What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356514 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 5356514?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356514?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356514?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12902972-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356514 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 5356514?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356514?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356514?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12902972-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

119A Forest Lake Road, Forest Lake, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5356514 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356514 — net $328.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Providing incorrect information in the healthy homes statement	$300.00	Providing incorrect information in the healthy homes statement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$328.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$328.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356514 — net $328.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Providing incorrect information in the healthy homes statement	$300.00	Providing incorrect information in the healthy homes statement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$328.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$328.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent For Stillwell, Matthew & Grayson must pay [The tenant/s] $328.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
All other claims are dismissed

Reasons

On 30 September 2025 the tenant filed an application seeking: a. Work order to install an externally vented bathroom fan. b. Work order to complete draught stopping. c. Work order to treat and repair mould. Compensation and exemplary damages for: d. Breach of the Health Homes Standards (HHS) relating to heating. e. Breach of the HHS relating to ventilation. f. Breach of the HHS relating to draught stopping. g. Providing incorrect information about HHS compliance in the tenancy agreement. h. Reimbursement of the filing fee.
The hearing proceeded in person. The tenant appeared supported by her father [redacted]. Ms Robyn Masters, Company Director, and Ms Rebecca Harrison, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord.
At the commencement of the hearing the tenant withdrew her claims for: a. Work order to install an externally vented bathroom fan. b. Work order to complete draught stopping. c. Work order to treat mould; and d. Compensation and exemplary damages for breach of the HHS relating to draught stopping. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
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.
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.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, 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. Exemplary damages
The Tribunal must consider claims for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) 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. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Act.
Section 109 of the Act relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 28 February 2025 with the fixed term ending on 29 September 2025.
On 11 July 2025 the tenant signed a one-year fixed term renewal of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 10 October 2025.

Did the landlord provide misleading healthy homes information?

Section 13A(1CA) of the Act provides that landlords must include in the tenancy agreement a statement that on or after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the HHS as required by sections 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) and include information (if any) prescribed by section 138B(5) of the Act.
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages as she said the HHS information provided in the tenancy agreement states the property was compliant at the commencement of the tenancy when it was not.
The tenant said that when she viewed the property on 14 February 2025, she was told that a heat pump would be installed prior to her moving into the property. It was not. To be HHS compliant the property needed a 6.5kW qualifying heater installed in the lounge. The tenant said that she was provided with a 2kW portable heater. In addition, the tenant said there was no extractor fan in the kitchen. The tenant said she moved into the property because she believed it complied with the HHS.
At the hearing the landlord acknowledged the information contained in the tenancy agreement and attached certificate of compliance incorrectly stated the property complied with the HHS for heating. The landlord said the heat pump was removed prior to the commencement of the tenancy and the landlord arranged for a ducted 10kW heat pump to be installed in the property.
Section 13A(1CA) of the Act requires landlords to include an HHS in the tenancy agreement. There is no requirement on the landlord to prove compliance or provide HHS assessment reports. Landlords must simply state that either the premises comply at the start of the tenancy, or they will comply by the date of compliance (in this case,120 days from the start of the tenancy).
The Insulation and HHS statement in the tenancy agreement states: a. That on or after the start of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the HHS as required by the Act; and b. That the landlord already complies with the HHS standards as required by the Act. The tenancy agreement then references an attached statement – The Healthy Homes Certificate of Compliance prepared on 23 July 2020, which stated the property complies with the HHS regulations as they related to insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, heating and moisture.
In this case the Tribunal finds that there was inaccurate information contained in the tenancy agreement. The landlord acknowledged that at the time of viewing and commencement of the tenancy the property did not have a qualifying heater.
It is an unlawful act if the landlord’s HHS “includes anything that the landlord knows to be false or misleading” 1 and exemplary damages of up to $900.00 may be awarded.
In this case the Tribunal finds the landlord failed to exercise due diligence in completing the insulation and HHS statement in the tenancy agreement resulting in misleading information being recorded. The effect of that was that the tenant believed she and her children were living in an HHS compliant home. The tenant said that this was important to her as one of her children had an ongoing medical issue. There is a strong interest for tenants and the public generally to live in a healthy environment and to be provided with information about the health of their homes. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that it is appropriate to make an award for exemplary damages.
The usual approach of the Tribunal for exemplary damages is to award one-third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 2 Having heard from the parties and considering all factors the Tribunal awards $300.00 exemplary damages.
The Tribunal declines to make an award for general damages.

Did the landlord comply with the HHS for heating?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Act, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019. [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. 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 ii. 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. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. 1 Section 13A(1F)(b) of the Act 2 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781 b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The date of compliance for this tenancy was 28 June 2025.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the 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. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
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 tenant states that the landlord failed to provide a qualifying heater for the property between 28 February 2025 and 28 April 2025. The tenant said that a ducted heat pump was installed in the property on 29 April 2025, but the property was cold and damp and claimed the heating provided failed to keep the premises warm.
The landlord states that a 10kW ducted heat pump was installed in the property within the 120 days compliance date for new tenancies. The landlord said that the heat pump that was installed exceeded the requirements of the HHS and has sufficient capacity to heat the property.
The tenant seeks compensation for loss of amenity and the impact of the lack of heating had on her family. No evidence was provided in support of these claims. Ordinarily the Tribunal would have expected the tenant to provide, for example, electricity bills showing high use or medical evidence proving the lack of heating impacted on the families health.
In this case I have determined that the landlord has met their obligations under the Act. While the property was without a qualifying heater between 28 February and 28 April 2025, a ducted heat pump was installed within the specified 120 days required for compliance and the claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord comply with the HHS for ventilation?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Act, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019. The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. 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 ii. 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. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The date of compliance for this tenancy was 28 June 2025.
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.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
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 tenant states that the property did not comply with the HHS as there was no extractor fan in the kitchen at the commencement of the tenancy and it was not installed until 29 April 2025. The tenant claims that because of the properties poor ventilation, moisture built up, which caused mould to grow on the walls, ceiling, in the wardrobes, and on furniture and bedding. The tenant said that she reported the issue to her landlord on 18 July 2025 and 28 August 2025, but no remedial action was taken. The tenant said she was advised to clean the mould, which she did.
The tenant did not address the Tribunal on ventilation in the bathroom and confirmed that every room in the property had a window that could be opened.
The landlord denies the property failed to comply with the HHS for ventilation. The landlord notes that an externally vented kitchen extractor fan was installed within the 120 days compliance date for the tenancy. The landlord said that when they visited the property to inspect the mould issue, they discovered the windows were heavily condensed which suggests the tenant was not properly ventilating the property. The landlord said the tenant was given advice and education on this issue. The landlord believes the mould was caused by the tenant’s failure to properly ventilate the property and remove the condensation.
The Tribunal has previously held in Eves Realty Limited v Arjun Sharma, Ankita Sharma [2018] NZTT 4119318 that preventing mould is a dual obligation of the tenant and landlord. The tenant must live in a way that avoids mould developing by heating and ventilating the property and by wiping away condensation that arises from ordinary living. A landlord must provide a home that is not prone to mould, fix any issues creating mould, and provide the means to heat and ventilate the property.
In this case I have determined that the property has complied with the HHS for ventilation. There were opening windows and extractor fans. The HHS certificate of compliance states the property meets the HHS standard. While the Tribunal accepts the tenant’s evidence there was mould growing inside the property, the evidence provided also shows the windows were heavily condensed, suggesting the tenant has contributed to the mould issue. On that basis the claim is dismissed. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has been substantially successful and the Tribunal orders suppression of their name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356514 — Healthy homes at 119A Forest Lake Road, Forest Lake, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356514 — Healthy homes at 119A Forest Lake Road, Forest Lake, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord provide misleading healthy homes information?

Did the landlord comply with the HHS for heating?

Did the landlord comply with the HHS for ventilation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord provide misleading healthy homes information?

Did the landlord comply with the HHS for heating?

Did the landlord comply with the HHS for ventilation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions