What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5357361 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5357361?

Compensation: $1,207.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $2,652.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5357361?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5357361?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12873446-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5357361 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5357361?

Compensation: $1,207.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $2,652.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5357361?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5357361?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12873446-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5357361 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5357361. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for HHS breaches	$1,207.00	Compensation for HHS breaches
Compensation for FTM	$2,652.00	Compensation for FTM
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5357361. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for HHS breaches	$1,207.00	Compensation for HHS breaches
Compensation for FTM	$2,652.00	Compensation for FTM
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent for Hong Lui must pay [the tenants] $3,887.00 immediately. DescriptionTenant Compensation for HHS breaches$1,207.00 Compensation for FTM$2,652.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$3,887.00

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing in person.
Kun Lu, Skye Zhang, and Tim Pang attended the hearing for the landlord. Background
The tenancy began on 22 June 2019 and is ongoing. The tenancy has been settled. The tenants have taken good care of the premises, and they have had the same property manager from Barfoots throughout.
However, the tenants have concerns that over the years the property manager has not ensured that the premises complied with the Healthy Homes Standard and had not addressed maintenance issues at the premises in a timely way . They say: The property has had non compliant heating, this has been raised with the agent for past 5-6yrs. Non compliant venting in bathrooms, both venting into the ceiling space causing mould and smells. Non compliant draft stopping. Also the home has had a broken kitchen sink for the full term of our tenancy. These items have now been fixed, 3 months past the deadline date for Healthy Homes compliancy. It took another property manager to visit for us to get a response about these matters. Our property manager has never responded in a timely manner, often not responding at all to our needs for maintenance including the lack of suitable heating. I even offered to install a heat-pump at my own expense, I just needed permission, but had no response
The main issues for determination are: 1 a. Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards (HHS). 2 b. Did the landlord failing to maintain the premises to a reasonable state of repair. 3 1 After discussion, the tenants did not proceed with an omitting necessary information from the tenancy agreement claim. The landlord had provided the information but had not signed and dated the statement. 2 RTA s 45(1)(bb), Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. 3 RTA, s 45(1)(b).

Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS?

