What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5375881 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 5375881?

Compensation: Bedroom Leak: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $325.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Draughts: $550.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Electrical Faults: $70.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Sunroom: $550.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Water Pressure: $420.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5375881?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375881?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13401444-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5375881 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 5375881?

Compensation: Bedroom Leak: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $325.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Draughts: $550.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Electrical Faults: $70.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Sunroom: $550.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Water Pressure: $420.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5375881?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375881?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13401444-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

13 Thomas Place, Foxton Beach, Foxton 4815 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5375881 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5375881 — net $1,993.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: cleaning/rubbish	$325.00	rganised and the bin was not removed for 2½ months. I order the landlord to pay $325 in compensation.
Compensation: draughts	$550.00	draughts
Compensation: electrical faults	$70.00	electrical faults
Compensation: sunroom	$550.00	sunroom
Compensation: bedroom leak	$50.00	bedroom leak
Compensation: water pressure	$420.00	water pressure
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,993.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,993.00

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlord represented by Mr Watson.

The applicant seeks compensation of $5,600.00 relating to: a. the state of the property at the start of the tenancy; b. breach of Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS); c. leaks; d. faulty wiring e. water pressure.

The tenant says that a number of items were damaged because of mould and leaking.

The onus is on the tenant as applicant to establish the evidence to her claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.

The tenancy began on 24 January 2025 and ended on 24 November 2025. The rent was $550 per week.

The property manager at the time was Ms Crombie. She has since left the company and so Mr Watson has relied on documentation Ms Crombie recorded at the time she was managing the property and some communication with her and the owner of the property.

Were the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy?

The tenant says that at the start of the tenancy, the property was not clean and that there was a lot of debris strewn around outside. A bin of rubbish had cockroaches in it and the property was overgrown. She provided photographs of the property taken when she moved in and was cleaning up the premises. They show that there was some dirt in some corners and some rubbish in the shed that the tenant had swept into the corner.

The landlord produced an entry inspection report dated 20 January 2025 prepared by Ms Crombie. The photos show a well-presented property that is reasonably clean and tidy inside. There are not many photographs of the outside, but the lawns were long with tall yellow flowers (dandelions or buttercups). I agree with Mr Watson’s observation that the lawns, although long, were not as long as those shown in the tenant’s photographs, but they were well overdue for a mow. By using the QR code on the document, the date of the photographs confirms that they were taken on 20 January 2025.

However, included in the entry report is a statement that the tenant would do the lawns and grounds for 3 days’ rent. It also included a statement that the bin needed to be emptied.

The tenant showed the Tribunal her text to Ms Crombie on 28 January in which she said that she had been cleaning and had found a meth pipe. She also reminded Ms Crombie about emptying the bin. The bin was not emptied until April.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.

I find that although the tenant undertook further cleaning inside, overall the inside of the premises were reasonably clean.

The state of the property outside was not reasonable. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the lawns and gardens were the tenant’s responsibility, but they should have been in the same state that would be expected at the end of the tenancy. This was evidently accepted by the property manager based on the record in the inspection report.

The compensation of three days’ rent was not organised and the bin was not removed for 2½ months. I order the landlord to pay $325 in compensation. That is approximately 3 days’ rent plus $100 for the inconvenience of the bin of rubbish for approximately 10 weeks.

Did the property comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to comply with the HHS.

There are five HHS: a. insulation b. heating c. ventilation d. moisture ingress and drainage. e. draught-stopping.

Each tenancy agreement must include a statement that the landlord complies or will comply with the HHS. Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. An earlier insulation standard has been in force since 1 July 2019. This tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, and so it had to comply within 120 days of the commencement of the tenancy. Therefore, the compliance date for all current standards was approximately 24 May 2025.

Each of the standards sets out specific requirements and situations where a property may be exempt.

The onus is on the tenant to prove how any of the standards have been breached. Insulation

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.

According to the HHS compliance statement provided with the tenancy agreement, the property did not comply in relation to insulation, but it was noted that under the regulations the property was exempt.

Mr Watson produced an EnergySmart Compliance Certificate dated 27 February 2024 (the February 2024 certificate) which records that the ceiling space is too low for insulation to be added, as was the under-floor space. It is likely that there is some insulation in the roof from the time the property was built, but it is not possible to get into the spaces to add more insulation.

I accept that the property is exempt and so therefore, it is not non-compliant. Heating

The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the main living 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/.

According to the HHS compliance statement provided with the tenancy agreement, the property does not comply. It is recorded that there is a woodburner and the heating capacity is 4.2.

Mr Watson produced evidence to show that the information in the compliance certificate is incorrect. In a Healthy Homes Assessment undertaken by Healthy Homes Manawatu on 17 November 2023, (the November 2023 assessment) the heating capacity required for the main living area is 4.4kw. The Metro eco series wood burner has a heating capacity of 11.0kw. Therefore, in fact, the property is compliant. Ventilation

The portion of the HHS compliance certificate provided by the tenant shows that the ventilation standard has not been complied with.

The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.

In fact, those fans had been installed by the start of the tenancy and so it is unclear why that part of the certificate said that the property was non-compliant. Mr Watson provided an invoice for the installation of the fans in March 2024. There is no suggestion that there was a lack of ventilation in other parts of the house.

The only issue in relation to the ventilation standard is that the fan was not working. I have considered that below as a repair/maintenance issue, rather than a failure to comply with the HHS. Moisture ingress and drainage

The tenant seeks compensation for dampness and mould because of leaks in the roof. That is actually a different matter from the HHS.

The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space. That is not the nature of the tenant’s claim. Draught-stopping

The tenant claims that the draught stopping standard has been breached.

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.

The compliance certificate provided with the tenancy agreement is unsigned, but says that the property complies.

The tenant says that there were draughts around two windows. One in the lounge and one in a bedroom. She said that a latch was broken on each, and the sealing was missing in the corner.

The evidence of her raising this with the landlord is found in a routine inspection report dated 7 October 2025. For the lounge it is recorded “Wind blows curtains and you can feel the cold” and “Lounge windows are allowing wind drafts even when closed”.

In fact, on examination of the entry inspection photos, the broken latches can be seen.

According to the November 2023 assessment, there was a draught coming from the top of both windows in the lounge and a broken latch in the back bedroom. The property failed the HHS draught-stopping standard.

Mr Watson has been told that following that assessment, the owner spent $20,000 in improvements to the property to bring the property to compliance with the HHS. The 2024 certificate does not cover the draught stopping standard.

I note that the missing latches does not automatically mean that there is a draught, but in the 2023 assessment, the back bedroom failed the draught- stopping standard because of a missing latch. There was clearly a draught in the lounge windows in October 2025, consistent with the description of ill-fitting windows in November 2023.

I find it more likely than not, that the property did not fully comply during the tenancy.

That would have had an impact on the tenant’s warmth and enjoyment of the premises during the colder months of 2025. I order compensation of $550, which is one week’s rent.

Did the landlord maintain the premises?

Under section 45 the landlord must 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. Electrical issues

At the start of the tenancy there was in issue with a faulty power point. the tenant reported it and it was addressed promptly.

The rangehood did not work. The tenant mentioned it to the landlord. This did not affect the tenant significantly.

However, the tenant found that the fuse was always going. This is recorded in the 7 October inspection. There is no evidence that an electrician attended to inspect this issue before the tenancy ended on 24 November 2025. I have ordered the tenant $70.00 compensation for the landlord’s failure to address this. Leak in sunroom

The entrance to the property is via a sunroom. It is a porch that has been covered in with glass. In the inspection reports it is referred to as an entrance hall and a sun porch.

When it rains, water runs along the wall and in front of the door into the lounge. over the door.

The tenant complained of leaks in that room from the start of the tenancy. It was referred to in a text on 31 January 2025.

In the inspection report of 1 July 2025, Ms Crombie recorded, “I need to get the sun porch sorted as it leaks badly down the house wall when it rains”. It is also recorded, “I know my plumber said that it doesn’t fit properly and needs to have flashing removed and resealed”. These comments are repeated in the inspection report of 7 October 2025.

Mr Watson accepted that there was leaking during heavy rain and the porch would need to be removed. According to an invoice from Woodley’s Plumbing, Roofing, Gasfitting and Drainlaying on 21 October, “Sunroom will need to be replaced but will require building work from a licensed builder”.

Mr Watson suggested that the sunroom is not a habitable space.

I do not agree. It is fully closed off from the outside. It is not an open veranda. It was reasonable that the tenant would have expected that the area would not leak and she could store some of her children’s toys there.

If it is not a habitable space, then it would appear that there is an issue with the collection of water. Water should not run down the outside of a house and collect around the entranceway.

It may be that remedying the problem is a significant issue for the owner, but that is a dilemma that many property owners face when deciding to let a property in exchange for rent. The rules of the Residential Tenancies Act apply no matter what.

I find that the tenant should be compensated for the leak in the sunroom, which she notified the landlord of in January 2025 and was not repaired before the end of the tenancy. I find that it would not have caused a problem every day or even every week, but it would have been inconvenient not to be able to use the area.

The tenant sought compensation for damage to her children’s toys and other belongings. She did not provide proof of the replacement cost or likely depreciation, but I find that the landlord should compensate her the equivalent one week’s rent for the leak in the sunroom over a period of 10 months. That is $550. Bedroom leak

During the tenancy a leak developed in the bedroom. The tenant alerted the landlord during the 7 October inspection and was fixed two weeks later on 21 October 2025. Unfortunately, in between there was some bad weather and some of the tenants’ belongings got wet.

The tenant has not established the value of the items, but I make a modest order of $50.00 for the inconvenience of the ceiling leak. Shower pressure

During the tenancy, the tenant complained about the poor shower pressure.

The property manager recorded in a routine inspection on 8 April 2025: Shower pressure The water flow is very minimal from out of the shower. There is no pressure whatsoever. Can we have a look please? To see if it can be fixed? Cheers, Julie.

And under maintenance comments, it is recorded: The shower is not very good very little water coming out need a plumber to have a look.

This comment is repeated in both the 1 July and 7 October inspection reports.

A plumber did not look at the shower during the tenancy.

I accept Mr Watson’s view that it is possible that that the shower is what is called a “low pressure” system. It is possible that this was not a maintenance issue.

However, there is insufficient evidence for me to conclude that it is likely that nothing could be done about it. There is no evidence that the landlord looked into this issue and informed the tenant. It is possible that the issue could have been fixed. At the very least, the landlord could have reassured the tenant that they had done all they could and that there was no simple solution.

Because there is no evidence that the landlord took any steps to address the issue, I have decided that the tenant should receive some compensation of $10 per week from 31 January to the end of the tenancy. That comes to $420.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and order name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5375881 — net $1,993.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: cleaning/rubbish	$325.00	rganised and the bin was not removed for 2½ months. I order the landlord to pay $325 in compensation.
Compensation: draughts	$550.00	draughts
Compensation: electrical faults	$70.00	electrical faults
Compensation: sunroom	$550.00	sunroom
Compensation: bedroom leak	$50.00	bedroom leak
Compensation: water pressure	$420.00	water pressure
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,993.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,993.00