What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5342043 about?

The tribunal order states: No orders apply concerning the publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 5342043?

Compensation: $220.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5342043?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342043?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12623246-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5342043 about?

The tribunal order states: No orders apply concerning the publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 5342043?

Compensation: $220.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5342043?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342043?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12623246-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 101, 66A Leach Street, New Plymouth, New Tenancy Tribunal Case 5342043 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5342043 — net $248.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$220.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$248.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$248.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

Ms Smith attended for the landlord Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities.

Mr Dixon came with a support person who then became his representative.

I granted a representative due to the value of the sum claimed and the fact that the representative of the landlord did not object to this (see s 93 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)).

Despite him having a representative, I also allowed Mr Dixon to also express himself as appropriate during the hearing. Despite his initial concerns he took an active part in the hearing. Civil burden of proof

As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the tenant must establish that what he is claiming is more likely than not.

The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, 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. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain.

In deciding any 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. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.

As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “like 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.”

It is not necessary for the Tribunal to refer to every individual piece of evidence or every argument raised. In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. The tenant’s claims Facts

The tenant states that there was a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards regulations (HHS) because his heat pump stopped working a few days into the tenancy.

The tenant says that the property was cold for himself, and his daughter and he could not dry clothes inside until the heat pump was recently replaced. The tenant says his support person had to dry his clothes for him.

The heat pump is now fixed.

The main events relating to the claim that are relevant are largely undisputed.

The premises are a new apartment complex of some 45 new apartments in the centre of New Plymouth. The tenant is the second tenant to live in his apartment.

The tenant says that the tenancy began on 25 June 2025 and the heat pump stopped working about 3 days into the tenancy after a major rain storm.

The tenant says that he became aware that the heat pump was no longer working because its heating function was no longer working so he told his property manager, James. This was done by telephone about 3 days into the tenancy after he had returned from a trip away.

The tenant also phoned the landlord’s helpline and an electrician was sent to the property a few days later.

It was discovered that the PCB (circuit board outside had been damaged. The tenant says there was then a delay and the tenant waited. He says that he called the electrician about 2 weeks later after the visit and the electrician communicated to him that he was waiting on a part which was coming from overseas.

He says another electrician came on a different occasion and another electrician came a few days after that. He says that after the third visit he rang the landlord’s helpline again and was offered a heater.

He says a different electrician then came to the property and offered him a heater but that it was only a small heater of in a box about 20cm (although the size of the box indicated by his hands at the Tribunal was around 40cm in length) and was a fan heater. The tenant did not think this appropriate and so he did not take the fan.

He says he then made his application to the Tribunal and a short time later the heat pump was then replaced. He says there is no black cover on the external unit of the heat pump like the other apartments have.

The landlord accepts that the heat pump was not working and that it took time to fix it. They say it was replaced on 11 or 12 September 2025.

The landlord says that the heat pump was under warranty because the building is new. The PCB fault was identified but Haier, the supplier of the warranty, said there needed to be a component swop under the warranty and that part was being waited for.

After the first electrician was sent, the landlord says it sent further electricians to the property after the tenant made further calls to them in July. The landlord was hoping that something could be done and maybe the heat pump could be made to work a bit better (while they were waiting for the component).

The landlord says that the tenant was offered, as a temporary solution, on 21 July 2025, a 2kw Goldair panel heater and this would have been sufficient to heat the living room because the HHS only required 1.7KW of heating to heat the living room.

The landlord also states that although this property is in Zone 2 for insulation requirements, Zone 6 insulation has been put in place making the premises very well insulated. It is also an apartment rather than a standalone premises making it more sheltered.

The landlord then replaced the heat pump rather than wait and have it repaired under warranty.

The tenant strongly denies the heater that he was offered by the electrician was that put forward by the landlord. He says it was a small box with a shaped product and a fan. He questioned whether the electrician had offered the wrong product or if there had been a miscommunication. He expressed concerns around the safety of the fan.

The tenant says that the electricians came without adequate notice and this showed the blasé nature of the landlord. The landlord disagrees about the tenant not having adequate notice of the visits by the electricians.

Analysis - Was there a breach?

The tenant has claimed that the landlord has breached their obligations as it relates to the HHS, because during the tenancy the heat pump failed, and it was some time until it was repaired.

The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 provides a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage. The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the living room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS. The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity.

The tenant’s position is not that the heat pump itself was non-compliant but that that for the length of time the heat pump was not working that was a breach of the HHS.

In my view the landlords have likely complied with the HHS because a heat pump was installed at the start of the tenancy. There is no dispute that the heat pump failed, but that is not a breach of the HHS per se, but, would be a maintenance issue for the landlord. This is because a landlord must provide and maintain the premises 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 (see section 45 RTA).

While I accept the landlord’s position that a delay was caused by the requirements of the warranty provider, regardless of this, the obligation of the landlord is nevertheless to repair within a reasonable time. I do not consider the time frame taken of just over 11 weeks to be a reasonable timeframe given the nature of the issue.

I find that there has been a failure to maintain given the length of time the tenant has been without a working heat pump. Compensation and exemplary damages

The tenant claims compensation and exemplary damages for the breach.

As explained at the hearing compensation is intended to put the affected party, as far as possible, into the position they would have been in if the breach had not occurred. It is awarded to recognise actual loss or damage suffered as a result of a breach of the RTA or the tenancy agreement. The party claiming compensation must show, on the balance of probabilities, that the breach caused them to suffer a quantifiable loss.

Exemplary damages are not intended to compensate for loss, but rather to punish and deter particularly serious breaches of the RTA. Exemplary damages are “like a fine.” Unlike compensation, exemplary damages are not about actual loss suffered but are awarded to mark the seriousness of the unlawful act and to deter similar conduct in the future.

The tenant seeks compensation on the basis that he experienced increased anxiety because of the issue and it is upsetting to him. He says he has medical conditions making him a vulnerable person and he says that this has contributed to him having high levels of anxiety and stress.

While the Tribunal accepts that the tenant felt anxious, the burden rests with the tenant to prove both the existence of the harm and that it was caused by the landlord’s breach.

No medical evidence, psychological evidence, contemporaneous communications, or other supporting documentation has been provided to establish a clear causal link between the heating issue and the tenant’s anxiety or an increased level of it.

Furthermore, the Tribunal must consider whether the harm claimed was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach. Although discomfort from inadequate heating may be foreseeable, I find that the emotional distress of the nature claimed, without supporting evidence, is considered too remote.

On this basis, the Tribunal finds that causation has not been proven and the loss claimed is too remote to warrant compensation on this basis.

However, I accept that the tenant was renting a property that he expected would have a heat source in the form of a heat pump and would be warm. The tenant has not had this and so I accept that there has been some loss of amenity for which an award of compensation ought to be made.

The tenant was offered a heater on 21 July 2025, and this was rejected by him. The type of heater offered is disputed. I prefer the tenant’s evidence that the heater offered was not the type as suggested by the landlord and that it is more likely than not he was offered some kind of fan heater. This is because the tenant was there and he saw the heater. He described what he saw when the electrician came to the property with the heater in a box. He was clear that if he had been offered the heater the landlord was presenting as being available today then he would have accepted it. In contrast to this the landlord’s representative was not there at the time and is only relying on what she has been told (by who is not clear). There are no sufficient supporting documents or oral evidence to sufficiently prove what was offered by the landlord to the tenant as a temporary measure.

The tenant declined to take the heater offered by the landlord, stating it was unsafe for his young daughter and posed a fire risk. I do not accept the tenant’s submission that the heater was inherently dangerous or likely to cause a fire. While fan heaters are not designed as a primary or long-term heating solution, they are commonly used in residential settings and when used normally and properly do not pose excessive risk. Under section 49 RTA, a tenant has a duty to mitigate their loss. Accepting and using the portable heater as appropriate, even temporarily and from time to time, would have reduced the cold in the premises and lessened the impact of the landlord’s failure to repair the heat pump.

Although the landlord mentioned the tenant referring to additional power costs in his past discussions with the landlord the tenant provided no evidence on this topic and made no submissions either to me on incurring such costs or what alternate heating, if any at all, he used.

Overall, taking into account the weekly rent paid, the nature and size of the premises, the nature of the issue and the fact that some form of temporary heating (albeit limited) was offered in July, I award the tenant $220 as compensation for loss of amenity.

The tenant also seeks exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are only available for specific “unlawful acts” as defined in the RTA. Not every breach or delay by a landlord qualifies - only those breaches that are expressly designated as unlawful acts under the RTA may attract exemplary damages. A failure to maintain the premises is one such unlawful act (see s 45(1A) RTA). In this case, I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to meet their maintenance obligations.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.

In making an award of exemplary damages I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3) RTA.

First, I need to consider the intent of the landlord. In this instance I consider the landlord did not intentionally fail to maintain the premises so as to not provide a working heat pump.

I am persuaded by the evidence of the landlord about the reasons for the delay in having the heat pump fixed. Namely, that the heat pump was under warranty because the building is new and that the landlord was trying to get the heat pump repaired on this basis and this required a component replacement. As matters continued to be delayed the landlord then replaced the heat pump.

While there was inefficiency here, I am not satisfied that this sufficiently proves an intentional breach.

The Tribunal must distinguish between deliberate inaction and a genuine attempt to resolve the issue. The evidence does not support a finding that the landlord deliberately chose not to repair the heater or ignored the issue. Rather, the delay appears to have resulted from logistical circumstances surrounding the requirements of the warranty.

As I find there was no intent exemplary damages are not available to the tenant and this part of the application is dismissed. Work orders

As part of the original application the tenant sought a work order to fix the heat pump. I am satisfied that the heat pump has been replaced since the tenant made his application. Therefore, there is no basis upon which to make such a work order.

I am also not satisfied that the tenant has sufficiently established any issue with the new external unit cover on the basis that it does not match other apartments.

The tenant’s application for a work order in relation to the heat pump is therefore dismissed. Filing fee

The tenant has had some limited success so I award the filing fee. Suppression of identifying details

Neither party wanted name suppression so I have not awarded this.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5342043 — net $248.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$220.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$248.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$248.00