The tenants claim that the landlord breached their obligations under s 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019. by failing to meet the standards for heating and ventilation. Legal principles
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For private rentals, the compliance dates are: a. 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 b. 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. c.All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The tenants moved into the premises on about 22 June 2019 under a one-year fixed term due to end on 21 June 2020. The tenancy was renewed on about 22 June 2020 as another one-year fixed term and has continued as a periodic tenancy since 21 June 2021.
The commencement date of the tenancy was 21 June 2020. Consequently, the date for compliance with the HHS was 1 July 2025. Heating
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.
In this case, the premises had a gas flued combustion heater without a closing door to contain the gas fire. The landlord’s Healthy Homes Assessment dated 5 June 2020 assessed this heater as complying with the HHS.
The tenant, who has his own building assessment business and regularly undertakes HHS assessments and pre-purchase inspection reports, emailed the landlord on 27 September 2023 that the gas heater: ...is not efficient and hugely expensive to run...(I don’t think this heat source is compliant with NZHH and I certainly would not pass it on any NZHH report I might do)
Under reg 9 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 “unacceptable heaters” include: a. An open fire; and b. An unflued combustion heater.
I am not satisfied that the gas heater was either an “open fire” or an “unflued combustion heater”. An “open fire” is in the nature of a fireplace, which this gas heater was not. Nor was the gas heater unflued.
At the hearing I had understood the gas heater was uncompliant, but on reflection after reading the regulations more closely I am not satisfied that it was uncompliant with the standards.
Therefore, I do not find it proved that the landlord breached its HHS duty in respect to the heater. Ventilation
Under the regulations “extractor fan” means an extractor fan that vents extracted air to the outdoors.
The landlord’s 5 June 2020 HHS report found the premises bathroom fans complied with HHS regs. However, the tenant identified that the working fans were not extracting to the outdoors and one was not working at all.
The landlord’s electrician attended the premises in May and on about 3 July 2025 to ensure HHS compliance. However on 29 July 2025, the tenants emailed the tenant: The extraction fan in the ensuite has no draw, it has a new motor but this is unable to draw air as it is installed into the old system that has a reduction in the pipe size and the old fan is blocking the system. Lots of mold is coming up everywhere. The extraction fan in the main bathroom does not vent to the outside of the building, it is venting to a tr[a]y in the ceiling space. Both fans have been venting into the ceiling. Please can we get these items sorted without any fuss or delay as these should have been taken care of already, the deadline for this passed 30 days ago.
After Mz Zhang became involved, the landlord employed another contractor to investigate and fix the extractor fan issues, which was completed on about 5 October 2024.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the extractor fans did not comply with the ventilation standard until 5 October 2025. Remedy
For the non-compliant ventilation, I assess the tenants’ loss of amenity at 10 per cent. It is appropriate to order the landlord to compensate the tenants at the rate of 10 per cent of the weekly rent from 2 July to 4 October 2025.
The period of non-compliance is 13 weeks 4 days, which is 95 days. The total amount ordered is $1,207.86
The Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that the landlord’s breach is intentional. In this case, the property instructed a trusted electrician to ensure the fans were operating correctly prior to the 1 July 2025 compliance date.
The electrician advised the property manager that the fans were fully compliant and retains that view: 4 I checked that both fans are vented outside...The master bedroom stopped working, so we put in a new inline fan and vented that outside too. I also checked the common bathroom fan, and that’s vented outside with the white ducting and it’s working fine.
It took the property manager more than 60 days to have the extractor fan issues remedied. She relied on the earlier 5 June 2020 HHS assessment and the qualified and trusted contractor she had commissioned to ensure compliance.
The extractor fan arrangement was complicated by the fact that each bathroom had two fans: a principal extractor fan and a secondary “steam” extractor fan, which was part of a combined light/fan unit. The secondary fans were vented to the outside, but the principal fans were not. It is likely, the 2020 HHS assessor failed to identify this arrangement. In addition to that when replacing the faulty extractor fan, the electrician used a funnelled pipe with a diameter that reduced to 80mm rather than the required 4 Email to the property manager dated 1 November 2025. 120mm and the vent piping was shared with piping that served an obsolete fan, which reduced the new fan’s drawing power.
The usual property manager relied on the electrician to carry out the necessary work and their advice. It was only later when Ms Zhang (who attended court) who stepped in for the other property manager when she was on leave, that Barfoots commissioned the further work required the tenant identified. Ms Zhang brought “fresh eyes” to the issue and a fresh approach. The original property manager appears to have honestly believed that further work was not required based on the electrician’s advice. In these circumstances I am not satisfied that the property manager as agent for the landlord intentionally failed to comply with the HHS for ventilation.
Therefore, exemplary damages are not available.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

The tenants claim the landlord did not adequately maintain the kitchen sink, sunshades, shower drain, large trees, and the garage door. Legal principles
Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1969 (RTA), landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) ... (b) 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...
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 5 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: 6 “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what 5 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. 6 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be...”
Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repair. 7 However, Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 8 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation... Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 9 Discussion
The premises’ kitchen sink sits below the stone benchtop rather than having a lip that sits above it. About two weeks after moving in, the glue juncture failed, and the sink dropped. The tenant propped the sink up making it serviceable, but the tenants have had to be cautious using the sink so that the sink did not fall again, and water did not leak into the cabinetry below.
The tenants also experienced foul odours emanating from the ensuite shower.
The tenants say they told the property manager about the problems verbally. It is difficult to reliably assess that evidence especially given the events arose more than six years ago. However, the tenants produced an email dated 22 November 2021 stating in part: There is a small list of items that need some general maintenance below, none of these are big things and all can be easily done by a suitably qualified person, however there is a cost involved. If the owner is accepting of the cost, I am happy to manage these items through my business "FREE" as property project management is one of the things I do, and I have good trade contacts. We are home owners ourselves, and as such would think we are good tenants. We would like help with these items to help use to maintain the property to a high standard. Your assistance is most appreciated. # Repair & service external sun shades. # Repair kitchen sink. # Install a smell trap to ensuite drain. 7 RTA, s 40(1)(d). 8 See n 5. 9 RTA s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A. # Trim, remove or maintain trees.
The tenants say that the landlord did not attend to those matters, so about nine months later, on 1 September 2022, the tenants served the landlord with a 14-day notice for the same things: I am writing to let you know that you are in breach of your responsibilities as a landlord by: *Not carrying out due maintenance and repairs in a timely manner. Please remedy this by doing the following: 1/ Repair kitchen sink, ( allowing water to flow past and causing mould around the dish tray) Notified Nov/20 2/ Repair window sunshades (Broken and at risk of damaging the house or falling) Notified Jan/21 3/ Shower drains emitting sewer smell (No smell trap in place? Sewer line needs flushing as suggested by plumber) Notified Jan/21 4/ Big tree maintenance at front of yard and driveway (This is a safety hazard that has damaged cars, struck the house and could strike a pedestrian) Notified Jan/21
The property manager issued a work order to its contractor, Pan Homes Limited, for the sink, sunshades, and shower drain odours the next day.
The kitchen sink was later repaired by a plumber, Castle Plumbing, who the tenant recommended. That work was completed on about 9 September 2022. The contractor remounted the kitchen sink (giving the landlord a five-year warranty) and cleaned the drain to “resolve smells in the shower”.
The sunshades were not fixed. However on 16 September 2022, the property manager accepted the tenant’s recommended contractor, Cool Awnings, with a 6-8 week lead time for the work. Presumably, therefore, the sunshades would have been attended to by about 16 November 2022.
In their email of 16 November 2022, the tenant noted that the maintenance of the “big trees in my letter dated 1/9/22 has not been addressed. I will leave this at your discretion; however I have raised this as a safety issue and the responsibility for any future damages or injury will be that of the homeowner”.
On 27 September 2023, the tenant emailed the property manager asking to have a the “garage doors sorted out so they work properly”, noting “I raised this with you during the home visit on 22/8/23 5 weeks ago”. The property manager then had a contactor fix the issue by about 1 October 2023. The landlord eventually had palm trees that the tenants were concerned about removed altogether. I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to maintain the palm trees adequately prior to removing them. Remedy
The tenant reported the sink, shades, and ensuite drain issues in writing on 1 September 2021. The landlord’s contractors addressed those issues by 16 November 2022. I order compensation in the order of 5 per cent ($42.00 per week) for loss of amenity for that period. The total amount ordered is $2,160.00.
I am satisfied that the tenants verbally reported the garage door issue on 22 August 2022, but the door problem was not remedied until 1 October 2023 at $84.00 per week. The total amount ordered is $492.00.
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 consider whether it would be just to order them having regard to: 10 a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c.The interests of the tenant. d. The public interest.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act, which for a breach of s 45(1)(b) is $7,200.00.
In this case, the property manager overlooked the maintenance issues the tenants reported verbally and in their 2021 email. The property manager only acted proactively when spurred by the tenants’ further correspondence. 10 RTA s 109(3).
The property manager’s intent was in the nature negligence rather than cynical omission. She did not prioritise the maintenance issues and apparently forgot about them. The effect of the omission was that the tenants had less amenity in the home that they ought to have. The problems and the challenge of raising them with the landlord created a lot of personal stress for them. Among other things, they feel vulnerable to the landlord terminating the tenancy in retaliation for them raising their legitimate concerns. The tenants have an interest in having their interests vindicated. There is a public interest in the Tribunal imposing appropriate penalties on landlords so that they do not neglect their maintenance responsibilities.
It is in the tenant’s interest to receive exemplary damages that vindicate her harm. It is in the public interest to deter landlords from failing to maintain their premises to a reasonable standard by ordering exemplary damages in appropriate cases. I consider it is just to make an award
For it to be just to award punitive damages I would need to be confident that conduct warrants censure. The Tribunal is ordering compensatory damages to reflect the harm to them. A property manager’s role is typically a busy and demanding one. They have to communicate with a wide variety of people and account for different needs and communication styles. It is probable that the property manager in this case did not appreciate the degree of unhappiness the unresolved issues were causing the tenant. Upon reflection, I am not satisfied it would be just to award exemplary damages in this case.
In this case, a property manager erred. To err is human and Barfoots as a team have picked up the ball and remedied the situation. While the property manager let the tenants down, they did respond when prompted and Barfoot’s stand-in property manager addressed the tenants concerns fully without delay when she became involved late this year.
For these reasons, I decline to order exemplary damages. Filing fee
The landlord must reimburse the tenants for their filing fee. 11 Non-publication 11 RTA s 102(4)(b).
The tenants seek an order for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 12
The tenants have substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified by any other matters.
I decline to suppress the landlord’s details. The public has an interest in knowing how property management companies operate. Although the landlord was at fault, the Tribunal is not critical of their overall performance and publication of the landlord’s identity is not unduly prejudicial.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5357361 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5357361 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions