Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5395476 — Healthy homes at 329 Mount Albert Road, Wesley, Auckland 1041
Published 26 February 2026 · Application 5395476
Tenant favoured
- Healthy homes
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Tenant favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $2,728.00
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $2,728.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compensation: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards | $2,700.00 | Failure to comply with healthy homes standards | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $2,728.00 | ||
| Total payable by Landlord to Tenant | $2,728.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5395476 — net $2,728.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Compensation: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards
- Amount
- $2,700.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Failure to comply with healthy homes standards
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Tenant $2,728.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant
Tenant $2,728.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- The Property Managers Limited Ray White must pay Justin Robert Moyes and Evanne Christine Bebilone Impas $2,728.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing on 24 February 2026.
- The tenancy began on 2 November 2023 and is ongoing. On 5 August 2025, the tenant entered the subfloor because they suspected there was a leak in a pipe. At this time, they noticed that part of the subfloor under the lounge area did not have any insulation. The tenant also noticed that the insulation present in the rest of the subfloor was not installed correctly. For these reasons, the tenant claims the premises did not comply with the healthy homes standards from 2 November 2023 – 13 November 2025. The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages. The issues I must determine are: a. Did the premises comply with the healthy homes standards when required? b. If not, how much compensation should the landlord pay the tenant? c. Should exemplary damages be ordered? d. Can the Tribunal order the landlord to amend the healthy homes compliance statement? Standard of proof
- As the applicant, the tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
- As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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 of 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.
- I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
Did the premises comply with the healthy homes standards when required?
The law
- Section 45(1)(bb) RTA requires a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards.
- The healthy homes standards are found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (“HHS”). These provide a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in respect of insulation, heating, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture and drainage.
- The tenancy began on 2 November 2023. Therefore, the landlord had until 1 March 2024, which is 120 days later, to comply with the healthy homes standards.
- Regulation 15(1) of the HHS states that a domestic living space in a premises with a suspended floor must be fully covered by qualifying insulation. Regulation 15(2) lists two exceptions, none of which apply to the present case. 1
- Regulation 3 defines a domestic living space as “an interior space of a building that is a space for activities normally associated with domestic living.”
- Regulation 16(1) defines qualifying insulation as follows: 16Qualifying underfloor insulation (1)Underfloor insulation is qualifying underfloor insulation if all of the following apply: (a) the insulation’s R-value, when it was installed, was at least 1.3: (b) the insulation was installed in accordance with NZS 4246:2016: (c) the insulation is in a reasonable condition (or better).
- Regulation 19 states that a floor does not need to comply with regulation 15 if, at the commencement of the tenancy: (a) The floor does not comply with that regulation; and (b) It is not reasonably practicable to install insulation so as to comply with that regulation.
- Regulation 4 defines the meaning of “not reasonably practicable to install.” It states: 4Meaning of not reasonably practicable to install It is not reasonably practicable to install something at any premises or tenancy building if, because of the way the premises or tenancy building is designed or built, - (a) A professional installer cannot access the relevant area of the premises or tenancy building to install the thing without – (i)Carrying out substantial building work; or 1 The exceptions are: (a) where there is another domestic living space (whether or not part of the premises) immediately below the floor; or (b) where clearances are reasonably required around any other item that is installed in or under the floor. (ii)Causing substantial damage to the premises or tenancy building; or (b) A professional installer cannot install the thing without creating greater risks to the health or safety of any person than are normally acceptable when something of that kind is being installed by a professional installer; or (c) It is otherwise not reasonably practicable for a professional installer to install the thing. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
- The tenant claims the insulation is not “qualifying insulation” for the following reasons: a. It does not cover the entire subfloor; b. The insulation was not installed in accordance with NZS 4246:2016, because it was not installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. The tenant claims the manufacturer’s instructions require the insulation to be stapled to the floor joists and it has been stapled directly to the floorboards in many areas; and c. The landlord is unable to prove the R-value is at least 1.3 because of the compression caused by stapling the insulation directly to the floorboards.
- The tenant claims insufficient evidence has been provided by the landlord to prove that it is not reasonably practicable to install insulation in the area of the subfloor under the lounge. The tenant claims that if an exemption applied to this area, the healthy homes assessment report would state this. Further, the tenant claims that they were able to access the area with relative ease and the fact that insulation was in fact installed in this area twice indicates it is reasonably practicable to install. Landlord’s evidence and submissions
- The landlord claims they took all reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the HHS. They engaged Affordable Energy Solutions (AES) to assess the premises on 14 July 2022. AES identified the following remedial works were needed to ensure the premises complied with the HHS: a. Top up of ceiling insulation b. Installation of a moisture barrier c. Installation of a rangehood in the kitchen d. Installation of qualifying smoke alarms
- The landlord submitted invoices for this work, which was completed by AES. The invoices total $2,960.59.
- AES did not recommend installation of any further insulation in the subfloor, nor did they note anything wrong with the insulation that was present.
- The landlord submitted a copy of the healthy homes assessment report completed by AES. It is dated 15 July 2022. In relation to the underfloor insulation, it states: Type of FloorUnderfloor Area of Underfloor105 Joist Width 350 Underfloor Insulation Material Installed Polyester Insulation Blanket What is the R-Value of Underfloor Insulation 1.5 Underfloor Insulation conditionUnderfloor insulation covers whole area except around pipes and wires Underfloor Insulation is Compliance?YES
- The landlord submitted a written statement from Mohammed Shoebuddin who is the Director of AES. Mr Shoebuddin states that while the assessor who completed the report noted the subfloor was fully insulated, there was a lot of building material under the house at the time, which created obstacles. He also states that AES attended the premises on 28 August 2025 and 15 September 2025 to install Mammoth R1.5 insulation in the area under the lounge however, they did this at great risk to their health and safety. This is because the clearance level in this area is under 400mm. Lastly, Mr Shoebuddin states that when assessing underfloor insulation, the main criteria that they consider is whether insulation material is present, fixed, and providing full coverage where accessible. Because the insulation was not installed by AES, Mr Shoebuddin states that they did not critique the stapling methods used.
- The landlord gave evidence that the original insulation is Pink Batts Polyester. The landlord claims the insulation was installed in 2019 by PinkFit Northwest, which has now been sold to Comfortech Building Performance Solutions. The landlord accepts that stapling of the product directly to the underfloor does not align with the manufacturer’s instructions.
- The landlord gave evidence that a second layer of R1.5 Mammoth Polyester was correctly installed on top of the existing insulation on 13 November 2025 and the underfloor insulation now complies with the HHS.
- The landlord claims that the area of the subfloor that was originally without insulation is probably exempt. This is because the height of the subfloor in this area is below 400mm. The landlord claims the fact that PinkFit Northwest did not install insulation in this area in 2019 indicates that it is not reasonably practicable to install insulation in this area. The landlord also claims that the fact that the moisture barrier does not cover this entire area indicates that it is not reasonably practicable to install insulation in this area. The landlord gave evidence that the reason AES did not specifically state that this area of the subfloor was exempt is because they experienced difficulties with the tenant, whom they felt was awkward to deal with. The landlord claims AES told them that they wanted to get the job done and leave as quickly as possible. Analysis
- I begin first by considering the lack of underfloor insulation in the area under the lounge.
- The lounge is a domestic living space. This is because it is an interior space of the premises that is used for activities normally associated with domestic living such as, dining, watching television and entertaining guests. The lounge has a suspended floor. Therefore, the starting point is that regulation 15(1) of the HHS requires the suspended floor in the lounge to be fully covered by qualifying insulation.
- The tenant submitted photographs of the suspended floor in the lounge taken around 5 August 2025. These photographs show an area of the suspended floor in the lounge did not have qualifying insulation at this date. The invoice from AES for the installation of a moisture barrier is dated 27 July 2022. Photographs following the installation of the moisture barrier were submitted. These photographs show there is no insulation in the same part of the suspended floor as at 27 July 2022 either. This evidence convinces me that this area of the suspended floor was without qualifying insulation from the beginning of the tenancy on 2 November 2023 – 15 September 2025 when it was properly installed by AES.
- The tenant has proven that the suspended floor in the lounge was not fully covered in qualifying insulation from 2 November 2023 – 15 September 2025. The onus now shifts to the landlord to prove that it is not reasonably practicable to install insulation in this area, on the balance of probabilities.
- The premises are located on a sloping site. The area of the subfloor decreases from the point of entry to the lounge. The landlord claims that the height of the subfloor in the area of the lounge without insulation is under 400mm and therefore, it is not reasonably practicable to install insulation because of health and safety risks. The landlord appears to rely on the definition of “not reasonably practicable” in regulation 4(b) of the HHS.
