the hearing to give evidence, nor did the electrician that recommended the HHS exemption apply in this case.
In the circumstances, because the extractor fan has been able to be vented outside at a reasonable cost and without replacing the extractor fan but venting the current one, I consider, despite the findings in the ATS assessment, that it is unlikely the ventilation standard exemption applied in this case, particularly as the original HHCS statement recorded compliance. I find that the landlord has breached the ventilation standard, and that the landlord has therefore committed an unlawful act. Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard:
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require 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. 27 The standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space. 28 A subfloor space is enclosed if the airflow into and out of the space is significantly obstructed along at least 50% of the perimeter of the subfloor space by 1 or more of the following: (a) a masonry foundation wall: (b) cement boards, timber skirting, or other cladding: 27 HHS, regulation 27. 28 HHS, regulation 28. (c) other parts of the building or any adjoining structure: (d) any other permanent or semi-permanent structure that significantly obstructs airflow: (e) rock, soil, or other similar material. 29
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant says the landlord has not complied with the moisture ingress standard as the premises has a suspended flooring which would require a ground moisture barrier, and the premises does not have efficient drainage systems. Ground moisture barrier
The tenant says the property is not compliant with the moisture ingress and drainage standard as he says more than 50% of the building subfloor is enclosed.
The HHSC statement says that the property does not have an enclosed subfloor. The ATS assessment records that more than 50 % of the subfloor is not enclosed. The landlord relies on the ATS statement as evidence of compliance.
The tenant says that the premises subfloor is enclosed but has not provided photographic evidence or evidence from an independent expert such as a registered builder to prove that the current airflow into and out of the space is significantly obstructed along at least 50% of the perimeter of the subfloor by the current timber skirting. I accept that the current timber skirting may be present on more than 50% of the premises, however it appears that the ATS assessor’s finding is that the airflow is not significantly obstructed. I have no evidence that this is not the case. Because the tenant has not proven the property requires a ground moisture barrier this aspect of the claim is dismissed Drainage system
The tenant says the premises does not have sufficient drainage and the property floods underneath and from neighbouring properties when it rains. The tenant says that this has resulted in mould.
The tenant did not provide any photographs of the pooling water under or around the premises or the mould.
The landlord says that insufficient evidence has been provided that the premises does not have sufficient drainage. The landlord provided an invoice from a plumber which comments that the properties at 18 and 20 Stewart St have soak rings that are inadequate for the amount of water they are receiving. 29 HHS, regulation 28. Potentially this comment applies also to this tenancy, but my view is that the tenant has provided insufficient evidence to prove the claim in respect of the drainage system for the premises.
The HHSC statement says the property does have gutters and downpipes that efficiently drain storm water, surface water and ground water to an appropriate outfall.
The ATS assessment records that the surfaces around the building slope away from the premises and there are PVC pipes and steel gutters which meet the HHS standard. The ATS assessment provided photographs of the drainpipes in which they appear to be in good condition.
I therefore find the tenant has not proven that the property does not meet the moisture ingress and drainage standard in respect of its drainpipes and guttering and this aspect of the claim is dismissed.
The tenant also says the neighbouring premises does not have appropriate guttering. The moisture ingress and drainage standards apply only to the tenancy premises. 30 Therefore, I cannot find that the tenancy does not comply with the HHS where neighbouring properties have poor guttering. Compensation - HHS
The tenant seeks compensation. I have found the landlord has not complied with the ventilation HHS standard The tenant’s concern about the extractor fan appears to have been raised in writing on 26 July 2025. The issue was remedied
The landlord queried why the tenant did not raise the issues he has raised in these proceedings with the previous landlord. I infer from this the landlord is suggesting that the tenant did not see the concerns as significant prior to them taking over the management of the premises.
The tenant says when the current landlord took over management of the tenancy, he reviewed documentation the landlord provided, and he came to understand the degree of the issues with the premises.
Noting that the HHS are an obligation on the landlord, and it is not for the tenant to persistently request compliance, I consider the tenant should be compensated for the breach of non-compliance with the HHS in respect of the extractor fan. I consider the relevant period the tenant should be compensated for is from 7 May 2025 (when the landlord took over management of the property) until the first date the tradesperson attended at the property to install the extractor fan ducting (21 August 2025) but encountered some difficulties with the tenant. The job was completed on 4 September 2025. I consider 30 HHS, regulation 27 $20.00 per week for this period of 15 weeks reasonably compensates the tenant in respect of this breach. I make an order for compensation of $300. Exemplary damages – section 45 breaches
The tenant claims exemplary damages in respect of the HHS breaches and failure to comply with buildings, health, and safety enactments The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered is $7,200.00. 31
In terms of the relevant factors the Tribunal must have regard to when making an order for exemplary damages, I note the following: a. Intent: I consider the tenant has not proven the landlord intended to commit the breaches. I consider that the landlord intended to fully comply with their obligations, as did the tradespeople that advised the landlord with respect to the electrical wiring and HHS. I find that the landlord has not intended to commit the unlawful acts that have occurred in this case. b. Effect: I accept that the effect of the non-compliance with respect to the HHS was that the tenant likely had dampness in his home when cooking. I accept that the tenant was worried about the potential safety risks of the water pump power supply. c. Interest of tenant: It is in the tenant’s interests to be awarded exemplary damages for unlawful acts committed against him. d. Public interest: There is a public interest in ensuring landlords meet their obligations under s 45 of the RTA. e. Just: I consider it is not just to award exemplary damages in this case. The landlord has relied on information provided by independent third parties and has proactively addressed the tenant’s concerns.
For these reasons the claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Market rent claim
The tenant seeks a reduction of rent to $290 per week. The Law – Rent reduction
The Tribunal may, on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount, that is in line with the market rent. 32 31 RTA45 (1A) and Schedule 1A 32 RTA, s 25 (1).
The market rent for any tenancy shall be the rent that, without regard to the personal circumstances of the landlord or the tenant, a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy, taking into consideration the general level of rents for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant. 33
An order made reducing the rent shall take effect on and from a date to be specified in the order, which may be the date of the order or any earlier or later date but being no earlier than the date of the application for the order and no later than 30 days after the date of the order. 34
The tenancy is not a fixed-term tenancy therefore there are no time limits on the tenant bringing a claim for a rent reduction. 35
Any order determining the market rent for a periodic tenancy, is to be for a period of 1 year or such shorter period as the Tribunal may specify in the order. 36
The issues I must determine are: a. what is the market rent for these premises, b. whether the rent is substantially above the market rate, and if so, c. what the rent should be?

What is the market rent?

The test for market rent is the amount a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive, and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy.
A market rent assessment is not a science but one that is primarily based on the evidence available to the Tribunal. The concept of the 'market' is constrained by the requirement that both parties be 'willing', and that the rent meets their 'reasonable' expectations. These terms are not defined by the RTA.
The Oxford English dictionary defines willing as: "having a ready will; disposed to consent or comply; ready to do (what is specified or implied) without reluctance"; and reasonable as "having sound judgement; sensible ... not asking for too much ... not extravagant or excessive; moderate". 33 RTA, s 25 (3) 34 RTA, s 25 (4) 35 RTA, s (25)(2) -(2A). 36 RTA, s 26 (1).
The factors the Tribunal may have regard to are the general level of rents for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant.
The evidence for comparable rents is usually based on advertisements for similar premises in the locality. This evidence has its limitations. Although advertisements usually list the essential features of the property advertised, there is often limited qualitative information available for comparison. Also, advertisements only cover houses currently on the market and do not necessarily reflect the overall level of rents charged for existing similar tenancies in the area. In any event, neither party provided this information in evidence.
It is also common for parties to refer to the 'market rent' statistics published by Tenancy Services. These statistics cover the rents charged for tenancies where bonds have been lodged over the preceding 6 months. The statistics include median rent as well as upper and lower quartile. Tenancy Services state on the website that it is a useful guide for landlords and tenants but should not be used alone to determine the market rent of any property.
The tenant largely relies on his concerns with maintenance and non- compliance with the RTA that he has raised in these proceedings to support his position that the rent is too high.
The tenant says in addition to the maintenance and compliance issues he has raised in this claim that the current rent should be reduced because he has seen in the news that the market rent in the area has reduced and he notes the premises is situated next to an industrial site.
I have been provided with the landlord’s market rent appraisal (MRA) which indicates the market rent as of 13 February 2025 was in the vicinity of $310- $340. The tenant relies on this market appraisal.
The tenant says the landlord has provided him correspondence that the owner was willing to reduce his rent, however he did not do so on the advice of the landlord.
The landlord says the Tenancy Services website states that as of 9 February 2026 37 a 1-bedroom lower quartile home attracts a rent of $495 per week. The landlord did not provide a printout of the Tenancy Services information. The information the landlord has provided is for a house. This premises is not a house, but a tiny home, more akin to a flat. The Tenancy Services website does record data for flats as distinct from a house, but neither party has obtained and 37 The written statement from the landlord says 09/02/2025 however I assume this is a typo error and should be 09/02/2026. provided this information. I am not satisfied I can find the market rent is $495 as I do not consider that this premises is comparable information.
The landlord says the rent has been $360 per week since the commencement of the tenancy and rent includes water, which they consider would equate to $10 per week for a single person. The water supply is not separately metered so the tenant’s actual water usage (and its value), is therefore unknown. The landlord says the MRA assumed that the tenant was liable for water usage charges.
The landlord says the cost to rent a similar tiny home would be in the vicinity of $495 (that excludes any charges for leasing land) and they provided a quote to confirm this. The landlord has provided a quote from one business only therefore I give this limited weight.
The tenant has not provided any documentary evidence about the local rental market. The premises has always, as I understand it, being situated next to an industrial site. The tenant must have been aware of this when the tenancy commenced.
I consider the factors that the tenant has raised to support a rent reduction are of limited assistance in the absence of evidence as to the general level of rents for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality.
The rental appraisal is now outdated, given it is over a year old, I place little weight on its suggestion that this premises would currently achieve a rent of $310 - $340.
It is generally accepted that just because a tenant has paid a demanded rent that does not necessarily mean the rent equates to market rate. However, in this case I consider the best evidence I have to determine the current market rent is that the tenant has paid $360 per-week since the commencement of the tenancy. Because I consider the current rent is likely to be the market rent for these premises, I consider the tenant has not proven the claim and it is dismissed. Filing fee
In this case the tenant has had some success in his claim, therefore I order the landlord to reimburse the tenant the filing fee of $28. 38 Suppression 38 RTA, 102 (4)(b).
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. 39
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order the Tribunal considers appropriate. 40
The tenant did not seek name suppression.
The landlord applied for name suppression as it is company policy to do so. The landlord has had substantial success in defending the tenant’s claims, therefore I make an order suppressing the landlord’s name, including the property manager’s name.
I do not suppress the tenancy address, as there is a public interest in future landlords and prospective tenants having access to the information in this decision about the property.

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 5336485 — net $688.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach of s 45 RTA - oven	$60.00	Breach of s 45 RTA - oven
Compensation: Breach of s 45 RTA - water pump connection	$300.00	Breach of s 45 RTA - water pump connection
Compensation: Breach of s 45 RTA HHS	$300.00	Breach of s 45 RTA HHS
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$688.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$688.00

Claims and awards for application 5336485 — net $688.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: Breach of s 45 RTA - oven

Amount: $60.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of s 45 RTA - oven

Compensation: Breach of s 45 RTA - water pump connection

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of s 45 RTA - water pump connection

Compensation: Breach of s 45 RTA HHS

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of s 45 RTA HHS

Filing fee reimbursement

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

Net award

Tenant $688.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $688.00

Dismissed claims

Property Damage — Market rent claim
Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Filing Fee Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay Graham Albert Rough $688.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

By way of declaration, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the septic system and the tenant is to ensure that he does not carelessly or intentionally block the wastewater and sewage pipelines.
By way of declaration, the landlord is responsible for ensuring the shared driveway is maintained and weeded and the tenant is not responsible for ensuring the shared driveway is tidy and weeded.
[Property manager] is removed as a party and her name and identifying details are suppressed.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced in 2023 and is ongoing.
The tenant entered into a tenancy agreement on 9 August 2023 with Slade Property Management as agent for Millenial Real Estate Limited named as the landlord. The property was sold to a new owner in early 2025 and on 7 May 2025 Property Brokers began managing the tenancy and have done so since that time.
The tenant has filed a claim against “Property Brokers Wairarapa Limited [Property manager]” as the landlord. The tenant says that the landlord has failed to comply with its responsibilities in terms of maintenance, healthy homes standards and requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety enactments. The tenant has also applied for a reduction in rent. The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages. The tenant also seeks declarations regarding the parties’ rights and obligations in respect of the exterior of the premises and the septic tank.
The premises is a modern one-bedroom tiny-home or cabin situated next to a shared driveway. The address of the home is within the Whakatane township.
The issues I must determine are: a. Who is the landlord? b. What are the parties’ respective rights and obligations with respect to the septic tank? c. What are the parties’ respective rights and obligations with respect to the driveway? d. Did the landlord fail to maintain the tenant’s water supply? e. Did the landlord fail to maintain the driveway? f. Did the landlord fail to meet its responsibilities by not providing an oven? g. Did the landlord fail to meet its responsibilities with respect to the water pump power connection? h. Did the landlord fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards? i. What, if any, remedies should be made in respect of compensation and exemplary damages, if any of the tenant’s claims are proven? j. Should an order be made reducing the tenant’s rent? k. Should the tenant be reimbursed the filing fee? l. What, if any, order should be made with respect to name suppression? Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.” Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 2 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 2 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 3 the Court of Appeal 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 that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. Before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the intent of the person in committing the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed, the public interest and whether it is just to make the award. 4
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA.
Exemplary damages must be ordered on a global basis, rather than for each separate breach that may have occurred under the same provision of the RTA 5 . Preliminary comments about the tenancy agreement
The tenant appeared uncertain about whether the original tenancy agreement still applies to this tenancy. The tenant said that he has been told by the landlord that some provisions of the tenancy agreement do not follow the RTA. To assist the parties moving forward, I record my view that the tenancy agreement applies, and this decision reflects that. I also note that where any provision of a tenancy agreement is inconsistent with the RTA and disadvantages the tenant, the RTA will apply unless the Tribunal orders otherwise. 6

Who is the landlord?

3 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 (Cooke P). 4 RTA, s 109 5 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583 6 RTA, s 11.

The tenant has named “Property Brokers Wairarapa Limited [Property manager]” as the landlord in this claim.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between tenants and landlords. A property manager can only be an applicant or respondent if they have status as a landlord. The definition of a landlord includes an agent where appropriate. 7
In this case Property Brokers have transferred the bond into their name, they accept rent from the tenant, and they have conducted all day-to-day management of the tenancy from 7 May 2025. I find it appropriate that Property Brokers be named as the landlord for the purposes of this claim.
In this case however the tenant has also named the Property Brokers employee as the landlord. I am not satisfied that the employee of Property Brokers is a landlord for the purposes of the RTA. Accordingly, the claim against the employee is dismissed and she is removed as a party. Septic tank
The tenant seeks clarification about the parties’ respective rights and obligations with respect to the septic tank. The tenant would like to ensure he is not responsible for any issues with the septic tank.
The “Special conditions for 18A Stewart St, Whakatane” provided with the tenancy agreement say: The Tenant shall keep the drains and the sanitary appliances (Showers, sink, toilet, bath,) and sink waste clear, and taps in good order. It is important that you do not put wet wipes, nappies and sanitary pads down the toilet, if these go into the toilet then the system will block. The invoice for fixing any blockages will be passed on to the tenants. So please make sure no person put wet wipes etc. down the toilet. 8
There is no mention of a septic tank, and the tenant says he was unaware of the property having a septic tank until 2024 when the alarm system alerted him to a blockage for which the landlord initially claimed he was liable for.
The landlord has provided the tenant with an “Amendment to the agreement 18a Stewart Street” dated 14 July 2025 in which the existence of the septic tank is recorded. The tenant has not signed the amendment, but the proposed clause reads: Septic System 7 RTA, s 2 8 Tenancy agreement, Clause 16. The Tenant acknowledges that they have been advised that the property is connected to a septic tank for the removal of wastewater and sewage. The Tenant has been advised that no grease, oil, or food scraps are to be washed down the drains, fabric softeners are not to be used, and nothing other than toilet paper is to be flushed down the toilet. In addition, where an alarm is present on the system, the Tenant will notify the Property Manager should the alarm light or siren activate.
The landlord said the alarm is on the tenant’s fence. The tenant agreed that if he notices the alarm alerting him to an issue with the septic tank, he will inform the landlord.
In any tenancy, regardless of whether the property has a septic tank or is connected to a main sewage line a tenant is responsible for ensuring that they do not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises. 9 Placing items down the drains that might block it, may give rise to a claim by the landlord against the tenant for damage.
In this case I consider the appropriate declaration is to record that the landlord must ensure it maintains the septic system and the tenant is to ensure that he does not carelessly or intentionally block the wastewater and sewage pipelines.
In any event, if a blockage occurs in the future and there is a dispute about liability, then either party can bring a claim to the Tribunal to have the dispute determined.
The tenant has said there has been issues with the septic tank prior to the landlord taking over management of the property and he also raises a query as to why there is a septic tank when the wastewater and sewage could be connected to the council sewer system. There is no documentary evidence that the septic tank has overflowed or failed in any way, and it is not for the Tribunal to comment on why the property relies on the septic tank in the absence of any evidence of that being unlawful. Driveway
The tenant seeks clarification as to whether he or the landlord is responsible for clearing the weeds and grasses from the driveway.
The tenant seeks this clarification because the front neighbour’s weeds are encroaching on the driveway the tenant shares with his other neighbour (at the back property). The tenant says up until recently the occupants at the back property would remove the weeds on the driveway. The tenant has never had to remove the weeds himself but says they have recently become very high. The 9 RTA, s 40 (2) (a). tenant says he served the landlord with a 14 day notice to remove the weeds on the driveway on 19 September 2025.
The tenant says the landlord is responsible for clearing the weeds and grasses as part of the landlord’s general responsibility for maintenance. 10
The landlord says the front neighbours have sprayed the weeds and they are dying away.
A tenant must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 11 The premises includes any part of the premises and includes land and appurtenances. Facilities provided by the landlord for the non-exclusive use and enjoyment by the tenant, such as shared lawns and gardens are not considered to be part of the tenant’s premises. 12
The driveway is a shared driveway; therefore, the tenant does not have exclusive use of the driveway. I understand the landlord owns both properties that share the driveway. Accordingly, I make a declaration that the tenant is not responsible for ensuring the shared driveway is tidy and without weeds. I find that it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the shared driveway is maintained by way of ensuring that the weeds are removed from time to time as required.
The “Special conditions for 18A Stewart St, Whakatane” provided with the tenancy agreement says: The tenant will keep the interior and exterior of the premises clean and tidy and free from rubbish, bottles and cigarette butts all like matters. Lawns are to be mowed fortnightly and gardens kept tidy. Tenants will be responsible for removing garden refuse including fallen leaves and branches. Weeding must be done monthly. Any cost involved to make good non-compliance with this clause will be chargeable to the Tenant. 13
There does not appear to be any gardens or trees on the land provided for the tenant’s exclusive use. However, for the avoidance of doubt I record that the tenant is responsible for keeping the land for which he has exclusive use of, reasonably clean and tidy and therefore he should ensure he removes weeds around the back and sides of the premises. Failure to maintain premises 10 RTA, s 45 11 RTA, s 40 (1)(c). 12 RTA, s 2 13 Tenancy agreement, clause 1.
The tenant says the landlord failed to maintain the driveway and the water supply/pipes.
A landlord must provide and maintain the premises (including the facilities) in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. 14
Where a premises does not have a reticulated water supply, the landlord must provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water. 15 In this case the water supply is reticulated. The tenant claims the water supply was inadequate. This is a maintenance issue.
The extent of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 16 The Court noted that there was no absolute liability or responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. 17 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time.
In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd 18 the Court stated: [15] I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, 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 problem may be. Water supply
The tenant says there was an issue with the reticulated water supply which has impacted the water pressure to his premises. The tenant says the water supply is shared with two other properties which was reducing water pressure or flow to his premises. He seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
In reviewing the correspondence, it appears the tenant raised the issue with the water pressure in April 2025, shortly before the landlord took over management of the property. 14 RTA s 45 (1)(b). 15 RTA, s 45 (1) (ca). 16 Barfoot & Thompson v Casey CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007. 17 RTA, s 40(1)(d). 18 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15].
The landlord says they effectively addressed the tenant’s concern about the water with the information they had from him by having a plumber investigate and install a water pump. The water line was further repaired following an issue with rust being found by the plumber. By late November 2025 the issue with the tenant’s water supply appears to have been resolved.
It is for the tenant to prove that there is an issue with the water supply. There is no video footage of the water running in the tenant’s premises for me to assess if and when the water pressure was insufficient. Photographs could have been taken of the tap running, which could give an indication of any issue with the water pressure.
I am not satisfied on the evidence provided that the tenant clearly raised his concerns in a way that would help identify the issue. It appears the landlord required clarification from the tenant a number of times about his concern with the water supply. In addition, I consider that the landlord has rectified the tenant’s concern (by way of a water pump and new water pipeline) in a reasonable time frame, having regard to the lack of information the landlord had available from the tenant from the outset to enable them to easily identify and resolve the issue.
I therefore consider the tenant has not proven the landlord has failed to maintain the premises in respect of the water supply.
The tenant says the current water pump is increasing his electricity costs. The tenant did not provide any evidence of increased electricity bills.
I therefore dismiss the claim for compensation and exemplary damages in respect of the water supply. Failure to maintain the driveway
The tenant seeks compensation of $60 for a claimed failure to maintain the driveway. The tenant says there was an issue with gravel displacement causing ruts in the driveway.
The tenant provided a letter he sent to the landlord in July 2025 in which he raises an issue with the “park space” however it is not clear he was raising an issue with the driveway and that letter did not require the landlord to undertake any maintenance with respect to the driveway. It appears from the communication between the parties that the issue was formally raised in correspondence in September 2025. The tenant has not provided any photographs of the driveway in support of the claim. He relies on his oral evidence and the correspondence he has sent to the landlord in support of the claim. The tenant said the driveway has now been remedied.
The landlord provided confirmation (by way of the invoice) of further gravel being added to the driveway on or about 17 November 2025. The landlord said this work was undertaken, having regard to the tenant’s personal requirements, which I took to mean that they did not necessarily agree the driveway had not been appropriately maintained, but they added gravel in any event.
The tenant has not provided any photographs of the driveway for me to make an assessment as to whether the driveway was in a poor state of repair.
Further, I am not satisfied that the time frame in which the landlord attended to the tenant’s concern about the driveway is unreasonable. I decline to find the landlord has failed to meet its obligations with respect to maintenance of the driveway and this claim is dismissed. Failure to comply with building, healthy and safety enactments
The tenant says he did not have an oven and raises a concern about electrical wiring put in place for the water pump.
A landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. 19 No oven
The tenant claims $60 compensation for the premises having no oven.
The RTA requires landlords to comply with any requirements as they relate to buildings. 20 The Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) 21 provides that every kitchen or kitchenette must have adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food, both by boiling and baking.
The tenant says there is no oven in the home, and he therefore is limited in what he can cook. He says he owns a microwave, and a cook top has been provided. There is no dispute that the premises does not have an oven. Food cannot be baked on a cooktop or microwave. The landlord is therefore in breach of s 45(1)(c) of the RTA and HIR by not having an oven.
At the hearing the tenant indicated that he would like a bench top oven, but as this was not recorded in the case conference order that the tenant sought a work order in relation to the oven and the landlord did not agree to that claim being heard I cannot make a work order in relation to the oven. At the hearing the landlord was advised of the requirement to provide an oven.
I consider the tenant should be compensated for the inconvenience of not having an oven and I consider the amount claimed of $60 is reasonable and it is ordered. Water pump wiring 19 RTA, s 45 (1)(c) 20 RTA, s 45 (1) (c) 21 HIR, regulation 7.
The landlord’s plumber installed a water pump to see if this would address the tenant’s concerns with the water flow.
The tenant says the plumber used an interior power board to connect the water pump to an exterior power supply. The tenant advised the landlord that the electrical connection was unlawful and creating an electrical hazard.
The landlord promptly made enquiries with the plumber who advised by letter dated 19 September 2025: In regard to the water pump, the pump comes pre-wired with a standard 3 pin plug like you would find of any appliance i.e. your toaster etc. The pump is installed underneath the tiny home. We ran a short extension cord to an outside power switch which was already there for the gas califont and has a switch that has a residual current device built into the switchboard as all outside plugs have to have. An RCD is a lifesaving device which is designed to prevent you getting a fatal electric shot. As both the califont and the pump come prewired with a standard 3 pin plug and are plugged onto a socket that has an RCD (residential current device) I believe this does not require an electrician to plug in the 3 pin plug. This pump has been installed as a trial to see if this helps overcome water low pressure that the tenant has issues with.
On 19 September 2025 the landlord checked this position with their electrician who, on 22 September 2025 advised: “no electrician required, it is no different to the tenant plugging in a toaster or jug inside as the outlet is already there. As long as the join in lad is under the building all good and up off the ground”
The landlord provided photographs of the water pump connection; however, it appears the electrician did not see the photographs.
Shortly thereafter the tenant contacted the electrician and on 7 October 2025 the landlord wrote to the tenant to confirm that the water pump connection was not connected correctly. The landlord promptly arranged for this to be remedied.
The tenant says there has been a breach of the Electricity (Safety) Regulations 2010 (ESR) which he says require the water pump connection to have a Certificate of Compliance. The tenant served a 14-day notice of the landlord in respect of this breach on or about the 19 September 2025.
The landlord did not dispute that the water pump did in fact require installation by an electrician, which they arranged, and a Certificate of Compliance was issued.
I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to ensure all requirements in respect of the ESR were met. I will address the claim for exemplary damages below.
Even though the tenant has not specifically claimed compensation in respect of this breach I consider that it is open to me to award compensation for the landlord’s breach (as I have declined to award exemplary damages later in this decision). 22 I consider the tenant should be compensated for this breach.
I consider $300 is reasonable, taking into account the worry that this issue would have caused the tenant from 4 September 2025 (when the water pump was installed) to 10 October 2025 (when the Code of Compliance was issued). $300 compensation is ordered in respect of this breach. Healthy homes standards
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations as they relate to the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The Law: Healthy Homes Standards
A landlord must comply with the HHS. 23 The HHS provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in relation to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For private rentals, 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 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. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. I note here that the obligation to comply with the HHS in this case commenced 120 days after the commencement of the tenancy.
There is no claim in respect of the heating or draught stopping standard.
The tenancy agreement was provided with a “Healthy Homes Standards – current level of compliance” statement (HHSC statement) The HHSC statement is in the form of the Tenancy Services template and is dated 9 August 2023.
In January 2025 the premises was sold to the current owner (the owner). The owner had a Healthy Homes Standards Assessment undertaken by Active Testing Solutions (ATS assessment) on 10 February 2025 and it updated on 5 March 2025. The landlord relies on the findings in the ATS assessment as evidence of full compliance with the HHS. Insulation standard 22 Maria Cavanagh v Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities [2022] NZDC 7003. 23 RTA, s 45 (1) (bb)
The insulation standard requires that the premises have qualifying insulation in the ceiling cavity, and under the floor if the floor is a suspended floor. To be considered ‘qualifying insulation’ the insulation must meet a minimum R value. 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. The insulation must also be in a reasonable condition. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances 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. 24
The tenant claims the property does not comply with the insulation standard and claims compensation of $150 for this breach. The tenant says that the property is not compliant with the insulation standard as he believes there is only insulation underneath the floor. The tenant says the underfloor insulation does not connect with the underfloor, creating a gap. The tenant says much of the west wall is made up of windows, making the premises either very hot or very cold.
The tenant says that the ceiling could be insulated with an alternative form of insulation such as foam.
On my enquiry the tenant said he has not looked into the ceiling cavity, he says he is unsure what insulation, if any, is present.
The HHSC records that the ceiling insulation had an R-value when it was installed of 2.9 and it was installed in October 2020 with 75 mm insulated panels.
The landlord says the ATS assessment confirms that the premises complies with the insulation standard. The ATS assessment records the property has a mono pitched roof and while there may be insulation present in the ceiling (installed at the time of construction), the property is exempt from healthy home standards ceiling insulation criteria. The ATS assessment says the sub floor insulation is in excellent condition with an R-value of 1.5.
Because the tenant has not provided any photographs of the insulation (or lack of) and any supporting documentary information about its R-value or condition I consider the tenant has not proven the claim in respect of the insulation standard. I am not satisfied on the evidence that the tenant has proven that the exemption in respect of the ceiling insulation does not apply. No independent evidence was provided to support a finding that insulation is reasonably practicable to install. 24 HHS, regs 13-20
The tenant raises a concern about the premises not having insulation in the walls. While the HHSC statement recorded that there was wall insulation, I note that the HHS does not require the premises to have wall insulation.
The claim in respect of the insulation standard is dismissed. Ventilation standard
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. 25 An extractor fan means an extractor fan that vents extracted air to the outdoors. 26 The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. I address these further below.
The tenant said that the premises did not comply with the ventilation standard because the kitchen extractor fan did not vent outside. The tenant claims compensation and exemplary damages in respect of this breach.
The tenant says the HHSC statement records that the kitchen has a rangehood with 150mm diameter ducting, that vents to the outside. He says that the HHSC statement was incorrect. The tenant says the lack of a compliant extractor has meant there is increased moisture in his home.
The landlord says the issue with respect to the extractor fan was raised with them by the tenant and they relied on and provided the tenant with a copy of the ATS assessment. The ATS assessment states the kitchen extractor does not vent to the outside and initially noted that adaption or replacement is required.
The ATS assessment then updates this note by saying a registered electrician has exempted the current inbuilt rangehood from external venting. The electrician’s reasons to apply the exemption were: The only way to vent the extractor fan to the outside would be to drill through the top cupboard and then the side cupboards to the outside and through the metal skin of the cabin. Due to the amount of work involved and the fact that this is a tiny house with very restricted storage space I would recommend that this property would be excluded from the ventilation requirement due to the excessive cost to vent outside. When the new recirculating range fails then I would recommend getting it vented as the new range hood would need to be an outside vent able version. 25 HHS, regs 21-24 26 HHS, s 3 (1).
The landlord says that they subsequently arranged for a plumber to attend at the premises to undertake an assessment of the extractor fan and when the plumber went to the premises the tenant required them to leave. Following communication between the parties the landlord was able to arrange for the plumber to install ducting to enable the extractor fan to ventilate outside. There appears to have been some delay, which the tenant contributed to by not allowing the plumber to install the side venting kitchen extractor on 21 August 2025 for reasons that are not apparent. On 4 September 2025 a ducting kit was installed. The cost for the installation of the water pump (referred to above in this decision) and the ducting kit on the kitchen extractor fan was a total of $2,152.88.
The HHS provisions in relation to the ventilation exemption say: 24 Exemption from mechanical ventilation standard if extractor fan not reasonably practicable to install (1) A kitchen or bathroom need not comply with regulation 23 if all of the following apply: (a) at the commencement of the tenancy,— (i) the room does not have an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation: (ii) it is not reasonably practicable to install an extractor fan so as to comply with the requirements of regulation 23(2) and (3): (b) when the room was built or converted into a kitchen or bathroom, not having an extractor fan was lawful: (c) if not having an extractor fan was lawful only because the room met alternative ventilation requirements, at the commencement of the tenancy the room still meets those requirements. (2) This exemption ceases to apply if, during the term of the tenancy, it becomes reasonably practicable to install an extractor fan so as to comply with the requirements of regulation 23(2) and (3). 4Meaning of not reasonably practicable to install It is not reasonably practicable to install something at any premises or tenancy building if, because of the way the premises or tenancy building is designed or built,— (a) a professional installer cannot access the relevant area of the premises or tenancy building to install the thing without— (i) carrying out substantial building work; or (ii) causing substantial damage to the premises or tenancy building; or (b) a professional installer cannot install the thing without creating greater risks to the health or safety of any person than are normally acceptable when something of that kind is being installed by a professional installer; or (c) it is otherwise not reasonably practicable for a professional installer to install the thing.
It appears that initially the landlord relied on the exemption that it was not reasonably practicable to install an extractor fan, however I consider the intention of this exemption is to avoid substantial damage to the premises, risk to the health and safety of the installer or a grossly disproportionate cost is involved.
The landlord properly had the owner to get a second opinion to see whether an installation might be feasible to vent the extractor fan outside. It appears it was feasible as the work was undertaken to vent the extractor fan outside.
The ATS assessor did not attend the hearing to give evidence, nor did the electrician that recommended the HHS exemption apply in this case.
In the circumstances, because the extractor fan has been able to be vented outside at a reasonable cost and without replacing the extractor fan but venting the current one, I consider, despite the findings in the ATS assessment, that it is unlikely the ventilation standard exemption applied in this case, particularly as the original HHCS statement recorded compliance. I find that the landlord has breached the ventilation standard, and that the landlord has therefore committed an unlawful act. Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard:
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require 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. 27 The standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space. 28 A subfloor space is enclosed if the airflow into and out of the space is significantly obstructed along at least 50% of the perimeter of the subfloor space by 1 or more of the following: (a) a masonry foundation wall: (b) cement boards, timber skirting, or other cladding: 27 HHS, regulation 27. 28 HHS, regulation 28. (c) other parts of the building or any adjoining structure: (d) any other permanent or semi-permanent structure that significantly obstructs airflow: (e) rock, soil, or other similar material. 29
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant says the landlord has not complied with the moisture ingress standard as the premises has a suspended flooring which would require a ground moisture barrier, and the premises does not have efficient drainage systems. Ground moisture barrier
The tenant says the property is not compliant with the moisture ingress and drainage standard as he says more than 50% of the building subfloor is enclosed.
The HHSC statement says that the property does not have an enclosed subfloor. The ATS assessment records that more than 50 % of the subfloor is not enclosed. The landlord relies on the ATS statement as evidence of compliance.
The tenant says that the premises subfloor is enclosed but has not provided photographic evidence or evidence from an independent expert such as a registered builder to prove that the current airflow into and out of the space is significantly obstructed along at least 50% of the perimeter of the subfloor by the current timber skirting. I accept that the current timber skirting may be present on more than 50% of the premises, however it appears that the ATS assessor’s finding is that the airflow is not significantly obstructed. I have no evidence that this is not the case. Because the tenant has not proven the property requires a ground moisture barrier this aspect of the claim is dismissed Drainage system
The tenant says the premises does not have sufficient drainage and the property floods underneath and from neighbouring properties when it rains. The tenant says that this has resulted in mould.
The tenant did not provide any photographs of the pooling water under or around the premises or the mould.
The landlord says that insufficient evidence has been provided that the premises does not have sufficient drainage. The landlord provided an invoice from a plumber which comments that the properties at 18 and 20 Stewart St have soak rings that are inadequate for the amount of water they are receiving. 29 HHS, regulation 28. Potentially this comment applies also to this tenancy, but my view is that the tenant has provided insufficient evidence to prove the claim in respect of the drainage system for the premises.
The HHSC statement says the property does have gutters and downpipes that efficiently drain storm water, surface water and ground water to an appropriate outfall.
The ATS assessment records that the surfaces around the building slope away from the premises and there are PVC pipes and steel gutters which meet the HHS standard. The ATS assessment provided photographs of the drainpipes in which they appear to be in good condition.
I therefore find the tenant has not proven that the property does not meet the moisture ingress and drainage standard in respect of its drainpipes and guttering and this aspect of the claim is dismissed.
The tenant also says the neighbouring premises does not have appropriate guttering. The moisture ingress and drainage standards apply only to the tenancy premises. 30 Therefore, I cannot find that the tenancy does not comply with the HHS where neighbouring properties have poor guttering. Compensation - HHS
The tenant seeks compensation. I have found the landlord has not complied with the ventilation HHS standard The tenant’s concern about the extractor fan appears to have been raised in writing on 26 July 2025. The issue was remedied
The landlord queried why the tenant did not raise the issues he has raised in these proceedings with the previous landlord. I infer from this the landlord is suggesting that the tenant did not see the concerns as significant prior to them taking over the management of the premises.
The tenant says when the current landlord took over management of the tenancy, he reviewed documentation the landlord provided, and he came to understand the degree of the issues with the premises.
Noting that the HHS are an obligation on the landlord, and it is not for the tenant to persistently request compliance, I consider the tenant should be compensated for the breach of non-compliance with the HHS in respect of the extractor fan. I consider the relevant period the tenant should be compensated for is from 7 May 2025 (when the landlord took over management of the property) until the first date the tradesperson attended at the property to install the extractor fan ducting (21 August 2025) but encountered some difficulties with the tenant. The job was completed on 4 September 2025. I consider 30 HHS, regulation 27 $20.00 per week for this period of 15 weeks reasonably compensates the tenant in respect of this breach. I make an order for compensation of $300. Exemplary damages – section 45 breaches
The tenant claims exemplary damages in respect of the HHS breaches and failure to comply with buildings, health, and safety enactments The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered is $7,200.00. 31
In terms of the relevant factors the Tribunal must have regard to when making an order for exemplary damages, I note the following: a. Intent: I consider the tenant has not proven the landlord intended to commit the breaches. I consider that the landlord intended to fully comply with their obligations, as did the tradespeople that advised the landlord with respect to the electrical wiring and HHS. I find that the landlord has not intended to commit the unlawful acts that have occurred in this case. b. Effect: I accept that the effect of the non-compliance with respect to the HHS was that the tenant likely had dampness in his home when cooking. I accept that the tenant was worried about the potential safety risks of the water pump power supply. c. Interest of tenant: It is in the tenant’s interests to be awarded exemplary damages for unlawful acts committed against him. d. Public interest: There is a public interest in ensuring landlords meet their obligations under s 45 of the RTA. e. Just: I consider it is not just to award exemplary damages in this case. The landlord has relied on information provided by independent third parties and has proactively addressed the tenant’s concerns.
For these reasons the claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Market rent claim
The tenant seeks a reduction of rent to $290 per week. The Law – Rent reduction
The Tribunal may, on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount, that is in line with the market rent. 32 31 RTA45 (1A) and Schedule 1A 32 RTA, s 25 (1).
The market rent for any tenancy shall be the rent that, without regard to the personal circumstances of the landlord or the tenant, a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy, taking into consideration the general level of rents for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant. 33
An order made reducing the rent shall take effect on and from a date to be specified in the order, which may be the date of the order or any earlier or later date but being no earlier than the date of the application for the order and no later than 30 days after the date of the order. 34
The tenancy is not a fixed-term tenancy therefore there are no time limits on the tenant bringing a claim for a rent reduction. 35
Any order determining the market rent for a periodic tenancy, is to be for a period of 1 year or such shorter period as the Tribunal may specify in the order. 36
The issues I must determine are: a. what is the market rent for these premises, b. whether the rent is substantially above the market rate, and if so, c. what the rent should be?

What is the market rent?

The test for market rent is the amount a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive, and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy.
A market rent assessment is not a science but one that is primarily based on the evidence available to the Tribunal. The concept of the 'market' is constrained by the requirement that both parties be 'willing', and that the rent meets their 'reasonable' expectations. These terms are not defined by the RTA.
The Oxford English dictionary defines willing as: "having a ready will; disposed to consent or comply; ready to do (what is specified or implied) without reluctance"; and reasonable as "having sound judgement; sensible ... not asking for too much ... not extravagant or excessive; moderate". 33 RTA, s 25 (3) 34 RTA, s 25 (4) 35 RTA, s (25)(2) -(2A). 36 RTA, s 26 (1).
The factors the Tribunal may have regard to are the general level of rents for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant.
The evidence for comparable rents is usually based on advertisements for similar premises in the locality. This evidence has its limitations. Although advertisements usually list the essential features of the property advertised, there is often limited qualitative information available for comparison. Also, advertisements only cover houses currently on the market and do not necessarily reflect the overall level of rents charged for existing similar tenancies in the area. In any event, neither party provided this information in evidence.
It is also common for parties to refer to the 'market rent' statistics published by Tenancy Services. These statistics cover the rents charged for tenancies where bonds have been lodged over the preceding 6 months. The statistics include median rent as well as upper and lower quartile. Tenancy Services state on the website that it is a useful guide for landlords and tenants but should not be used alone to determine the market rent of any property.
The tenant largely relies on his concerns with maintenance and non- compliance with the RTA that he has raised in these proceedings to support his position that the rent is too high.
The tenant says in addition to the maintenance and compliance issues he has raised in this claim that the current rent should be reduced because he has seen in the news that the market rent in the area has reduced and he notes the premises is situated next to an industrial site.
I have been provided with the landlord’s market rent appraisal (MRA) which indicates the market rent as of 13 February 2025 was in the vicinity of $310- $340. The tenant relies on this market appraisal.
The tenant says the landlord has provided him correspondence that the owner was willing to reduce his rent, however he did not do so on the advice of the landlord.
The landlord says the Tenancy Services website states that as of 9 February 2026 37 a 1-bedroom lower quartile home attracts a rent of $495 per week. The landlord did not provide a printout of the Tenancy Services information. The information the landlord has provided is for a house. This premises is not a house, but a tiny home, more akin to a flat. The Tenancy Services website does record data for flats as distinct from a house, but neither party has obtained and 37 The written statement from the landlord says 09/02/2025 however I assume this is a typo error and should be 09/02/2026. provided this information. I am not satisfied I can find the market rent is $495 as I do not consider that this premises is comparable information.
The landlord says the rent has been $360 per week since the commencement of the tenancy and rent includes water, which they consider would equate to $10 per week for a single person. The water supply is not separately metered so the tenant’s actual water usage (and its value), is therefore unknown. The landlord says the MRA assumed that the tenant was liable for water usage charges.
The landlord says the cost to rent a similar tiny home would be in the vicinity of $495 (that excludes any charges for leasing land) and they provided a quote to confirm this. The landlord has provided a quote from one business only therefore I give this limited weight.
The tenant has not provided any documentary evidence about the local rental market. The premises has always, as I understand it, being situated next to an industrial site. The tenant must have been aware of this when the tenancy commenced.
I consider the factors that the tenant has raised to support a rent reduction are of limited assistance in the absence of evidence as to the general level of rents for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality.
The rental appraisal is now outdated, given it is over a year old, I place little weight on its suggestion that this premises would currently achieve a rent of $310 - $340.
It is generally accepted that just because a tenant has paid a demanded rent that does not necessarily mean the rent equates to market rate. However, in this case I consider the best evidence I have to determine the current market rent is that the tenant has paid $360 per-week since the commencement of the tenancy. Because I consider the current rent is likely to be the market rent for these premises, I consider the tenant has not proven the claim and it is dismissed. Filing fee
In this case the tenant has had some success in his claim, therefore I order the landlord to reimburse the tenant the filing fee of $28. 38 Suppression 38 RTA, 102 (4)(b).
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. 39
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order the Tribunal considers appropriate. 40
The tenant did not seek name suppression.
The landlord applied for name suppression as it is company policy to do so. The landlord has had substantial success in defending the tenant’s claims, therefore I make an order suppressing the landlord’s name, including the property manager’s name.
I do not suppress the tenancy address, as there is a public interest in future landlords and prospective tenants having access to the information in this decision about the property.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5336485 — State of repair at 18A Stewart Street, Whakatane, Whakatane 3120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5336485 — State of repair at 18A Stewart Street, Whakatane, Whakatane 3120

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Who is the landlord?

What is the market rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Who is the landlord?

What is the market rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions