What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5372724 about?

The tribunal order states: Tracy Marie Dewar and Patrick Andrew Healey must pay Lloyd Kane and

How much money was awarded in case 5372724?

Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Healthy Homes: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $1,265.00 awarded to tenant; Cabinetry: $996.00 awarded to landlord; Painting - Walls & Doors: $3,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5372724?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5372724?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13818386-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5372724 about?

The tribunal order states: Tracy Marie Dewar and Patrick Andrew Healey must pay Lloyd Kane and

How much money was awarded in case 5372724?

Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Healthy Homes: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $1,265.00 awarded to tenant; Cabinetry: $996.00 awarded to landlord; Painting - Walls & Doors: $3,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5372724?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5372724?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13818386-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17 Victoria Street, Parkside, Timaru 7910 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5372724 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5372724 — net $1,445.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Window repairs	$150.00		Window repairs
Cleaning	$800.00		Cleaning
Repairs: Painting - Walls & Doors	$3,500.00		Repairs: Painting - Walls & Doors
Repairs: Cabinetry	$996.00		Repairs: Cabinetry
Rent Credit		$1,265.00	Rent Credit
Compensation: Healthy Homes		$1,000.00	Healthy Homes
Total award	$5,446.00	$2,265.00
Net award	$1,445.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,445.00

Both parties attended a hearing on 29 June 2026.

Following a hearing in March 2026 I made directions to the parties regarding the provision of evidence. Neither party complied with those directions.

I also set out some general principals to assist the parties to prepare for the hearing. It appears that neither party had taken that guidance into account. Neither was particularly well prepared to for the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. 1 In the March Order, I set out what the landlord would have to provide to prove its claims.

The tenants claim that the Landlord did not comply with Healthy Homes Standards. Beyond that, their claims were not clear. Following the hearing in March, I directed. The tenants must provide a bullet summary of their claims to the Tribunal within 7 days (by 5pm on Monday, 20 March 2026). That is not a formal document. It just needs to be a brief list noting what the tenants are claiming and why. The summary must be sent by email to timarutt@justice.govt.nz and copied to Mr Kane. The tenants did not provide that summary. The hearing proceeded on the basis that the tenant claims were for breaches of Healthy Homes obligations.

I remind the parties of the general principals set out in the March Order is follows.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.” (emphasis added) Landlord Claims - Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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 1 The landlord also advised that there was a rent credit at the end of the tenancy and said that he has received the bond from the Bond Centre. Those amounts have been taken into account in Order 1. chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

However, the landlord provided limited photographic evidence to support its claims. Despite numerous requests from the Tribunal, the landlord did not speak to specific issues (other than to read out what was in an invoice), and did not relate costs to specific photographs or other evidence.

Having regard to the photographs, invoices and oral evidence, I award $850.00 for cleaning costs at the premises (interior and exterior).

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

During and after the March hearing, I set out the evidence the landlord would have to provide to prove claims for damage. The landlord provided limited ingoing and outgoing photographs. The tenant disputed the claims for curtains and carpet given their condition at the start of the tenancy. He also said that the curtains became mouldy and were replaced with the help of a tenant advisory group because the premises did not meet Healthy Homes Standards, were cold, damp and draughty.

The landlord has not established claims for curtain and carpet replacement. I take account of the tenant’s evidence in relation to Healthy Homes compliance and the condition of those items at the start of the tenancy. I also take account of heavy staining shown on the landlord photographs at the start of the tenancy.

The landlord claimed for other items of damage. To support those claims he read out invoices. He did not relate the amounts claimed to specific photographs. The tenant accepted a claim for a broken window. Having regard to the ingoing and outgoing photographs, it is apparent that walls, doors and cabinetry has been damaged during the tenancy and that the damage is more including the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

The landlord’s other claims were not proved to the required civil standard and are dismissed. The Tenant Claims

The tenants claim that the Landlord did not comply with Healthy Homes Standards. Beyond that, their claims were not clear. The hearing proceeded on the basis that the tenant claims were for breaches of Healthy Homes obligations.

I asked Mr Healy what the tenants wanted the Tribunal to do, if there were established breaches of Healthy Homes obligations. He replied that he was unsure, but that he shouldn’t have to pay for curtains that went mouldy because the home was cold and damp. The tenants also said that the landlord did not provide all the information required in the tenancy agreement.

A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. The agreement must contain all the information set out in the RTA. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. In particular, tenancy agreements must include a signed statement with details of the property’s current level of compliance with the healthy homes standards.

The purpose of the statement is to show the property’s current level of compliance with the standards. The compliance statement template covers all healthy homes standards and exemptions. This is to ensure landlords meet their requirements. The compliance statement also includes the ‘intent to comply’ statement which has been required in new, renewed or varied tenancy agreements from 1 July 2019. Landlords who fail to include the compliance statement may be liable for exemplary damages of up to $500. There was no application for exemplary damages in this case.

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.

From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.

Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.

There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.

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 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The tenants also claim that the landlord breached heating and draught stopping standards.

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 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.

Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A). These tenants did not apply for exemplary damages.

Mr Kane took no steps to ensure compliance with Healthy Homes standards before the tenancy started in 2023. He did not complete a Healthy Homes Statement. The tenants sought help from a tenancy advisory service in 2024. The tenants provided advice from Energysmart to the effect that the premises did not comply with the heating standard and did not have complaint underfloor insulation.

Mr Kane maintained that no-one told him about these issues until July 2025, near the end of the tenancy. I would have expected the tenants to raise the issues earlier (once it became aware of them). However, the obligation is on the landlord to ensure compliance. It was for Mr Kane to take positive steps before the tenancy started to make sure the premises met the required standard. He did not.

He maintained that the fire would have met the heating standard, but did not know the heating capacity, whether it was complaint (or whether the consent had expired as the tenant’s alleged). He said that there foil under the floor but that he did not have to install subfloor insulation because there was not enough space. That does not explain how someone had installed the foil. The document Mr Kane relied on was dated 2019. He had not taken any steps since then to understand what insulation was required. Sub-floor insulation has now been installed, so there must have been adequate access. See Tenant v Pearce 2021 NZTT 4294207

The advice the tenant’s received also referred to draughts and gaps and stated that the premises did not meet the draught stopping standard. There were no photos to support that. There was also no corroborative evidence to support the tenant claims that the fire could not be used (and the adviser also appears to have accepted the tenant’s comments to that effect at face value).

The evidence of both parties was sparse. While the landlord is obliged to ensure compliance, the tenants have the onus of proving their claims. It is arguable that the premises did not comply with the heating and draught stopping standards, but the evidence did not meet the required threshold in relation to those items. See King & Yushkova v Greene [2021] NZDC 23637. I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the premises did not have adequate sub-floor insulation for the duration of the tenancy. I award compensation of $1,000 recognising the loss of amenity to the tenants.

As both parties were partially successful, I have not awarded reimbursement of either application fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5372724 — net $1,445.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Window repairs	$150.00		Window repairs
Cleaning	$800.00		Cleaning
Repairs: Painting - Walls & Doors	$3,500.00		Repairs: Painting - Walls & Doors
Repairs: Cabinetry	$996.00		Repairs: Cabinetry
Rent Credit		$1,265.00	Rent Credit
Compensation: Healthy Homes		$1,000.00	Healthy Homes
Total award	$5,446.00	$2,265.00
Net award	$1,445.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,445.00

Both parties attended a hearing on 29 June 2026.

Following a hearing in March 2026 I made directions to the parties regarding the provision of evidence. Neither party complied with those directions.

I remind the parties of the general principals set out in the March Order is follows.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

Having regard to the photographs, invoices and oral evidence, I award $850.00 for cleaning costs at the premises (interior and exterior).

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord’s other claims were not proved to the required civil standard and are dismissed. The Tenant Claims

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 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The tenants also claim that the landlord breached heating and draught stopping standards.

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.

Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A). These tenants did not apply for exemplary damages.

As both parties were partially successful, I have not awarded reimbursement of either application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5372724 — Property damage at 17 Victoria Street, Parkside, Timaru 7910

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5372724 — Property damage at 17 Victoria Street, Parkside, Timaru 7910

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions