What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5375071 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 5375071?

Compensation: Refund Power: $197.65 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent Rebate: $550.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5375071?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12820083-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5375071 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 5375071?

Compensation: Refund Power: $197.65 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent Rebate: $550.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5375071?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12820083-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5375071 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5375071 — net $775.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Rent Rebate	$550.00	Rent Rebate
Compensation: Refund Power	$197.65	Refund Power
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$775.65
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$775.65

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Bright Property Management 2025 Limited As Agent For V & V Wong must pay [The tenant/s] $775.65 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation: Rent Rebate $550.00 Compensation: Refund Power $197.65 Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total award $775.65 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $775.65

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards.
[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 considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS insulation, draught stopping and drainage standards. 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).
Compliance dates for the HHS varied but all private rentals were required to comply by 1 July 2025. This tenancy started on 13 August 2025. So, the property had to be compliant from that date. It was not.
The tenant identified that the property was draughty and cold. She raised this with the landlord when she received her first power bill in mid-September. She said that the power was double what she had been paying in her previous property.
The landlord had a Healthy Homes Certificate, confirming compliance in 2022. The landlord assumed that nothing had changed but said it would have a reassessment done and sort anything that needed upgrading.
An inspection was completed on 30 September 2025. That assessment identified non-compliance with insulation, draught stopping and drainage requirements. The landlord accepted the conclusions in the report and immediately set about having issues rectified.
The landlord obtained two quotes for the work. One from the assessment company and another from an alternative contractor who could complete the work more quickly. The quotes were comparable, and both show that the areas of non-compliance and work required were modest.
The parties understood that all work was completed around 20 October 2025. However, the gutters overflowed and there was considerable surface water outside the premises following a storm event on 15 November 2025. At the hearing the tenant said that she wanted an order for the landlord to do more to fix the drains.
The property was not compliant at the start of the tenancy. The landlord accepts that. It was relying on a Compliance Statement from 2022; insulation had slumped and there had been movement of joinery and guttering in that time. The landlord also accepts that it would have been prudent to obtain a re- assessment report before this tenancy started.
The tenant claimed compensation of 50% of rent for 10 weeks and reimbursement of power bills.
I do not consider that the level of non-compliance warrants a rent rebate of 50%. There was a small amount of top-up insulation, draught stopping, and gutter adjustment required. I find a rent rebate of 10% for 10 weeks is appropriate. I also reimburse the tenant for her first power bill at the premises.
I do not consider it necessary to make any further order in relation to the drainage standard. The landlord is exploring options to improve the run-off from the roof. The storm event on 15 November 2025 was extreme. I do not consider that it is representative of the usual drainage situation at the premises. However, if gutters do overflow after normal rain, the tenant may make another application.
I find that the non-compliance at the start of the tenancy is an unlawful act by the landlord.
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.
In this instance the breach was not intentional. The landlord believed that it could reasonably rely on the earlier compliance statement and when issues were raised it immediately acted to rectify them. I do not consider that an award of exemplary damages is required in this situation.
As the tenant was the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee and granted her request for suppression of her details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5375071 — net $775.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Rent Rebate	$550.00	Rent Rebate
Compensation: Refund Power	$197.65	Refund Power
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$775.65
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$775.65

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Bright Property Management 2025 Limited As Agent For V & V Wong must pay [The tenant/s] $775.65 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation: Rent Rebate $550.00 Compensation: Refund Power $197.65 Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total award $775.65 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $775.65

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards.
[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 considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS insulation, draught stopping and drainage standards. 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).
Compliance dates for the HHS varied but all private rentals were required to comply by 1 July 2025. This tenancy started on 13 August 2025. So, the property had to be compliant from that date. It was not.
The tenant identified that the property was draughty and cold. She raised this with the landlord when she received her first power bill in mid-September. She said that the power was double what she had been paying in her previous property.
The landlord had a Healthy Homes Certificate, confirming compliance in 2022. The landlord assumed that nothing had changed but said it would have a reassessment done and sort anything that needed upgrading.
An inspection was completed on 30 September 2025. That assessment identified non-compliance with insulation, draught stopping and drainage requirements. The landlord accepted the conclusions in the report and immediately set about having issues rectified.
The landlord obtained two quotes for the work. One from the assessment company and another from an alternative contractor who could complete the work more quickly. The quotes were comparable, and both show that the areas of non-compliance and work required were modest.
The parties understood that all work was completed around 20 October 2025. However, the gutters overflowed and there was considerable surface water outside the premises following a storm event on 15 November 2025. At the hearing the tenant said that she wanted an order for the landlord to do more to fix the drains.
The property was not compliant at the start of the tenancy. The landlord accepts that. It was relying on a Compliance Statement from 2022; insulation had slumped and there had been movement of joinery and guttering in that time. The landlord also accepts that it would have been prudent to obtain a re- assessment report before this tenancy started.
The tenant claimed compensation of 50% of rent for 10 weeks and reimbursement of power bills.
I do not consider that the level of non-compliance warrants a rent rebate of 50%. There was a small amount of top-up insulation, draught stopping, and gutter adjustment required. I find a rent rebate of 10% for 10 weeks is appropriate. I also reimburse the tenant for her first power bill at the premises.
I do not consider it necessary to make any further order in relation to the drainage standard. The landlord is exploring options to improve the run-off from the roof. The storm event on 15 November 2025 was extreme. I do not consider that it is representative of the usual drainage situation at the premises. However, if gutters do overflow after normal rain, the tenant may make another application.
I find that the non-compliance at the start of the tenancy is an unlawful act by the landlord.
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.
In this instance the breach was not intentional. The landlord believed that it could reasonably rely on the earlier compliance statement and when issues were raised it immediately acted to rectify them. I do not consider that an award of exemplary damages is required in this situation.
As the tenant was the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee and granted her request for suppression of her details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5375071 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5375071 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions