What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5346896 about?

The tribunal order states: Oakheart Properties Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5346896?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5346896?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5346896?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12849295-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5346896 about?

The tribunal order states: Oakheart Properties Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5346896?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5346896?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5346896?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12849295-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Cavalry Close, Crofton Downs, Wellington 6035 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5346896 — Mould & damp

Order

Oakheart Properties Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management must pay [The party] and [The party] $428.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionTenant Compensation$400.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$428.00

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenants against the landlord. The dispute centres on whether a faulty heat pump at the start of the tenancy, was a breach of the landlord’s Healthy Homes Standards obligations.
Both parties appeared at the hearing in Wellington today.

BACKGROUND

The background in this case is not in dispute, and can be summarised as follows: a. The tenants rented the premises, with the tenancy commencing on 6 September 2025. b. Shortly after taking possession of the premises on 9 September 2025, the tenants found that the heat pump was not working. It turned on, but would not emit warm air. c. Also on 9 September 2025 the tenants notified the Property Manager. d. The landlord arranged for an electrician to attend on 12 September 2025. The unit could not be repaired, so the advice was to replace it. e. On the 18 th and 19 th of September 2025, quotes were received for replacing the unit. f. On 19 September 2025, one of the quotes was accepted. g. Scaffolding was erected on 20 September, that was required to replace the unit. h. A replacement heat pump was installed on 24 September.

TENANTS CASE

At the hearing, the tenants confirmed they are seeking recognition that the landlord has breached its Healthy Homes Standards obligations around the heat pump, and seek a financial award for that.
The tenants state that after they took possession of the premises, they found the heat pump was not working. While the pump would turn on, no warm air would come from the unit. Later the unit stopped working altogether. This was raised with the Property Manager who advised they were not aware that it was faulty.
After this, the Property Manager engaged an electrician, who identified a range of problems with the heat pump, and could not get it working.
Ultimately the unit was replaced, but the tenants could not agree with the landlord about whether there has been a breach in this case.
In response to the landlords position that this is a maintenance issue, the tenants submit that maintenance would be something that breaks which then needs fixing, the unit should have worked when they took the premises over the premises.
The tenants say that the landlords response was that given they had not yet moved in, this was not really an issue for them. The tenants were dissatisfied with that, because they were paying rent, the heat pump should have been working.
The tenants say that it took about 18 days to get the heat pump installed.
The tenants noted that this was around the time of a cold snap.

LANDLORDS CASE

In response, the landlord agrees that the keys were handed to the tenants on 9 September 2025.
The landlord agrees that the heat pump is needed for the Healthy Homes Standards. The Property Manager advised that prior to the commencement of the tenancy, they did check the heat pump and found it turned on, so they assumed it was operational (they did not check if hot air came from the unit).
Otherwise the landlord set out the timeline (which I have recorded in the background above).
The landlord disputes that the HHS obligations have been breached; rather, submit this is a case where the heat pump has failed, which becomes a maintenance issue, not an HHS breach issue.

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 party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. 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.

ANALYSIS

As I have indicated above, there is really no dispute over the factual background. The parties are in agreement that when the tenants took possession of the premises, the heat pump that was installed, was not working. It sounds as if the heat pump was at the end of its life. In any event, the date the tenants found out about the issue, it was raised with the landlord, who had an electrician attend, and when the unit could not be fixed, it was replaced.
The question is, whether the landlord has breached its Healthy Homes Standards obligations, or whether this is simply a maintenance issue.
Section 45 of the RTA sets out the landlord’s responsibilities, and that includes a requirement that the landlord “comply with the healthy homes standards”.
The Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) are set out in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. The HHS sets out a range of requirements that residential tenancies must have, in relation to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage.
As far as the heating standard is concerned, there are various ways that the standard can be met, which includes by having a heat pump with a suitable heating capacity. There is no dispute that the heat pump that was installed would meet that criterion, if it were not for the fact that it was faulty.
The HHS is silent as to what would occur in this situation, that is where there was installed in the Tenancy an item necessary to comply with the HHS, but which was faulty at the moment the tenant took possession of the premises.
I am inclined to consider that the approach taken by the landlord is correct, which is that this is a maintenance issue. If this were a situation where the landlord knew that the heat pump was not working, I would view that differently. However, in the facts of this case, the evidence is that the landlord undertook pre-tenancy checks, which included turning on the heat pump, and when the unit went on, assumed it was functional. That was a reasonable assumption to have made. In short, there is no evidence before me that would support a conclusion that the landlord rented this property, knowing that the heat pump was faulty.
I am further minded that the evidence shows the landlord acted promptly, and correctly when the tenants raised the issue with them. The landlord had an electrician attend to try and get the heat pump working, but when that was not successful, the landlord efficiently obtained quotes, and had the unit replaced. That also supports a conclusion at the landlord has acted responsibly, as opposed to avoiding it’s HHS obligations.
The primary remedy for a breach of the HHS, would be an order of exemplary damages. As I explained to the parties that the hearing today, exemplary damages are an award of money that the Tribunal makes to punish a wrongdoer. The RTA sets out a range of requirements that must be met in order to award exemplary damages in section 109, and that includes that I must be satisfied that the breach was intentionally committed, and secondly it must be just to make an order.
In this case, the evidence strongly supports that the breach was not intentional. As I have indicated above, the landlord checked the heat pump turned on, and I accept they genuinely believed that it was operational. It cannot therefore be that the breach was intentionally committed.
Even if that was not the case, I would also find that it would not be just to make an order, because I consider the landlord has acted responsibly here.
For those reasons, I am not persuaded that the landlord has breached its HHS obligation to the tenants. While I decline to order exemplary damages, I consider it would be reasonable to order compensation. Compensation is an amount of money paid, to make good a loss the person has incurred. In this case, the tenants have been paying rent of $1,100 per week, and it can be accepted that rent was paid for premises that delivered the benefits that the healthy home standards require, including heating. In short, the tenants were not getting what they were paying rent to receive, and it is fair to compensate them for that.
The difficulty in these types of cases is invariably working out what the correct level of compensation would be. It is very difficult to quantify such losses such as the absence of a working heat pump; the best the Tribunal can do, is to step back and consider what would be a fair level of compensation in the circumstances. Taking into consideration the period until the heat pump was replaced, I consider that an order of $400 compensation would be reasonable, and that is ordered.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been partly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5346896 — Mould & damp at 15 Cavalry Close, Crofton Downs, Wellington 6035

Tenancy Tribunal case 5346896 — Mould & damp at 15 Cavalry Close, Crofton Downs, Wellington 6035

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CASE

LANDLORDS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

Property management

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CASE

LANDLORDS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

Property management