- Insufficient evidence was submitted to prove that, on the balance of probabilities, it is not reasonably practicable to install insulation in this area. I say this for the following reasons: a. AES might not have been able to view the entire subfloor when they completed the first inspection however, they were able to view the entire subfloor once the rubbish was removed and they installed the moisture barrier. At this point, they would have seen that an area of the subfloor did not have insulation. If AES believed it was not reasonably practicable to install insulation in this area of the subfloor, the report should have been amended to state that there was an area of the subfloor without insulation and reasons provided as to why AES believed it was not reasonably practicable to install insulation in this area. Instead, the report was not amended and incorrectly states that there is full coverage, except around pipes and wires. b. When asked to return to the premises and install insulation in this area of the subfloor, AES were provided with a second opportunity to provide reasons as to why it was not reasonably practicable to install insulation in this area. They did not do this and installed insulation in the area twice. This further suggests that it is reasonably practicable to install insulation in this area. c. The statement from Mr Shoebuddin does not actually conclude that it is not reasonably practicable to install insulation in this area of the subfloor. d. No other professional reports confirming that this area of the subfloor is inaccessible, unsafe or too low were submitted. e. No professional reports discussing whether installation of insulation in this area of the subfloor could be completed without undertaking significant building work was submitted. f. No statements or quotes from other insulation companies declining to carry out the work due to access or safety issues was submitted.
- For these reasons, the landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that it is not reasonably practicable to install insulation in this area of the subfloor.
- Part of the subfloor under the lounge did not have insulation from 2 November 2023 – 15 September 2025, and the landlord has not proven that an exemption applies. Therefore, I find the premises did not comply with regulation 15(1) of the HHS from the compliance due date of 1 March 2024 – 15 September 2025.
- I now turn to consider the rest of the subfloor. The tenant claims the insulation installed in the rest of the subfloor was not qualifying insulation, because it was not installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The tenant submitted three videos during the hearing, which show various parts of the underfloor insulation. The videos show either one side of the insulation has been stapled directly to the floorboards and one side to the joists or both sides have been stapled directly to the floorboards. The videos submitted show a decent sample of insulation under the subfloor. On the balance of probabilities, I find most, if not all, of the insulation installed under the subfloor was installed with at least one side stapled directly to the floorboards.
- The landlord accepts that stapling Pink Batts Polyester insulation directly into the floorboards does not accord with the manufacturer’s instructions. Emails from John Coogan from PinkFit confirm the same. Mr Coogan states that the manufacturer’s instructions require the insulation to be stapled to the inside of joists. PinkFit returned to the premises to correctly install a new layer of insulation on 13 November 2025.
- Standard 7.3(2) of the NZS 4246:2016 states that the manufacturer’s instructions shall be followed when installing blanket insulation under suspended floors. The manufacturer’s instructions were not followed in this case, which means the insulation was not installed in accordance with NZS 4246:2016 and is not “qualifying insulation” per regulation 16(1) of the HHS.
- I also accept the tenant’s evidence that because of the incorrect method of installation, the landlord is also unable to prove the R-value of the insulation is
- 3, as required by regulation 16(1)(a). An email from Tony Lysaght from PinkFit states: ...There is no testing for this install method and a very clear method of install to the inside of the joist to allow the product to loft full inside the space. I have attached a photo from the initial install showing the compression in areas where the stapling is direct to the floor. While there is full coverage of product the compression will have a effect on the performance which is unquantifiable.
- From this evidence, I find that stapling insulation directly to the floorboards compresses it and there is no way of knowing to what degree this negatively effects the R-value. Therefore, there is no way of assessing what the R-value is.
- For all of these reasons, I find the entire subfloor of the premises did not have qualifying insulation from 1 March 2024 - 13 November 2025. For this reason, the premises did not comply with the HHS during this time and the landlord breached section 45(1)(bb) RTA.
How much compensation should the landlord pay the tenant?
The law
- Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
- The following factors are relevant when deciding to award compensation: 2 • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. Analysis
- I find $2,700.00 to be a reasonable amount of compensation the landlord should pay the tenant, considering the following factors: a. The nature of the breach. I assess the seriousness of the breach to be moderate. No measurements were taken of the area of the subfloor without insulation however, it appears relatively small in the photographs. An email sent by the landlord to the tenant refers to the area as being 10m². On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the area of the subfloor without insulation was relatively small. The rest of the subfloor had insulation that was incorrectly installed however, this is not a case where there was no underfloor insulation at all. Further, the landlord actively took steps to ensure compliance with the HHS by engaging appropriately qualified professionals to assess the subfloor before the tenancy began. This is not a case where the landlord has had no regard for their obligations and taken no steps to ensure compliance. b. The duration of the breach. The breach endured for approximately 20 months from 1 March 2024 – 13 November 2025 when it was remedied. This is a long time. c. The effect of the breach on the party. The tenant claims the premises were very cold, especially in the lounge where there was an area of missing insulation. The tenant gave evidence that their dining room table was above the area without insulation, and they could often feel a cold draught around their feet and had to eat with blankets on their laps. The tenant also claims they had to use blankets when watching television in the lounge, because it was so cold. This was despite the fact the heat pump was on. d. An email from Tony Lysaght from PinkFit discusses the effect of an area of missing insulation. He states: 2 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. A weakness of an area not being installed would compromise the entire performance of the house. The heat escaping will find the weakest point... e. I accept the tenant’s evidence that the house was colder than would usually be the case due to the missing and incorrectly installed insulation, and that this detracted from the amenity of the premises. I also accept the tenant’s evidence that they most likely incurred higher electricity costs in winter in 2024 and 2025 as a result of the non-compliance. The tenant submitted a number of electricity invoices issued throughout the tenancy. f. The landlord gave evidence that the tenant’s electricity invoices totalled $5,671.77. The landlord claims 15% of this amounts to the tenant’s annual heating costs, according to ChatGPT and other websites on the internet. The landlord asked the Tribunal to consider limiting the amount of compensation to $850.77. Insufficient evidence to support the landlord’s claims were submitted in this respect. ChatGPT is not an authoritative source of information, and the websites referred to by the landlord were not provided. In any case, the purpose of compensation is not only to reimburse the tenant for the extra costs incurred in heating the premises in winter, but also to reflect the loss of amenity.
Should exemplary damages be ordered?
The law
- Failure to comply with the HHS is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered. 3
- Exemplary damages are different from compensation. They are designed to punish and deter. They are like a fine.
- Section 109(3) RTA states that exemplary damages may be ordered if the Tribunal determines the unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just, having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1.
- In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first been served on the tenant.
- Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal that: 4 Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
- Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis there was no intention established, therefore there was no basis to order exemplary damages. Analysis
- I decline to order exemplary damages, because I am not convinced the landlord acted intentionally. This is because the landlord instructed AES to assess the premises and provide advice about whether they complied with the HHS. AES said that the underfloor insulation complied when it did not. The landlord was entitled to rely on the professional advice of AES.
- Once the tenant alerted the landlord potential issues with the insulation, the landlord organised for AES to reassess the premises within a reasonable timeframe. AES declined to comment on the installation method of the insulation that was already installed and therefore, the landlord had to locate the original installer. This understandably took some time however I am satisfied that all reasonable efforts were made. Once the original installer was identified, the landlord worked with them to have the problem rectified as soon as reasonably practicable. A new lawyer of insulation was installed on 13 November 2025.
- Because the landlord did not act intentionally, I cannot order exemplary damages. 4 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 Can the Tribunal order the landlord to amend the healthy homes compliance statement?
- The landlord completed a new healthy homes compliance statement after 13 November 2025. It states that the R-value of the underfloor insulation is 3.0. This is because there are now two layers of insulation in the subfloor. The tenant claims this is incorrect, because the first layer of insulation is incorrectly installed and there is no way of knowing what R-value it has. The tenant asks the Tribunal amend the healthy homes compliance statement.
- Section 78 of the RTA defines the types of orders the Tribunal may make. The Tribunal is not empowered to amend healthy homes compliance statements. For this reason, I cannot do what the tenant asks however, it would probably be prudent for the landlord to amend the statement to say that the R-value is 1.5. This is R-value for the new layer of insulation that has been correctly installed. Filing fee
- Because Justin Robert Moyes, Evanne Christine Bebilone Impas has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s1, s109(3), s120, s14, s15, s16, s20, s2019, s24, s3, s40, s4246, s45(1), s45(1A), s47, s78
Key findings
- Dispute theme: healthy homes
Property management
- THE PROPERTY MANAGERS LIMITED (respondent)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5395476?
The tribunal order states: The Property Managers Limited Ray White must pay Justin Robert Moyes and
How much money was awarded in case 5395476?
Compensation: Failure to comply with…: $2,700.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5395476?
The primary dispute was Healthy homes.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5395476?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13184759-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.