Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5371344 — Healthy homes at 36 Ranui Street, Dinsdale, Hamilton 3204
Published 12 March 2026 · Application 5371344
Tenant favoured
- Healthy homes
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Tenant favoured
From published order
Location
Hamilton
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
G Barnett
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $378.00
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $378.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to comply HHS heat | $25.00 | Failure to comply HHS heat | |
| Failure to comply HHS ventilation | $25.00 | Failure to comply HHS ventilation | |
| Failure to comply HHS draft | $25.00 | Failure to comply HHS draft | |
| Failure to comply HHS drainage | $250.00 | Failure to comply HHS drainage | |
| Failed to provide keys | $25.00 | Failed to provide keys | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $378.00 | ||
| Bond | $2,160.00 | ||
| Total payable by Landlord to Tenant | $378.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5371344 — net $378.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Failure to comply HHS heat
- Amount
- $25.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Failure to comply HHS heat
Failure to comply HHS ventilation
- Amount
- $25.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Failure to comply HHS ventilation
Failure to comply HHS draft
- Amount
- $25.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Failure to comply HHS draft
Failure to comply HHS drainage
- Amount
- $250.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Failure to comply HHS drainage
Failed to provide keys
- Amount
- $25.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Failed to provide keys
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Tenant $378.00
Bond
Tenant $2,160.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant
Tenant $378.00
Dismissed claims
- Other Claims — All other claims dismissed
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Online Rentals Limited as Agent for Englert Holdings Ltd must pay Justine Kettle $378.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 (5101282-015) to Justine Kettle immediately.
- All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- Ms Singh appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared.
- The tenancy commenced on 24 December 2021 and ended on 22 September 2025. On 23 October 2025, the landlord filed a claim seeking compensation for missing curtains. On 12 November 2025, the tenant filed a counter claim for compensation of $100.000.00 (the maximum within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction), exemplary damages, general damages for pain and suffering, and refund of the bond. Both parties seek reimbursement of their respective filing fees.
- The onus of proving these claims rests with the party making them. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. In this case both must establish more likely than not that the other has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act). Landlords claim.
- The landlord claims that the curtains provided at the commencement of the tenancy were missing. The landlord is claiming $1,160.00 to replace the curtains.
- The landlord produced pre tenancy exit and pre tenancy advertising photographs. The pre tenancy exit photographs show some of the curtains around the end of the previous tenancy in March / April 2021. The pre tenancy advertising photographs show curtains the landlord states were at the property in November 2021.
- The landlord stated altogether there were seven sets of curtains: four in the lounge, including one over a ranch slider, and one set in each of the three bedrooms.
- The landlord stated the tenant had told them that the curtains were removed at the start of the tenancy and stored in the garage. That the tenant later advised that the curtains had been damaged and subsequently disposed of.
- The landlord believed that the curtains were approximately 4 years old at the commencement of the tenancy.
- The tenant disputes the claim. The tenant stated that curtains are not listed in the tenancy agreement as chattels. They state that at the commencement of the tenancy there were only three curtains in the lounge, and part of a net curtain in one of the bedrooms.
- The tenant stated that the curtains were tied up in a loose knot and were in a poor condition, and that the partial net curtain in the bedroom was “rotten.” The tenant stated that they removed the curtains and stored them in the garage. During the tenancy, the garage leaked, and the curtains, along with items belonging to the tenant, were damaged. The curtains were thrown away. Law
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
- Subject to fair wear and tear, chattels provided under the agreement should be returned by the tenant.
- When awarding compensation for missing or damaged chattels, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful life. Analysis and decision
- In reaching my decision I have considered all evidence placed before the Tribunal, even if I do not specifically refer to it.
- The curtains are not included in the tenancy agreement as chattels. There is also no pre tenancy inspection report, which would usually confirm the presence of and condition of the chattels.
- Some of the curtains shown in the landlord’s pre-tenancy exit and advertising photographs appear to be different. For example, a lounge curtain in one of the pre-tenancy exit photographs is clearly different from the one shown in a pre- tenancy advertising photograph. This casts doubt on the accuracy of the landlord’s evidence.
- The photographs are taken from a distance and are not sufficient to determine the condition of the curtains. I cannot rule out the possibility that the curtains were in poor condition, as stated by the tenant.
- The onus of proving the claim rests with the landlord. The absence of a chattels list or pre tenancy inspection report and reliable photographic evidence means the landlord is not in a strong position to challenge the tenant’s evidence about the number and condition of the curtains at the commencement of the tenancy.
- In this case I am not satisfied that the has established the claim, and it is dismissed. Tenant’s claims
- The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS) relating to heating, ventilation, drainage, and draft stopping.
- The tenant also claims that the landlord has failed to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable condition.
- The tenant further claims that the landlord failed to provide keys to the garage roller and side door. Heating
- The tenant stated that at the commencement of the tenancy the property had a firebox in the lounge. This was the only form of heating. The tenant stated that they were unsure whether it was safe to use as they had not received any instruction from the property manager at the commencement of the tenancy.
- On or about 27 January 2023, the tenant messaged the property manager, Ms Singh, to enquire whether the fireplace was safe to use. Exercising due diligence, the landlord arranged for the fireplace to be inspected. On 21 February 2023, the contractor engaged advised that the fire was unsafe.
- The tenant stated that on or about 19 June 2023, the firebox was removed, after which a heat pump was installed at the end of April. The tenant stated that in April they were without heating and had to arrange their own heater.
- The landlord stated that the firebox had passed the HHS inspection conducted in September 2020. They stated that they have no record of the issue being raised prior to January 2023. They stated that the heat pump was installed between 16 March 2023 and 31 October 2023, before the fireplace was removed. The landlord stated the tenant had not been without a means of heating the main living room over the autumn / winter months.
- The tenant accepted that the heat pump had been installed prior to the removal of the firebox. Ventilation
- The tenant stated that although there were opening windows in the bathroom and kitchen, there were no extractor fans. The tenant noted that this had been recorded in the HHS report, and the HHS statement provided with the tenancy agreement. The tenant stated that the lack of ventilation in the bathroom resulted in excessive moisture and condensation.
- The tenant stated that extractor fans were not installed until the end of August 2022. The tenant stated that the HHS compliance date for the tenancy came into effect on 24 March 2022 and that the landlord had failed to meet their obligations on time.
- The landlord had no explanation as to why there had been a delay and accepted that they had not met the HHS timeframe. They accepted extractor fans were installed around the end of August.
- The landlord produced a post remediation HHS report dated November 2022 confirming that all HHS non-compliance issues had been remedied. Draft stopping
- The tenant stated the HHS report dated September 2020, and the HHS statement recorded that the property failed to meet the HHS draft standard because there was an unacceptable gap at the side of the back door. The tenant stated that this was not addressed until October 2022 when a contractor attended and repaired the gap.
- The landlord had no explanation as to why there had been a delay and accepted that they had not met the HHS timeframe. They confirmed the issue had been addressed in October 2022. Drainage – guttering
- The tenant stated that the guttering along both sides of the house and a nearby detached single car garage were damaged and in a poor state of repair. The tenant has produced photographs showing large holes and extensive rust damage to the guttering. The tenant has also produced photographs showing water pooling on the ground beneath the affected gutters. The tenant stated that when it rained the lawn often became soggy and waterlogged.
- The tenant stated that they raised the matter during inspections but that nothing was done until they issued a 14-day breach notice on 18 June 2024. They stated that they had raised the matter with Ms Singh in early 2024, who denied that anything was wrong, referring to the 2020 HHS report stating the property complied with the drainage standard.
- The tenant stated that the guttering was inspected in July 2024. The guttering to the house was replaced in August 2024, but the guttering on the garage was not replaced during the tenancy.
- The landlord stated that no issues had been raised concerning the guttering in the 2020 HHS report. The landlord accepted that the guttering appeared to have had suffered significant deterioration between 2020 and 2024. They stated that there was no record of it being mentioned before 18 June 2024. Ms Singh stated that when she was advised, she arranged a contractor to inspect the guttering and soon after it was replaced on the main house. Ms Singh accepted that it had not been replaced on the garage due to a lack of funds. Excessive moisture and mould
- The tenant stated that the bedroom, kitchen, and bathroom suffered excessive moisture resulting in mould. The tenant stated that they discovered that the kitchen sink had a leak. While this was repaired using silicone, it had been unsuccessful, and the entire kitchen bench and cabinetry required replacing. The vanity in the bathroom had become water damaged and required replacing.
- These matters were raised in a 14-day notice issued 18 June 2024, although the tenant claims to have raised these issues verbally. The tenant stated that following the issue of the notice the matters were remedied. The tenant has produced photographs of what they claim show the water damage had been revealed while the areas were being repaired.
- The landlord stated that the issue with the kitchen sink had been mentioned prior to the notice. They stated in May 2024 they arranged for a contractor to quote for replacing the bathroom vanity and kitchen bench and cabinets. This was accepted and the work completed at the end of June 2024.
- The tenant accepted this. Grounds
- The property has a large section. The tenancy agreement provides that the tenant is responsible for maintaining the lawn and gardens, while the landlord is responsible for the shrubs and trees.
- The tenant stated that during the tenancy a large tree at the back of the property was felled, but the shrubs around it had not been addressed. There were yuccas growing close to the house, which, when removed, revealed damage to the baseboards. The tenant produced a photograph of a derelict lean-to structure between the garage and the boundary fence which they state was dangerous.
- The tenant stated that despite raising these matters verbally, none were addressed until around July 2025. The tenant produced photographs showing the yuccas, the site of the large tree and surrounding section of lawn, and the lean- to.
- The landlord stated that the Cyprus and Silk tree were removed after concerns raised by the tenant and neighbours. The landlord stated that the area around the trees had not been previously identified as an issue. The landlord stated that during an inspection in June 2025, some shrubs and trees had been identified as an issue and were removed in early July 2025. The landlord stated that one of the trees was directly in front of the lean- to structure and had previously hidden it from view. Bedroom windows
- The tenant states that the security latches on two of the bedroom windows were damaged. The tenant stated that they included this in one of the 14-day notices issued on 18 June 2024. The tenant stated that they had attempted to repair one themselves but were unable to do so and the window cracked.
- The landlord produced an invoice dated 09 July 2024 showing that a contractor had repaired a window latch. Cracks to interior and exterior walls
- The tenant produced a photograph showing what they claim is a crack in the wall above a bedroom window, and several others showing small cracks in the fibro- cement exterior cladding. Keys to garage
- There is no dispute that keys were not provided for the garage roller or side door. However, this matter was raised for the first time in the application. Law
- Section 45(1) (bb) requires the landlord to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS), which set out the minimum requirements for heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping for residential rental properties.
- The HHS standards for this tenancy applied from 24 March 2022. The HHS is in addition to the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR), which also set out requirements for residential properties. The obligations created under the HHS are greater than those under the HIR.
- The property must have effective drainage systems to remove storm and ground water from the tenancy building. This must be maintained in a reasonable condition. Under Regulation 3 of the HHS a "tenancy building" refers to the building or part of a building that is subject to a residential tenancy.
- Ventilation must be provided through openable windows or doors in all habitable rooms, and extractor fans vented to the outside.
- Landlords must also ensure there are no unreasonable gaps or holes in walls, ceilings, windows, floors, or doors that cause noticeable draughts.
- The Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) heating standard requires landlords to provide a fixed heating device in the main living room of rental properties.
- During the tenancy, the property was also subject to the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR), which also set out requirements for residential properties.
- Regulation 6 of the HIR states: “Every living room shall be fitted with a fireplace and chimney or other approved form of heating”.
- Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
- In Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV 2009 085-001431, 24 February 2010 the Court stated: “I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair the defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what 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”.
- Whether the landlord has failed to meet their obligations will involve an objective assessment of the evidence.
- To establish a breach, the tenant must prove: i. The nature of the defect amounting to a failure to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, ii. When it was first brought to the attention of the landlord (unless it was a defect that should have been obvious to a reasonable person during a routine inspection), iii. Whether the landlord failed to investigate and remedy any defect within a reasonable time in the circumstances.
- Section 46(1) of the Act states that the landlord shall provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.
- The Tribunal may award damages for losses arising from a breach that are reasonably foreseeable.
- Damages for loss of amenity is a remedy that the Tribunal can award when a tenant’s enjoyment or use of the premises is reduced due to a landlord’s breach of their obligations under the Act or the tenancy agreement.
- A breach of section 45(1) (b) and (bb), is also an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded under section 109(3).
- Under section 46(3) a breach of subsection 46(1), without a reasonable excuse, is declared to be an unlawful act.
- The Tribunal must consider the following factors before awarding exemplary damages: i. Whether the unlawful act was committed intentionally. ii. The effect of the unlawful act. iii. The interests of the party harmed by the act. iv. The public interest. v. Whether it is just to make the award.
- Section 109(2) of the Act sets out the time limits for applying for exemplary damages for an unlawful act:
- For unlawful acts relating to section 19(2) (failure to lodge bond) or section 30(2) (failure to keep bond records), an application must be made within 12 months after the termination of the tenancy.
- For any other unlawful act, an application must be made within 12 months after the date the unlawful act was committed.
- This means there is a 12-month limitation period for bringing a claim for exemplary damages, either from the end of the tenancy (for certain bond-related breaches) or from the date of the unlawful act (for all other breaches). Analysis and decision
- The property was built in the late 1980s or early 1990s and consists of three bedrooms, a bathroom, toilet, kitchen / dining / lounge area, laundry, and a separate garage. Based on the photographs produced by the parties, it appears that the property retains most of its original features. Ms Singh is the third property manager and has held this role since around January 2023. Ms Singh stated that regular property inspections occurred every three to four months, and that the reports were not routinely provided to tenants unless requested. None have been provided to the Tribunal. Heating
- I am satisfied that the time of entering into the tenancy the landlord had reasonable grounds to believe that the property complied with the both the HIR regulation and HHS heating standard. Once a possible issue was raised with the heating on 27 January 2023, I am satisfied that it was properly investigated and remedied by the landlord with the installation of a heat pump between 16 March 2023 and 31 March 2023, and removal of the fire in April 2023.
- There is no evidence of the matter being raised prior to that date. Between 21 February 2023 and 16 March 2023 the property did not comply with the HHS and was without an approved form of heating in the main living room. This amounted to a breach.
- However, the tenant was not without an approved heat source over the following autumn / winter period. On the evidence, I am not satisfied that there has been a substantial loss of amenity, and I award the tenant nominal damages of $25.00.
- Nominal damages are a small sum of money awarded where a breach has occurred, but the party has not suffered any significant loss or harm. The purpose of nominal damages is to acknowledge that a breach of the Act or the tenancy agreement has occurred, even if there is no measurable loss. Ventilation
- The property did not comply with the HHS ventilation standard until the end of August 2022, approximately five months after the HHS came into effect. Although the tenant stated that the bathroom suffered excessive condensation, there is insufficient photographic evidence to establish this. As with the heating issue, I am not satisfied that there has been a significant loss of amenity, and I award the tenant nominal damages of $25.00. Draft stopping
- Similarly, the property did not comply with the HHS draft stopping standard until October 2022, approximately seven months after the HHS came into effect. Based on the evidence provided, I am not satisfied that there has been a substantial loss of amenity, and I award the tenant nominal damages of $25.00.
- The landlord’s denial in 2024 that there was an issue with the guttering is surprising. Although the HHS report from 2020 does not raise any concerns, the photographs of the guttering taken in 2024 show significant deterioration and damage. The tenant stated that the garage was not weather tight, and the damaged guttering caused damage to items stored inside, which included the curtains. From the photographs the condition of the guttering was likely a contributing factor.
- There is insufficient evidence to show when the tenant had raised the matter prior to the 14-day breach notice issued 18 June 2024, as claimed. However, based on the photographs, the damage would have been clearly apparent to a reasonable property manager conducting a routine inspection.
- While the guttering to the house was replaced in August 2024, the guttering on the garage was not replaced during the tenancy. The garage is defined as a tenancy building for the purposes of the HHS.
- I am satisfied that the landlord has failed to maintain the guttering in a reasonable state of repair. I accept that the tenant has suffered a loss of amenity. Based on the evidence I award the tenant compensation of $250.00. Moisture and mould
- Regarding the claim that the property suffered excessive moisture and mould, the tenant’s photographic evidence is of limited evidential value. As stated, the property is approximately thirty years old. It is showing signs of wear and tear consistent with its age. While some photographs showing small areas of surface mould, these are insufficient to establish that the property suffered excessive moisture causing mould.
- When discussing evidential sufficiency, the tenant stated that they had only made a counterclaim in response to what they considered to be an unreasonable claim by the landlord. It appears the photographs produced were not necessarily taken for the purpose of supporting a claim. The email messages are limited. I am also satisfied that once an issue was raised in the 14-day notice, the landlord responded appropriately. Window latches
- There is insufficient evidence on which to make a proper objective assessment concerning the damaged latches. I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately when advised. Keys
- Finally, regarding the keys. The failure to provide keys to secure the garage is a breach of the Act. While the lack of keys likely resulted in a loss of amenity, it does not appear that this was raised as an issue until the ned of the tenancy when the tenant advised the landlord that they could not return keys they never received. I award the tenant nominal damages of $25.00. Exemplary damages
- Turning to the tenants claim for exemplary damages, all of the breaches found proven were committed more than 12 months before the application was filed on 12 November 2025. Accordingly, pursuant to section 109(2) of the Act, the Tribunal is unable to consider exemplary damages. General damages for pain and suffering
- At the end of the hearing the tenant stated that they had struggled to present their case stating that it had been cognitively challenging. This was not raised at the commencement of the hearing. In my view the tenant navigated and presented their case adequately.
- The tenant states that the landlord’s actions had caused physical unwellness and mental stress.
- General damages for pain and suffering are compensation awarded for non- financial loss, such as distress or anxiety. This type of loss must have been within the contemplation of the parties when they entered the tenancy. In other words, was the type of loss suffered reasonably foreseeable if a breach occurred.
- In this case there is insufficient evidence to support the claim. While the tenant claims to have suffered physical unwellness and mental stress, there is no medical evidence to establish this. Costs
- As the tenant has been partly successful with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
- 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 their name or identifying particulars of that party 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 landlord seeks name suppression. The tenant does not.
- In this case neither party has been sufficiently successful, and no orders for suppression are made.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s109(2), s109(3), s19(2), s1947, s20, s2019, s30(2), s40(1), s42, s45, s45(1), s46, s46(1), s46(3), s48, s85, s86, s87, s92, s95A
Key findings
- Dispute theme: healthy homes
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5371344?
The tribunal order states: Online Rentals Limited as Agent for Englert Holdings Ltd must pay Justine Kettle
How much money was awarded in case 5371344?
Failed To Provide Keys: $25.00 awarded to tenant; Failure To Comply HHS Draft: $25.00 awarded to tenant; Failure To Comply HHS Drainage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Failure To Comply HHS Heat: $25.00 awarded to tenant; Failure To Comply HHS Ventilation: $25.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371344?
The primary dispute was Healthy homes.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371344?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13249725-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.