What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5371466 about?

The tribunal order states: Qq Rentals Limited must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5371466?

Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371466?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371466?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13327962-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5371466 about?

The tribunal order states: Qq Rentals Limited must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5371466?

Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371466?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371466?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13327962-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 41, 218 Green Lane West, Epsom, Auckland 1051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5371466 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5371466 — net $378.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: HHS heating	$350.00	HHS heating
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$378.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$378.00

Order

Qq Rentals Limited must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $378.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Gary Chung. Mr Zhang and the Tribunal were assisted by a Mandarin interpreter, Ms Zhao.
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s 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 tenant/s] and [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: For private rentals if the tenancy commenced after 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. See Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards Regulations) 2019, Schedule 1, 2(2).
The parties agree this tenancy began on 19 September 2024 and ended on 17 September 2025. 120 days after the commencement of the tenancy was 17 January 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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances including an exemption for a certified passive building and where it is not reasonably practicable to install.
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).
In this case the tenant said that a certified heater was not installed until 25 March 2025. This is another 67 days after the expiry of the 120 days.
The landlord said that before the tenancy began, the landlord began the process of installing a heat pump. This included applying to the Body Corporate on 27 August 2024, before the tenancy began. The landlord said that approval was given by the Body Corporate on 24 March 2025 and a heat pump was installed on 27 March 2025. (The tenant’s and the landlord’s dates do not align.)
The landlord said an exemption should apply as the landlord did everything they reasonably could to comply with the legislation, but were hindered by the high standards required by the Body Corporate and because the Body Corporate is slow.
The Healthy Homes legislation is not subject to a Body Corporate approving installation, and the legislation does not provide an exemption because a Body Corporate may be slow moving or otherwise inefficient.
In this case I determine Qq Rentals Limited has committed an unlawful act. This claim is proved.
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.
I consider the most important of these factors is the public interest in insisting that landlords comply strictly with timeframes set out in the legislation. In this case the tenant was only mildly disadvantaged by the lack of heating (he said the weather turned cold on 6 March 2025). However this would have been different if the tenancy had begun at the beginning of winter and the tenant had had to endure 120 days of cold weather without a qualifying heater because of a Body Corporate’s inefficiencies. The appropriate party to ensure Body Corporates are operating efficiently is the landlord; the tenant has very little leverage over a Body Corporate and should not have to bear the unpleasant consequences of their inefficient conduct.
I accept the Body Corporate has high standards, but installing a heat pump is a common practice and information on what works and what does not is widespread. There are numerous contractors who specialise in this work.
Having said that, I accept the landlord attempted to address the issue of non- compliance as soon as they could. However the reality is that unless a premises complies with the relevant legislation, a tenancy is not lawful.
Considering those factors, I have determined that exemplary damages are appropriate for this breach, but the award should be at the very low end of the scale.
The tenant also claims that the landlord had a bad attitude at the end of the tenancy. When he requested information about getting a “deposit refund” the landlord responded by saying there is no such thing as a “deposit refund”. The tenant considered this unhelpful. He said it was clear that he was talking about a “bond”, but that he was simply using the wrong terminology.
The landlord said that they generally spoke to each other in Mandarin and knew what the other was talking about.
The correspondence shown to me does not disclose a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986. This claim is dismissed.
Because [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5371466 — net $378.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: HHS heating	$350.00	HHS heating
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$378.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$378.00

Order

Qq Rentals Limited must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $378.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Gary Chung. Mr Zhang and the Tribunal were assisted by a Mandarin interpreter, Ms Zhao.
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s 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 tenant/s] and [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: For private rentals if the tenancy commenced after 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. See Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards Regulations) 2019, Schedule 1, 2(2).
The parties agree this tenancy began on 19 September 2024 and ended on 17 September 2025. 120 days after the commencement of the tenancy was 17 January 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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances including an exemption for a certified passive building and where it is not reasonably practicable to install.
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).
In this case the tenant said that a certified heater was not installed until 25 March 2025. This is another 67 days after the expiry of the 120 days.
The landlord said that before the tenancy began, the landlord began the process of installing a heat pump. This included applying to the Body Corporate on 27 August 2024, before the tenancy began. The landlord said that approval was given by the Body Corporate on 24 March 2025 and a heat pump was installed on 27 March 2025. (The tenant’s and the landlord’s dates do not align.)
The landlord said an exemption should apply as the landlord did everything they reasonably could to comply with the legislation, but were hindered by the high standards required by the Body Corporate and because the Body Corporate is slow.
The Healthy Homes legislation is not subject to a Body Corporate approving installation, and the legislation does not provide an exemption because a Body Corporate may be slow moving or otherwise inefficient.
In this case I determine Qq Rentals Limited has committed an unlawful act. This claim is proved.
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.
I consider the most important of these factors is the public interest in insisting that landlords comply strictly with timeframes set out in the legislation. In this case the tenant was only mildly disadvantaged by the lack of heating (he said the weather turned cold on 6 March 2025). However this would have been different if the tenancy had begun at the beginning of winter and the tenant had had to endure 120 days of cold weather without a qualifying heater because of a Body Corporate’s inefficiencies. The appropriate party to ensure Body Corporates are operating efficiently is the landlord; the tenant has very little leverage over a Body Corporate and should not have to bear the unpleasant consequences of their inefficient conduct.
I accept the Body Corporate has high standards, but installing a heat pump is a common practice and information on what works and what does not is widespread. There are numerous contractors who specialise in this work.
Having said that, I accept the landlord attempted to address the issue of non- compliance as soon as they could. However the reality is that unless a premises complies with the relevant legislation, a tenancy is not lawful.
Considering those factors, I have determined that exemplary damages are appropriate for this breach, but the award should be at the very low end of the scale.
The tenant also claims that the landlord had a bad attitude at the end of the tenancy. When he requested information about getting a “deposit refund” the landlord responded by saying there is no such thing as a “deposit refund”. The tenant considered this unhelpful. He said it was clear that he was talking about a “bond”, but that he was simply using the wrong terminology.
The landlord said that they generally spoke to each other in Mandarin and knew what the other was talking about.
The correspondence shown to me does not disclose a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986. This claim is dismissed.
Because [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371466 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 41, 218 Green Lane West, Epsom, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371466 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 41, 218 Green Lane West, Epsom, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions