What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5378980?

The tribunal order states: Michelle Chu must pay William Patrick Grant and Katherine Barkley $2,758.00

How much money was awarded in case 5378980?

Compensation: $1,980.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5378980?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5378980?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13106733-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5378980?

The tribunal order states: Michelle Chu must pay William Patrick Grant and Katherine Barkley $2,758.00

How much money was awarded in case 5378980?

Compensation: $1,980.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5378980?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5378980?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13106733-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Waikowhai Street, Ngaio, Wellington 6035 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5378980 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5378980 — net $2,758.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,980.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$750.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,758.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,758.00

Order

Michelle Chu must pay William Patrick Grant and Katherine Barkley $2,758.00 immediately as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
The tenancy began on 22 February 2025 and is due to end on the coming Sunday, 15 February 2026.
William Patrick Grant and Katherine Barkley claim 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). Mr Grant and Ms Barkley consider the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
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.
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).
The HHS says that if the premises have two or more living rooms, the largest of them is the one that must be heated. See HHS, section 8(2)(b).
This is a dispute essentially about which is the main living area at the premises.
The tenants say the room they used as the living room was not heated by a qualifying heat pump. This is not disputed by the landlord. The landlord says that the room that was used by the tenants as a living room, was not the correct room to heat according to HHS section 8(2)(b).
Section 8(2)(b) of the HHS refers to living rooms and not living areas.
The landlord says the premises has two living rooms. The tenants say the premises has two “living areas,” one of which is a dining room adjoining an open plan kitchen, and the other a more natural living room.
Ms Chu says that because the dining room and kitchen (and connected hallways) amounts to a larger floor area than the “living room” this must be considered the main living room.
I consider it a strained interpretation to call the dining room, kitchen and connected hallways a “living room”.
The tenants had sofas, coffee tables and a television in the “living room” and a dining table and chairs in the “dining room”.
Ms Chu said where the tenants chose to put their furniture is not determinative of the nature of the room. This is correct, but in many cases it will provide valuable information as to how a premises is most naturally used. In this case I believe the house would have been designed to be used as the tenants are using it, and I would expect the vast majority of occupants to use it in the same way.
Ms Chu said she relied on the expertise of a company she engaged to do a Healthy Homes Compliance Report of the property in 2022. In this report the company said the property was compliant with the HHS on the basis that the dining room/kitchen area were the main living room due to their combined floor area.
The tenants said they organised their own Healthy Homes Compliance Report which confirmed their conclusion that the property was not compliant with HHS on the basis that the living room did not have a qualifying heater.
This goes to prove simply that parties must check reports themselves against an honest, common-sense based appraisal. When a company produces a report that is found to be incorrect, it is not the company that is in breach of the legislation. Second opinions are always a good idea.
I determine this house has one living room and it is the room that the tenants used as a living room for the duration of the tenancy.
There is no compliant heating in this area. The landlord has committed an unlawful act.
The tenants are seeking a retrospective rent rebate of $250.00 a week from 1 July 2025 (when they told the landlord they considered her to be in breach of the HHS) until 15 January 2026 when a heat pump was installed. This is a period of 28 weeks and amounts to $7,000.00.
The tenant is also seeking a reimbursement for the Healthy Homes Assessment Report they commissioned at a cost of approximately $250.00.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may also 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.
The tenants said that during winter it was very cold in the living room, on occasions to such an extent that they could see the condensation from their breath when they exhaled. They said they notified the landlord of this in July 2025, and when the landlord conducted a routine inspection she herself noted how cold it was in the living room.
Ms Chu said that in August 2025 she began the process of arranging a heat pump for the living area that the tenants were using. This was finally installed on 15 January 2026. She says there were some hold-ups beyond her control in this process.
Ms Chu said she believed the tenants were motivated to make this claim by the prospect of financial reward. She also said that following the tenants raising the issue with her, she began looking into getting a heat pump for that room, and one was installed on 15 January 2026.
Ms Chu’s comments about the tenants’ motivation is speculation; the tenants’ are unlikely to admit to such a motivation because the landlord’s comment suggests a level of unsavouriness about being motivated only by financial reward. However the tenants’ motivation is a matter for themselves and is not relevant to my determination; the law makes it clear that where breaches such as this have occurred, tenants are entitled to financial compensation.
I note also that if it weren’t for financial considerations there would be no reason to not install heat pumps for tenants in every room.
As to the difficulties that Ms Chu encountered in installing a heat pump meaning the installation took five and a half months, this is unfortunate for Ms Chu, but the cost of the difficulties should not rightly be borne by the tenants. I take account of the fact that Ms Chu stayed engaged with the tenants and was responsive to their needs and the law, despite taking way too long to install the heat pump.
I am persuaded the tenants should be reimbursed a portion of their rent due to the impact the breach had on the usability of their rental property during the winter of 2025. Living in a cold house is unpleasant and in this day and age, with the legislation that New Zealand has in place, and the level of public interest in providing fit for purpose housing, breaches such as this cannot be excused.
I consider a 10% reduction in rent for a five month period is appropriate in this case. I consider this the minimum period when heating would have been necessary in this room to make it a reasonably pleasant place to be in. This is $90.00 per week for a period of 22 weeks and amounts to $1,980.00.
I am not persuaded the tenants should be reimbursed for the cost of their Healthy Homes Compliance Report. Such a report is not needed to bring a claim to the Tribunal, and nor did it assist the Tribunal. The report was for the benefit of the tenants.
Considering the above factors, exemplary damages are appropriate in this case and I award $750.00, which I consider appropriate given the factors I have already mentioned, as well as the severity of the breach, and the landlord’s efforts to remedy it whether or not it was required by law.
Because the tenants have been wholly successful with their claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5378980 — net $2,758.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,980.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$750.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,758.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,758.00

