What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407248 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and the landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5407248?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407248?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13359438-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407248 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and the landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5407248?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407248?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13359438-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5407248 — Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages alleging breaches of healthy homes standards with respect to insulation at the property.
There were other allegations made at the hearing, for example in respect of rent arrears and whiteware, however, and as discussed as the hearing as there was no application made in respect of these, I have not considered these further. Background
The property was purchased by [The respondent/s] (“the trust”) in 2015, when both parties were Trustees of the Trust.
After the property was purchased, the tenant had completed extensive alterations to the property, with all work (including insulation) being done by the tenant (save for electrical, plumbing and the roof).
The tenant was a trustee of the trust until the parties separated in 2022, at which time the tenant resigned as a trustee.
The property was managed by the tenant on behalf of the trust until the property settlement as part of the separation agreement that was reached in 2023, at which time the property was legally transferred to a new trust.
As part of the separation agreement, it was agreed that the tenant would rent the property for two years, at a discounted rental, until their youngest daughter finished school.
A tenancy agreement was signed by the parties, and I note that it also included the parties’ daughter as a co-tenant.
The parties’ daughter principally lived at the property during the tenancy.
The property was managed by the landlord from 2023 until early 2025, however, the landlord says she was unable to carry out routine inspections during this time as the tenant would not allow her to. The tenant does not appear to have contacted the landlord about any issues relating to Health Homes Standards or anything else with respect to maintenance at the property. I also note that the tenancy agreement included a clause, as added by the tenant, that the tenant would be responsible for maintaining the property including for minor repairs.
In October 2025 the landlord appointed a property manager to assist with preparing the property for a new tenant once the tenant’s occupation came to an end. Part of that preparation included a healthy homes assessment.
A report was received on 29 October 2025 that advised that the ceiling insulation required a ‘top-up’ and the landlord instructed the property manager to have the works done immediately. I have not been provided with a copy of the report, only the correspondence from the property manager advising what works required completion.
Following the end of the tenancy, the tenant applied to the Tribunal seeking compensation for alleged increased power costs and exemplary damages because of the identified insultation deficiencies. Jurisdiction
The first question to consider is whether the tenant’s occupation of the property was a tenancy pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The RTA provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the RTA applies. 1
The RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy and where appropriate includes a lawful successor in title of a landlord to the premises. 2
The terms “residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined in section s2(1) of the RTA.
There are several exceptions in the RTA, including where the premises continue to be used principally as a place of residence by the landlord or by any member of their family. 3
Although this clearly falls within that exception, with the parties’ daughter principally living at the property, I am satisfied that the parties agreed to bound by the RTA by both signing a written tenancy agreement. 4
The fact that the landlord was recorded as a family trust, that the tenant was at one time a trustee of the trust, and that ownership later transferred into the sole name of the landlord, does not deprive the Tribunal of jurisdiction. The RTA contemplates tenancies involving trusts and changes of ownership during a tenancy.
I am satisfied that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the application. Legal principles
The tenant bears the burden of proving his claims on the balance of probabilities.
To succeed, the tenant must establish: a. A breach of the landlord’s obligations under the RTA or the Healthy Homes standards. b. That the breach caused compensable loss (in relation to compensation); and c. That any unlawful act was intentional, reckless, or repeated (in relation to exemplary damages). 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s77(1). 2 RTA, s2(1). 3 RTA, s5(1)(n). 4 RTA, s8. Findings Healthy Homes compliance and breach
The tenant relies on an independent report obtained approximately one month before the tenancy ended, which identified that the ceiling insulation required a top-up. The tenant has also provided some photographs that show gaps in the insulation.
I accept that the report or the email from the property manager advising the required works based on the report, establishes that, at that point in time, the insultation did not fully meet the applicable standards. To that limited extent, I am satisfied that there was a technical breach of the landlord’s obligations under section 45 of the RTA and the insulation requirements of the Healthy Homes Standards.
However, the scope and context of that breach are important.
The tenant himself completed and signed the Healthy Homes Compliance Statement at the commencement of the tenancy, having carried out renovations to the property and having direct knowledge of its condition. The landlord was entitled to rely on those representations.
Once the independent report identified that a top-up was required to the ceiling insulation, the landlord acted promptly to remedy the issue. There is no evidence of delay, inaction, or disregard of obligations once the issue became known. The breach was therefore minor, late arising, and promptly remedied. Compensation
The tenant seeks compensation of $2,500.00 for increased power costs said to have resulted from the insulation issue.
I am not satisfied that compensation is justified.
The evidence does not establish a causal link between the ceiling insulation top-up identified one month before the tenancy ended and the claimed power costs. There is no persuasive evidence demonstrating what additional costs, if any, were incurred during that short period, or that any such costs were attributable to the identified deficiency rather than to other factors.
Compensation under the RTA requires proven loss caused by a proven breach. That threshold has not been met. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages require proof of an unlawful act committed intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly.
This case does not approach that threshold.
The breach identified was technical and minor, arose late in the tenancy, and was remedied promptly once identified. The landlord relied on compliance information provided by the tenant, who had superior knowledge of the condition of the premises. There is no evidence of intentional or reckless conduct.
Exemplary damages are therefore not available. Summary
Although a technical breach is established in relation to insulation at the very end of the tenancy, the evidence does not support any award of compensation or exemplary damages.
The RTA requires more than proof of a technical deficiency. It requires proof of loss and, for exemplary damages, culpable conduct. Those requirements are not met.
The tenant’s claims are dismissed.
Only one of the parties sought name suppression. In exercising my discretion under s95A of the RTA, I take into account that the premises were occupied by the parties’ daughter who is not a party to the proceeding. Publication of the parties’ names would carry a real risk of indirectly identifying her.
In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the interests of the child outweigh the public interest in publication. Accordingly, the names and identifying details of the parties are suppression. R Harvey-Lane 27 March 2026

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages alleging breaches of healthy homes standards with respect to insulation at the property.
There were other allegations made at the hearing, for example in respect of rent arrears and whiteware, however, and as discussed as the hearing as there was no application made in respect of these, I have not considered these further. Background
The property was purchased by [The respondent/s] (“the trust”) in 2015, when both parties were Trustees of the Trust.
After the property was purchased, the tenant had completed extensive alterations to the property, with all work (including insulation) being done by the tenant (save for electrical, plumbing and the roof).
The tenant was a trustee of the trust until the parties separated in 2022, at which time the tenant resigned as a trustee.
The property was managed by the tenant on behalf of the trust until the property settlement as part of the separation agreement that was reached in 2023, at which time the property was legally transferred to a new trust.
As part of the separation agreement, it was agreed that the tenant would rent the property for two years, at a discounted rental, until their youngest daughter finished school.
A tenancy agreement was signed by the parties, and I note that it also included the parties’ daughter as a co-tenant.
The parties’ daughter principally lived at the property during the tenancy.
The property was managed by the landlord from 2023 until early 2025, however, the landlord says she was unable to carry out routine inspections during this time as the tenant would not allow her to. The tenant does not appear to have contacted the landlord about any issues relating to Health Homes Standards or anything else with respect to maintenance at the property. I also note that the tenancy agreement included a clause, as added by the tenant, that the tenant would be responsible for maintaining the property including for minor repairs.
In October 2025 the landlord appointed a property manager to assist with preparing the property for a new tenant once the tenant’s occupation came to an end. Part of that preparation included a healthy homes assessment.
A report was received on 29 October 2025 that advised that the ceiling insulation required a ‘top-up’ and the landlord instructed the property manager to have the works done immediately. I have not been provided with a copy of the report, only the correspondence from the property manager advising what works required completion.
Following the end of the tenancy, the tenant applied to the Tribunal seeking compensation for alleged increased power costs and exemplary damages because of the identified insultation deficiencies. Jurisdiction
The first question to consider is whether the tenant’s occupation of the property was a tenancy pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The RTA provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the RTA applies. 1
The RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy and where appropriate includes a lawful successor in title of a landlord to the premises. 2
The terms “residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined in section s2(1) of the RTA.
There are several exceptions in the RTA, including where the premises continue to be used principally as a place of residence by the landlord or by any member of their family. 3
Although this clearly falls within that exception, with the parties’ daughter principally living at the property, I am satisfied that the parties agreed to bound by the RTA by both signing a written tenancy agreement. 4
The fact that the landlord was recorded as a family trust, that the tenant was at one time a trustee of the trust, and that ownership later transferred into the sole name of the landlord, does not deprive the Tribunal of jurisdiction. The RTA contemplates tenancies involving trusts and changes of ownership during a tenancy.
I am satisfied that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the application. Legal principles
The tenant bears the burden of proving his claims on the balance of probabilities.
To succeed, the tenant must establish: a. A breach of the landlord’s obligations under the RTA or the Healthy Homes standards. b. That the breach caused compensable loss (in relation to compensation); and c. That any unlawful act was intentional, reckless, or repeated (in relation to exemplary damages). 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s77(1). 2 RTA, s2(1). 3 RTA, s5(1)(n). 4 RTA, s8. Findings Healthy Homes compliance and breach
The tenant relies on an independent report obtained approximately one month before the tenancy ended, which identified that the ceiling insulation required a top-up. The tenant has also provided some photographs that show gaps in the insulation.
I accept that the report or the email from the property manager advising the required works based on the report, establishes that, at that point in time, the insultation did not fully meet the applicable standards. To that limited extent, I am satisfied that there was a technical breach of the landlord’s obligations under section 45 of the RTA and the insulation requirements of the Healthy Homes Standards.
However, the scope and context of that breach are important.
The tenant himself completed and signed the Healthy Homes Compliance Statement at the commencement of the tenancy, having carried out renovations to the property and having direct knowledge of its condition. The landlord was entitled to rely on those representations.
Once the independent report identified that a top-up was required to the ceiling insulation, the landlord acted promptly to remedy the issue. There is no evidence of delay, inaction, or disregard of obligations once the issue became known. The breach was therefore minor, late arising, and promptly remedied. Compensation
The tenant seeks compensation of $2,500.00 for increased power costs said to have resulted from the insulation issue.
I am not satisfied that compensation is justified.
The evidence does not establish a causal link between the ceiling insulation top-up identified one month before the tenancy ended and the claimed power costs. There is no persuasive evidence demonstrating what additional costs, if any, were incurred during that short period, or that any such costs were attributable to the identified deficiency rather than to other factors.
Compensation under the RTA requires proven loss caused by a proven breach. That threshold has not been met. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages require proof of an unlawful act committed intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly.
This case does not approach that threshold.
The breach identified was technical and minor, arose late in the tenancy, and was remedied promptly once identified. The landlord relied on compliance information provided by the tenant, who had superior knowledge of the condition of the premises. There is no evidence of intentional or reckless conduct.
Exemplary damages are therefore not available. Summary
Although a technical breach is established in relation to insulation at the very end of the tenancy, the evidence does not support any award of compensation or exemplary damages.
The RTA requires more than proof of a technical deficiency. It requires proof of loss and, for exemplary damages, culpable conduct. Those requirements are not met.
The tenant’s claims are dismissed.
Only one of the parties sought name suppression. In exercising my discretion under s95A of the RTA, I take into account that the premises were occupied by the parties’ daughter who is not a party to the proceeding. Publication of the parties’ names would carry a real risk of indirectly identifying her.
In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the interests of the child outweigh the public interest in publication. Accordingly, the names and identifying details of the parties are suppression. R Harvey-Lane 27 March 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407248 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407248 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions