What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5347283 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 5347283?

Compensation: Failure to maintain, e…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of power to the g…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5347283?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5347283?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12871423-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5347283 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 5347283?

Compensation: Failure to maintain, e…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of power to the g…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5347283?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5347283?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12871423-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5347283 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5347283 — net $3,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain, electrical safety issues	$1,000.00	Failure to maintain, electrical safety issues
Compensation: Loss of power to the garage	$200.00	Loss of power to the garage
Exemplary damages: Failure to meet healthy homes standards (ventilation	$1,800.00	Failure to meet healthy homes standards (ventilation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	65. On the same basis, I will award the tenant the filing fee.
Net award	$3,028.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,028.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

Mr Patel purchased the property on 27 January 2025, the same day that this tenancy began. The tenancy ended on 13 August 2025.
Northland Realty Ltd (Wendy Brown) acted as agent for Mr Patel at the beginning of the tenancy. During the tenancy, Mr Patel took over management himself.
The tenant’s application raises electrical issues, leaks / mould, and failure to meet the healthy homes standards.
The hearing took place in [Location suppressed] on 1 December 2025. [The tenant/s] and Ms Brown attended the hearing at the [Location suppressed] Court. Mr Patel attended by phone with the consent of the Tribunal. Electrical issues
[The tenant/s] raised issues relating to: a. Electrical safety; and b. Power supply to the garage. Electrical safety
[The tenant/s] said that the electrical fittings looked very old and there was sometimes a smoky smell when she used them.
She raised this issue with Ms Brown.
On 4 February, Ms Brown sent Mr Patel an email stating: Did you have an electrical report done before you bought the house? [The tenant/s] is concerned that some of the older style power points may not be fit for use.
The landlord arranged for a local electrician, [Business], to inspect the fittings and fusebox.
On 12 February Ms Brown sent Mr Patel an email stating: The electrician attended [Tenancy address suppressed] this morning. He tried to call you but was unable to connect. While it has had some work done at this stage the fusebox contains very old rubber cabling and is missing an earth peg. So he was unable to go any further. This is a major fire hazard. [...] I suggest you call the office manager at [Business]
Mr Patel said that after receiving this email he attempted to contact the manager of [Business], without success. He said that he then contacted another local electrician ([Electrician]).
[Electrician] arranged to go to the property on 1 March and carry out the necessary electrical work. Then, on the morning of that appointment, an urgent matter came up and he was unable to attend.
On 27 February, [Business] issued a “Defective Work Notice”. The notice states: During a requested visual check and test at the above property, for electrical safety and to quote replacement of non-working power outlets, we have identified old rubber-insulated (VIR) wiring that is in a dangerous condition. The wiring is brittle, cracked, and deteriorating, posing a significant risk of electrical shock, short circuit, or fire. This type of wiring is no longer compliant with AS/NZ 3000 (Wiring Rules) and must be addressed urgently
The notice identified the risk level as “potential future failure”.
After [Electrician] could not proceed on 1 March, Mr Patel said that he went back to [Business], who carried out the necessary work on 13 March.
Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair 1 and comply with all requirements in respect of buildings health and safety under any enactment. 2
Mr Patel said that he responded to this issue promptly.
I acknowledge that Mr Patel was let down somewhat by his electrician [Electrician]. [Electrician] was unable to make an appointment until 1 March, and then did not keep that appointment.
However this meant that there was a delay of more than a month from Ms Brown’s email to Mr Patel letting him know that [Business] found serious faults that posed a fire hazard at the property, until the faults were remedied. Some of the initial concerns proved to be unfounded (for instance, [Business] was able to locate the earth peg on its second visit), but the problems were certainly in the category of ‘serious’ given that they potentially posed a threat to the tenant’s health and safety, and a delay of more than a month is, in my view, not acceptable.
My finding is that the landlord did not meet his maintenance duty in respect of addressing the electrical safety issues. The tenant was required to occupy a house that had unsafe wiring, putting herself and her family in danger. I will not make an award of exemplary damages – I accept that the landlord did take steps to address the problem and (as noted above) was let down by the electrician that he chose – but I will award compensation by way of a retrospective rent reduction for that period.
I will award $1,000.00, which represents approximately one third of the rent for that period. 1 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 2 Section 45(1)(c) RTA Power to garage
[The tenant/s] said that there was power supply to the garage at the start of the tenancy. She kept her dryer and her treadmill in there.
When [Business] carried out work in March they had to isolate the power to the garage because it was unsafe. There was no power supply to the garage for the balance of the tenancy.
Mr Patel’s somewhat strange response to the tenant’s argument was that he did not notice any power supply to the garage when he viewed the property in October 2024 before deciding to purchase it.
It’s unclear whether Mr Patel is suggesting that there was no power supply to the garage when [The tenant/s]’s tenancy began in late January 2025. If he is suggesting that, I do not find it persuasive. [The tenant/s] did not connect power to the garage after she moved in. It was already there.
A garage with power supply to it was therefore part of the amenity that [The tenant/s] agreed to rent. She was deprived of that particular amenity from March 2025 until the end of the tenancy.
I agree that the tenant is entitled to compensation for that loss of amenity. I will award compensation of $10/week for the approximately 20 weeks that the tenant was without power to the garage. Leaks, mould, gutters
In early April [The tenant/s] discovered a leak through the ceiling in a bedroom. She notified Ms Brown who informed Mr Patel.
Mr Patel arranged for a contractor called [Contractor] to come to the site.
[The tenant/s] and Mr Patel gave different evidence about [Contractor]’s attendance.
[The tenant/s] said that the contractor came to site but immediately left and did not do any repairs. She said that she has subsequently contacted [Contractor], who said that: a. They were told to go to the property and paint the roof. b. When they got there, they saw that the roof was in a poor state and they were not willing to simply paint over it.
Mr Patel said that [Contractor] reported back to him that they had inspected the roof and thought that the problem was just that the guttering had not been able to handle a particularly heavy downpour, and that there was nothing that Mr Patel could do.
This conflicting evidence is puzzling, but what is clear is that there were no repairs carried out by [Contractor] in April.
On 24 July the tenant issued a 14-day breach notice raising a number of issues, including mould.
It appears that the only evidence of mould at the property is where part of the recently painted ceiling has flaked off, exposing a patch of what appears to be mould-damaged ceiling underneath. This raises the possibility that there was existing mould damage in the property that was simply painted over, but Mr Patel had no knowledge of this when he purchased the property.
Mr Patel engaged a roofing company in August, who carried out some repairs of minor holes.
There is some damage in the ceiling space from a previous fire, but no evidence that this has caused any structural problems.
[The tenant/s] said that the gutters were damaged and ineffective – they would overflow, and one downpipe discharged directly onto the ground.
Mr Patel said that this issue was never raised during the tenancy.
I accept that [The tenant/s] experienced a leak in April. Mr Patel engaged a contractor then. No repair work was done, for reasons that are unclear, but the concern about leaks was not raised again, so Mr Patel reasonably understood that the issue was resolved. Mr Patel engaged a contractor again in August.
I am satisfied that Mr Patel took reasonable steps to address the issue in a timely manner, and that he met his maintenance obligations in respect of this issue. Healthy homes standards
Landlords must meet the healthy homes standards. 3
The healthy homes compliance date for this tenancy was 27 May 2025. 4
The standards require mechanical ventilation in the kitchen and bathroom. Ventilation wasn’t installed in this property until near the end of the tenancy.
The landlord did not meet the healthy homes standards.
A breach of this duty is an unlawful act, and exemplary damages of up to $7200 can apply. 3 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA 4 120 days from the start of the tenancy.
Mr Patel said that he arranged for HRV to be fitted in the property before the start of the tenancy but he was unable to obtain access. He then said that he was unable to get tradespeople in [Location suppressed] to do the work.
I acknowledge the difficulties of getting tradespeople in the [Location suppressed]. However, the law is clear. Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards. Failure to do so is an unlawful act.
In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to: 5 a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In this instance, Mr Patel attempted to meet the standards but unfortunately did not achieve this by the compliance date. [The tenant/s] experienced problems with leaks and dampness in the property which would not have been helped by the lack of mechanical ventilation in the bathroom and kitchen. There is a strong and legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords comply with the healthy homes standards.
Having regard to those factors I will award exemplary damages of $1,800.00.
[The tenant/s] said that the house was draughty due to gaps around windows and doors.
One of the healthy homes standards is that that the property must not have unreasonable gaps that allow draughts.
Mr Patel said that he obtained a healthy homes report (no copy was provided to the Tribunal) which identified that the door needed some draught stopping, which he did. He said that the tenant did not raise any issues with draughts during the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] provided two photographs showing windows with visible gaps that could allow draughts.
The property has older style wooden joinery.
Because of the limited evidence and the fact that this was not brought to the landlord’s attention during the tenancy I will not make a finding that the landlord failed to meet the healthy homes standard in respect of draught stopping. However I will encourage Mr Patel to investigate this further and to have work done if necessary on the windows where there appear to be gaps. 5 Section 109 RTA Plumbing
[The tenant/s] said that the water pressure in the shower was poor and the pipes ‘banged’.
A plumber came to the property in February, but it seems that the only issue that Mr Patel was aware of at that time was a leak under the kitchen sink and a possible leak around the hot water cylinder.
A plumber came back to the property in June and carried out some work relating to the header tank. [The tenant/s] said that this briefly improved the low pressure and noisy pipes, but they returned soon after.
Mr Patel said that he was not even aware that a plumber had been to the property in June, and Ms Brown was unable to explain any of the context for this attendance.
Mr Patel said that he was not told of the water pressure / knocking problem until after the tenancy. The issue is not mentioned in the breach notice dated 24 July 2025.
It is not proven that Mr Patel was informed about this problem during the tenancy. Therefore there is no reasonable basis to find that he failed to address it promptly. Filing fee, name suppression
The tenant sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted on the grounds that the tenant was substantially successful in the proceedings. 6
On the same basis, I will award the tenant the filing fee. 7

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5347283 — net $3,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain, electrical safety issues	$1,000.00	Failure to maintain, electrical safety issues
Compensation: Loss of power to the garage	$200.00	Loss of power to the garage
Exemplary damages: Failure to meet healthy homes standards (ventilation	$1,800.00	Failure to meet healthy homes standards (ventilation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	65. On the same basis, I will award the tenant the filing fee.
Net award	$3,028.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,028.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

Mr Patel purchased the property on 27 January 2025, the same day that this tenancy began. The tenancy ended on 13 August 2025.
Northland Realty Ltd (Wendy Brown) acted as agent for Mr Patel at the beginning of the tenancy. During the tenancy, Mr Patel took over management himself.
The tenant’s application raises electrical issues, leaks / mould, and failure to meet the healthy homes standards.
The hearing took place in [Location suppressed] on 1 December 2025. [The tenant/s] and Ms Brown attended the hearing at the [Location suppressed] Court. Mr Patel attended by phone with the consent of the Tribunal. Electrical issues
[The tenant/s] raised issues relating to: a. Electrical safety; and b. Power supply to the garage. Electrical safety
[The tenant/s] said that the electrical fittings looked very old and there was sometimes a smoky smell when she used them.
She raised this issue with Ms Brown.
On 4 February, Ms Brown sent Mr Patel an email stating: Did you have an electrical report done before you bought the house? [The tenant/s] is concerned that some of the older style power points may not be fit for use.
The landlord arranged for a local electrician, [Business], to inspect the fittings and fusebox.
On 12 February Ms Brown sent Mr Patel an email stating: The electrician attended [Tenancy address suppressed] this morning. He tried to call you but was unable to connect. While it has had some work done at this stage the fusebox contains very old rubber cabling and is missing an earth peg. So he was unable to go any further. This is a major fire hazard. [...] I suggest you call the office manager at [Business]
Mr Patel said that after receiving this email he attempted to contact the manager of [Business], without success. He said that he then contacted another local electrician ([Electrician]).
[Electrician] arranged to go to the property on 1 March and carry out the necessary electrical work. Then, on the morning of that appointment, an urgent matter came up and he was unable to attend.
On 27 February, [Business] issued a “Defective Work Notice”. The notice states: During a requested visual check and test at the above property, for electrical safety and to quote replacement of non-working power outlets, we have identified old rubber-insulated (VIR) wiring that is in a dangerous condition. The wiring is brittle, cracked, and deteriorating, posing a significant risk of electrical shock, short circuit, or fire. This type of wiring is no longer compliant with AS/NZ 3000 (Wiring Rules) and must be addressed urgently
The notice identified the risk level as “potential future failure”.
After [Electrician] could not proceed on 1 March, Mr Patel said that he went back to [Business], who carried out the necessary work on 13 March.
Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair 1 and comply with all requirements in respect of buildings health and safety under any enactment. 2
Mr Patel said that he responded to this issue promptly.
I acknowledge that Mr Patel was let down somewhat by his electrician [Electrician]. [Electrician] was unable to make an appointment until 1 March, and then did not keep that appointment.
However this meant that there was a delay of more than a month from Ms Brown’s email to Mr Patel letting him know that [Business] found serious faults that posed a fire hazard at the property, until the faults were remedied. Some of the initial concerns proved to be unfounded (for instance, [Business] was able to locate the earth peg on its second visit), but the problems were certainly in the category of ‘serious’ given that they potentially posed a threat to the tenant’s health and safety, and a delay of more than a month is, in my view, not acceptable.
My finding is that the landlord did not meet his maintenance duty in respect of addressing the electrical safety issues. The tenant was required to occupy a house that had unsafe wiring, putting herself and her family in danger. I will not make an award of exemplary damages – I accept that the landlord did take steps to address the problem and (as noted above) was let down by the electrician that he chose – but I will award compensation by way of a retrospective rent reduction for that period.
I will award $1,000.00, which represents approximately one third of the rent for that period. 1 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 2 Section 45(1)(c) RTA Power to garage
[The tenant/s] said that there was power supply to the garage at the start of the tenancy. She kept her dryer and her treadmill in there.
When [Business] carried out work in March they had to isolate the power to the garage because it was unsafe. There was no power supply to the garage for the balance of the tenancy.
Mr Patel’s somewhat strange response to the tenant’s argument was that he did not notice any power supply to the garage when he viewed the property in October 2024 before deciding to purchase it.
It’s unclear whether Mr Patel is suggesting that there was no power supply to the garage when [The tenant/s]’s tenancy began in late January 2025. If he is suggesting that, I do not find it persuasive. [The tenant/s] did not connect power to the garage after she moved in. It was already there.
A garage with power supply to it was therefore part of the amenity that [The tenant/s] agreed to rent. She was deprived of that particular amenity from March 2025 until the end of the tenancy.
I agree that the tenant is entitled to compensation for that loss of amenity. I will award compensation of $10/week for the approximately 20 weeks that the tenant was without power to the garage. Leaks, mould, gutters
In early April [The tenant/s] discovered a leak through the ceiling in a bedroom. She notified Ms Brown who informed Mr Patel.
Mr Patel arranged for a contractor called [Contractor] to come to the site.
[The tenant/s] and Mr Patel gave different evidence about [Contractor]’s attendance.
[The tenant/s] said that the contractor came to site but immediately left and did not do any repairs. She said that she has subsequently contacted [Contractor], who said that: a. They were told to go to the property and paint the roof. b. When they got there, they saw that the roof was in a poor state and they were not willing to simply paint over it.
Mr Patel said that [Contractor] reported back to him that they had inspected the roof and thought that the problem was just that the guttering had not been able to handle a particularly heavy downpour, and that there was nothing that Mr Patel could do.
This conflicting evidence is puzzling, but what is clear is that there were no repairs carried out by [Contractor] in April.
On 24 July the tenant issued a 14-day breach notice raising a number of issues, including mould.