Order

Michelle Chu must pay William Patrick Grant and Katherine Barkley $2,758.00 immediately as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
The tenancy began on 22 February 2025 and is due to end on the coming Sunday, 15 February 2026.
William Patrick Grant and Katherine Barkley claim 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). Mr Grant and Ms Barkley consider the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
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.
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).
The HHS says that if the premises have two or more living rooms, the largest of them is the one that must be heated. See HHS, section 8(2)(b).
This is a dispute essentially about which is the main living area at the premises.
The tenants say the room they used as the living room was not heated by a qualifying heat pump. This is not disputed by the landlord. The landlord says that the room that was used by the tenants as a living room, was not the correct room to heat according to HHS section 8(2)(b).
Section 8(2)(b) of the HHS refers to living rooms and not living areas.
The landlord says the premises has two living rooms. The tenants say the premises has two “living areas,” one of which is a dining room adjoining an open plan kitchen, and the other a more natural living room.
Ms Chu says that because the dining room and kitchen (and connected hallways) amounts to a larger floor area than the “living room” this must be considered the main living room.
I consider it a strained interpretation to call the dining room, kitchen and connected hallways a “living room”.
The tenants had sofas, coffee tables and a television in the “living room” and a dining table and chairs in the “dining room”.
Ms Chu said where the tenants chose to put their furniture is not determinative of the nature of the room. This is correct, but in many cases it will provide valuable information as to how a premises is most naturally used. In this case I believe the house would have been designed to be used as the tenants are using it, and I would expect the vast majority of occupants to use it in the same way.
Ms Chu said she relied on the expertise of a company she engaged to do a Healthy Homes Compliance Report of the property in 2022. In this report the company said the property was compliant with the HHS on the basis that the dining room/kitchen area were the main living room due to their combined floor area.
The tenants said they organised their own Healthy Homes Compliance Report which confirmed their conclusion that the property was not compliant with HHS on the basis that the living room did not have a qualifying heater.
This goes to prove simply that parties must check reports themselves against an honest, common-sense based appraisal. When a company produces a report that is found to be incorrect, it is not the company that is in breach of the legislation. Second opinions are always a good idea.
I determine this house has one living room and it is the room that the tenants used as a living room for the duration of the tenancy.
There is no compliant heating in this area. The landlord has committed an unlawful act.
The tenants are seeking a retrospective rent rebate of $250.00 a week from 1 July 2025 (when they told the landlord they considered her to be in breach of the HHS) until 15 January 2026 when a heat pump was installed. This is a period of 28 weeks and amounts to $7,000.00.
The tenant is also seeking a reimbursement for the Healthy Homes Assessment Report they commissioned at a cost of approximately $250.00.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may also 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.
The tenants said that during winter it was very cold in the living room, on occasions to such an extent that they could see the condensation from their breath when they exhaled. They said they notified the landlord of this in July 2025, and when the landlord conducted a routine inspection she herself noted how cold it was in the living room.
Ms Chu said that in August 2025 she began the process of arranging a heat pump for the living area that the tenants were using. This was finally installed on 15 January 2026. She says there were some hold-ups beyond her control in this process.
Ms Chu said she believed the tenants were motivated to make this claim by the prospect of financial reward. She also said that following the tenants raising the issue with her, she began looking into getting a heat pump for that room, and one was installed on 15 January 2026.
Ms Chu’s comments about the tenants’ motivation is speculation; the tenants’ are unlikely to admit to such a motivation because the landlord’s comment suggests a level of unsavouriness about being motivated only by financial reward. However the tenants’ motivation is a matter for themselves and is not relevant to my determination; the law makes it clear that where breaches such as this have occurred, tenants are entitled to financial compensation.
I note also that if it weren’t for financial considerations there would be no reason to not install heat pumps for tenants in every room.
As to the difficulties that Ms Chu encountered in installing a heat pump meaning the installation took five and a half months, this is unfortunate for Ms Chu, but the cost of the difficulties should not rightly be borne by the tenants. I take account of the fact that Ms Chu stayed engaged with the tenants and was responsive to their needs and the law, despite taking way too long to install the heat pump.
I am persuaded the tenants should be reimbursed a portion of their rent due to the impact the breach had on the usability of their rental property during the winter of 2025. Living in a cold house is unpleasant and in this day and age, with the legislation that New Zealand has in place, and the level of public interest in providing fit for purpose housing, breaches such as this cannot be excused.
I consider a 10% reduction in rent for a five month period is appropriate in this case. I consider this the minimum period when heating would have been necessary in this room to make it a reasonably pleasant place to be in. This is $90.00 per week for a period of 22 weeks and amounts to $1,980.00.
I am not persuaded the tenants should be reimbursed for the cost of their Healthy Homes Compliance Report. Such a report is not needed to bring a claim to the Tribunal, and nor did it assist the Tribunal. The report was for the benefit of the tenants.
Considering the above factors, exemplary damages are appropriate in this case and I award $750.00, which I consider appropriate given the factors I have already mentioned, as well as the severity of the breach, and the landlord’s efforts to remedy it whether or not it was required by law.
Because the tenants have been wholly successful with their claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5378980 — Exemplary damages at 11 Waikowhai Street, Ngaio, Wellington 6035

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5378980 — Exemplary damages at 11 Waikowhai Street, Ngaio, Wellington 6035

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions