Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5349801 — Healthy homes at 27 Quinns Road, Shirley, Christchurch 8013
Decided 13 Aug 2026 · Published 13 Aug 2026 · Application 5349801
- Healthy homes
Order
- Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $1,435.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation $1,200.00 Compensation: Reimburse Healthy Homes report $207.00 Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total award $1,435.00
- All other claims are dismissed
Reasons
- Ms Hanham claims that the landlord has breached its repair and maintenance obligations under s45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). She also says that the premises do not comply with Healthy Homes Standards. She seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
- The premises are a 1950s semi-detached home. Ms Hanham’s tenancy started in November 2023. Some maintenance work was completed shortly before Ms Hanham moved in. The landlord provided photographs from November 2023 which show the premises in reasonable condition having regard to their age, character and locality. The photographs demonstrate that insulation was in place and secure.
- Ms Hanham now claims that 40 discrete repairs are required spanning every area of the property. The landlord accepted that 22 items of work would be done. On its face, those figures are concerning. However, they do not provide a full picture.
- While the landlord accepted work could be done to improve the premises, it does not accept that the premises are not in reasonable stated of repair. The landlord’s representative described the premises as “very liveable”. Many of the “defects” are the result of normal wear and tear in a property of this age. Further the landlord has been willing to attend to repairs since they were raised in September/October 2025. Background
- Ms Hanham’s evidence is that she notified the Landlord of rust on the toilet watermain and complained of spiders and mice shortly after she moved in, and the Landlord did nothing.
- The landlord’s evidence was that a range of minor work orders were issued, and attended to, at the tenant’s request from November 2023 to September 2024. It also says that pests were first reported well after the tenancy started; in October 2024 (spiders) and August 2025 (mice).
- Extensive maintenance issues were raised in September 2025 (almost 2 years after the tenancy started). On 24 September 2025 Ms Hanham issued a 14- day notice to repair. The issues raised included sagging or fallen sub-floor insulation, wood rot and borer in the kitchen, caulking required in the bathroom, wood rot and borer in a garden shed and exterior cladding, structural damage to the roof and load bearing walls, uneven floors, draughts and mould.
- The landlord’s representatives attended the property on 6 October to view Ms Hanham’s concerns. As work was requested to the bathroom flooring, they also sent a contractor to test for asbestos on 16 October 2026. 1 On 23 October 2025, the landlord provided Ms Hanham with a list of the work it intended to carry out. Ms Hanham’s considers that the scope was “limited to minor and cosmetic items – painting, caulking, re-securing the fire surround board and similar.” 1 This testing was appropriate having regard to the likely age of the flooring. There is no evidence of any risk from insitu flooring, but if the flooring had to be removed or disturbed, the contractors needed to know if asbestos was present.
- Ms Hanham did not accept that the scope of work adequately addressed her concerns and submitted this application on 24 October 2025, seeking 32 work orders, $100,000 compensation and exemplary damages.
- Ms Hanham also obtained a Healthy Homes inspection report on 21 November 2025 which identified that some top-up insulation and draught stopping was required. The landlord accepted the report, was prepared to carry out the work and raised a work order for it.
- However, Ms Hanham refused to allow work to be carried out unless and until a full scope was provided that addressed all of her concerns (even though the landlord did not accept all of her concerns). Her position is clearly set out in an email to the landlord sent on 16 January 2026 at 7:42pm.
- Counsel’s submission that “Ms Hanham offered access for trades from 15 January 2026” is at odds with her email, which makes it clear that any access is conditional on her agreement to the scope of work and contractors used. Significantly, it states: “Following further consideration, I wish to clearly note that I do not consent to any maintenance works being undertaken without first receiving a full, written scope of works, including details of what it proposed, by whom, and on what dates. My earlier indication that I would allow access was made under significant strss and the belief that I was legal required to do so.... I wish to be clear that I am not refusing maintenance. Rather, I am requesting that any works be: -Fully scoped in wiring in advance; and -Undertaken by an appropriately qualified and independent professional whom I can reasonably trust...”
- There was a Case Management Conference in respect of this application on 12 January 2026. As a result of discussions between Ms Hanham’s counsel and the landlord’s representatives, I adjourned the application to see whether the parties could reach agreement on any of the work to be done. I also noted: “While I understand Ms Hanham’s preference for all work to be carried out at once, the landlord may not necessarily accept that all of the work she has requested needs to be done. Ms Hanham would then have the onus of proving that the specific item of work is required. If there needs to be a hearing in relation to some of the work orders requested, I would not expect that to delay other work being completed (especially if the work is required to achieve compliance with Healthy Homes Standards).”
- By the date of hearing this application, Ms Hanham’s tenancy had terminated. Her claims were amended to seek: a. Compensation of $6,400 for loss of amenity b. General damages of $1,000 c. Reimbursement of Healthy Homes Report cost - $207 d. Exemplary Damages - $7,200 breach of s45(1)(b) repair and maintence obligations e. Exemplary Damages - $7,200 breach of s45(1)(bb) breach of Healthy Homes Standards. Repair & Maintenance Obligations
- Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to their age, character and locality. a reasonable timeframe after knowledge of the need for repair. A tenant must notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises and the need for repair.
- The standard is an objective one. The requirement is to maintain to a reasonable standard. A landlord is not required to maintain premises to an as new standard, or a condition free from wear and tear.
- The parties have provided a spreadsheet which sets out agreed and disputed repair items. The spreadsheet includes notes from the landlord’s contractors as to why they disagree with some items. Other than the Healthy Homes report, Ms Hanham has not provided any independent or objective evidence in relation to the alleged defects. She has provided an estimate of the cost of the repairs, prepared from the spreadsheet. That evidence is not particularly helpful to my assessment of the claim, except to the extent it demonstrates that the repair costs would be modest.
- The agreed items include re-securing and topping up insulation, draught stopping, applying sealant in the bathroom. Many of the other agreed items, are the issues Ms Hanham described as “limited to minor and cosmetic items – painting, caulking, re-securing the fire surround board and similar.” I agree with that assessment. I also note that the landlord had been willing and wanting to complete this work since October and November 2025.
- Ms Hanham says that the landlord has minimised her concerns, but the more significant items in her application were not accepted by the landlord and have not been proved by any objective or corroborative evidence. 2 Ms Hanham has the onus of proving her claims. In summary, experienced contractors engaged by the landlord have noted: a. Discolouration in the kitchen cabinets is consistent with surface staining (not water ingress into the property, as claimed). There is no definitive evidence of active water related damage. 2 See King & Yushkova v Greene [2021] NZDC 23637 b. There is no evidence of displacement of a firewall. Roof structure does not exhibit signs of abnormal sagging or bowing beyond what would reasonably be expected for a property of this age and type. c. The observed level of movement in the laundry wall and flooring is minor and consistent with what could reasonably be expected for a property of this age and construction, and in this location. d. No evidence of widespread or systemic rot of external cladding. Some isolated repairs were accepted. e. No evidence of active mould growth identified. Areas referenced by Ms Hanham are consistent with historic water staining and surface dirt, not mould. No conditions requiring mould remediation were identified. f. Heat Pump operated as expected during inspection, with no odour consistent with mildew identified.
- Having regard to the agreed scope of works, I find that modest repairs and maintence were required at the property including some re-securing and topping up insulation and draught stopping to comply with Healthy Homes Standards.
- The landlord’s obligation to repair arose in September 2025 when the issues were raised by the tenant. I have grappled with whether the landlord has breached its obligation in circumstances where it was willing and wanting to carry out repairs but was refused access unless it did everything the tenant requested or said was required. 3
- As Ms Hanham has not proved the more substantive defects complained of, I consider her refusal to allow access unless her conditions were met was unreasonable and unjustified. I consider that the landlord acted promptly and reasonably to assess and carryout the repairs required. When access was difficult, the landlord issued a notice under 56 RTA for breach of the tenant’s obligation to allow access. I also accept that it was reasonable for the landlord not to force entry in the context of this dispute.
- It would be disingenuous for Ms Hanham to claim that the landlord has breached its obligation to carry out in the agreed repairs, within a reasonable timeframe, in circumstances where she prevented those repairs from being done unless and until other, unproved, repairs were also completed.
- I find that the landlord has not breached its repair and maintenance obligations. If I am wrong on that, I find that Ms Hanham would not be entitled to compensation or exemplary damages for any breach because of the conditions she imposed on the landlord’s attempts to obtain access and carry out repairs. 3 Refer Ms Hanham’s email of 16 January 2026 at 7:42pm Further, any award of compensation would have been modest having regard to the nature of repairs agreed/proved.
- The claim for beach of the landlord’s repair and maintenance obligations is dismissed. Healthy Homes Standards
- Ms Hanham also claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
- The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. The premises must also meet minimum insulation standards.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
- The landlord carried out a Healthy Homes assessment in 2021. It also completed repairs shortly before the tenant moved in and provided the Tribunal with photographs relevant to Healthy Homes compliance from November 2023
- Ms Hanham obtained a Healthy Homes assessment report in November 2025 which identified that draughts topping was required, as well as re-securing a section of under floor insulation and topping up some ceiling insulation. The landlord accepted those findings and was prepared to carry out that work.
- A landlord is required to comply with Healthy Homes and insulation standards. This obligation is not contingent on the tenant notifying the landlord of the need for work to be done.
- I am satisfied that these premises were compliant in 2021 but were not by November 2025. However, it is not apparent when the insulation may have moved/settled, or gaps have appeared causing draughts. Ms Hanham maintains that the premises must have been non-compliant for her entire tenancy. I do not accept that. The photographs from November 2023 demonstrate compliance at that date. I consider it likely that Ms Hanham would have raised any issues with draughts earlier than September 2025, if they had been an issue before then.
- I find the landlord has breached its obligations under s45(1)(bb). I award compensation of $1,200. This is a global award encompassing loss of amenity and general damages but equates to a rent abatement of $40 (or 22%) per week for 30 weeks from November 2025.
- I considered reducing the amount, having regard to the Ms Hanham’s approach to access and repairs, but have determined that, as a global award, this amount is reasonable. I also award reimbursement of the Healthy Homes report cost of $207.00
- Breaching s45(1)(bb) RTA is an unlawful act.
- 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.
- Considering those factors, I have determined that an award of exemplary damages is not appropriate. There is no evidence to support a finding that the landlord’s failure was intentional. It has records demonstrating compliance at the start of the tenancy and was prepared to complete the work required. The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
- As Ms Hanham was partially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.