It appears that the only evidence of mould at the property is where part of the recently painted ceiling has flaked off, exposing a patch of what appears to be mould-damaged ceiling underneath. This raises the possibility that there was existing mould damage in the property that was simply painted over, but Mr Patel had no knowledge of this when he purchased the property.
Mr Patel engaged a roofing company in August, who carried out some repairs of minor holes.
There is some damage in the ceiling space from a previous fire, but no evidence that this has caused any structural problems.
[The tenant/s] said that the gutters were damaged and ineffective – they would overflow, and one downpipe discharged directly onto the ground.
Mr Patel said that this issue was never raised during the tenancy.
I accept that [The tenant/s] experienced a leak in April. Mr Patel engaged a contractor then. No repair work was done, for reasons that are unclear, but the concern about leaks was not raised again, so Mr Patel reasonably understood that the issue was resolved. Mr Patel engaged a contractor again in August.
I am satisfied that Mr Patel took reasonable steps to address the issue in a timely manner, and that he met his maintenance obligations in respect of this issue. Healthy homes standards
Landlords must meet the healthy homes standards. 3
The healthy homes compliance date for this tenancy was 27 May 2025. 4
The standards require mechanical ventilation in the kitchen and bathroom. Ventilation wasn’t installed in this property until near the end of the tenancy.
The landlord did not meet the healthy homes standards.
A breach of this duty is an unlawful act, and exemplary damages of up to $7200 can apply. 3 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA 4 120 days from the start of the tenancy.
Mr Patel said that he arranged for HRV to be fitted in the property before the start of the tenancy but he was unable to obtain access. He then said that he was unable to get tradespeople in [Location suppressed] to do the work.
I acknowledge the difficulties of getting tradespeople in the [Location suppressed]. However, the law is clear. Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards. Failure to do so is an unlawful act.
In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to: 5 a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In this instance, Mr Patel attempted to meet the standards but unfortunately did not achieve this by the compliance date. [The tenant/s] experienced problems with leaks and dampness in the property which would not have been helped by the lack of mechanical ventilation in the bathroom and kitchen. There is a strong and legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords comply with the healthy homes standards.
Having regard to those factors I will award exemplary damages of $1,800.00.
[The tenant/s] said that the house was draughty due to gaps around windows and doors.
One of the healthy homes standards is that that the property must not have unreasonable gaps that allow draughts.
Mr Patel said that he obtained a healthy homes report (no copy was provided to the Tribunal) which identified that the door needed some draught stopping, which he did. He said that the tenant did not raise any issues with draughts during the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] provided two photographs showing windows with visible gaps that could allow draughts.
The property has older style wooden joinery.
Because of the limited evidence and the fact that this was not brought to the landlord’s attention during the tenancy I will not make a finding that the landlord failed to meet the healthy homes standard in respect of draught stopping. However I will encourage Mr Patel to investigate this further and to have work done if necessary on the windows where there appear to be gaps. 5 Section 109 RTA Plumbing
[The tenant/s] said that the water pressure in the shower was poor and the pipes ‘banged’.
A plumber came to the property in February, but it seems that the only issue that Mr Patel was aware of at that time was a leak under the kitchen sink and a possible leak around the hot water cylinder.
A plumber came back to the property in June and carried out some work relating to the header tank. [The tenant/s] said that this briefly improved the low pressure and noisy pipes, but they returned soon after.
Mr Patel said that he was not even aware that a plumber had been to the property in June, and Ms Brown was unable to explain any of the context for this attendance.
Mr Patel said that he was not told of the water pressure / knocking problem until after the tenancy. The issue is not mentioned in the breach notice dated 24 July 2025.
It is not proven that Mr Patel was informed about this problem during the tenancy. Therefore there is no reasonable basis to find that he failed to address it promptly. Filing fee, name suppression
The tenant sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted on the grounds that the tenant was substantially successful in the proceedings. 6
On the same basis, I will award the tenant the filing fee. 7

Tenancy Tribunal case 5347283 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5347283 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions