What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5409270 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 5409270?

Compensation: Garage: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: HHS Draught: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: HHS Fireplace: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5409270?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5409270?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13573963-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5409270 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 5409270?

Compensation: Garage: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: HHS Draught: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: HHS Fireplace: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5409270?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5409270?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13573963-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5409270 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5409270 — net $1,078.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: HHS Fireplace	$500.00	HHS Fireplace
Compensation: HHS draught	$500.00	HHS draught
Compensation: garage	$50.00	garage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,078.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,078.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5409270 — net $1,078.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: HHS Fireplace	$500.00	HHS Fireplace
Compensation: HHS draught	$500.00	HHS draught
Compensation: garage	$50.00	garage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,078.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,078.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,078.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The tenant appeared with a support person. [Property Manager] appeared for the landlord. The landlord/owners also appeared.
The tenancy commenced on 01 August 2022 and ended on 18 November 2025. On 20 December 2025, the tenant filed a claim.
The tenant’s claims are as follows: i. The property failed to meet the Healthy Homes Standards for heating and drainage and moisture ingress. ii. The landlord failed to maintain the roof, gas heater, windows, sewerage system, and electricity to garage. iii. The landlord had breached the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy amounting to harassment. iv. The tenant seeks $45,000.00 compensation and exemplary damages. Evidence - Fireplace
The tenant stated that at the commencement of the tenancy, the fireplace was the only form of heating the main living room. They stated that they noticed some damage and advised the property manager. The property manager arranged for the fireplace to be cleaned, and no issues were raised. However, when the tenant used the fire, the property filled with smoke. The tenant advised the landlord but could not recall when this occurred.
The state the landlord did not inspect the fire but denied there was any issue. The tenant state they issued a 14-day notice which included the fire. The landlord and a contractor visited the property. A number of matters were addressed, but not the fireplace.
Another chimney sweep visited around the end of March / April. The tenant stated they were advised by the chimney sweep not to use the fire. The property manager subsequently confirmed that the tenant should not use the fireplace.
The landlord arranged for the installation of a heat pump. The tenant states that the property was effectively without an approved form of heating until the heat pump was installed. The tenant also stated that the property was cold.
The landlord stated that the first they were aware of the issue was the notice issued in January 2024. They stated that the heat pump had been installed in April 2024. Although the property was without an approved form of heating it had occurred over the summer months. Draught
The tenant stated that once the fireplace was decommissioned, it became a source of draughts. They stated that the advised the landlord, but could not recall when, but that nothing was done. The tenant stated that they included sealing the fireplace in 14-day notices issued 29 January 2024 and then again on 30 June 2025, but that the fireplace was not sealed until shortly before the tenancy ended on 18 November 2025. The tenant argued that the delay was unreasonable.
The landlord stated the fireplace was a firebox. They stated that tenants are encouraged to report maintenance issues using a property management application called TAPI. They stated that the first time they became aware of any issue with when they received the 14-day notice in January 2024.
The landlord accepted that the draught issue was not addressed until 18 November 2025. However, the landlord stated that the draught issue was not mentioned in the 14-day notice issued 29 January 2024 and was first raised on 30 June 2025. The landlord noted there was no evidence of the issue being raised between January 2024 and June 2025. Windows
The tenant stated that the windows were in a poor state of repair but was unable to produce any supporting evidence. Drainage
The tenant stated that they advised the landlord of a flood by the garage, although they could not recall when. They produced a photograph they state was taken about three months after the start of the tenancy showing water pooling in front of the garage. They stated that there was a drainpipe near the deck which overflowed, and that the drainage on the other side of the house overflowed causing water to spill onto the ground beneath the house.
The tenant produced three short videos showing surface water and water bubbling up from drainpipe soak holes.
The tenant stated that they had taken more photographs and videos but that the phone on which they had been taken and stored had been destroyed.
The tenant stated they included the drainage issues in the 14-day notice dated 29 January 2024 and that the landlord had fixed the drainpipe and a drain near the garage. The tenant also stated that they had raised the issue verbally during inspections. The tenant argued that there had been an unreasonable delay in addressing the matter.
The landlord stated there had been some issues with surface water following heavy rain. They stated that a plumber had visited on at least three occasions and that the owner had also undertaken work. The landlord stated that a small section of damaged guttering shown in one of the tenant’s photographs had been caused accidentally and was repaired shortly afterward. The landlord noted that the videos had been taken during heavy rainfall and submitted even the most efficient drainage systems would be challenged in such conditions. Roof
The tenant states that on 19 December 2022, they messaged the landlord concerning rain coming through the roof above a sunroom. They state the landlord advised that a plumber would investigate, but the plumber did not attend.
The tenant stated they included the matter in the 14-day notice issued 29 January 2024. Shortly afterward, a contractor visited and completed repairs, although roof occasionally continued to leak.
The tenant stated that they raised the issue again in the notice issued 30 June 2025 and that the roof leaked again while being professionally cleaned in August 2025.
The tenant produced a video showing the first leak in December 2022 and the second leak in August 2025. On the second occasion they advised the landlord, who asked the cleaners to stop.
The landlord stated they had limited record of the matter being raised. The landlord denied that it had been raised in the first 14-day notice nor in the second. Gas heater
The tenant stated that, on 12 October 2025, water leaked through a wall mounted gas heater. The tenant stated they advised the landlord, but that nothing was done. The tenant had no documentary record of the matter being raised.
The landlord had no record of the matter being raised. Sewerage system
The tenant stated that gas bubbled up from the toilet and washing machine and that, despite raising the issue with the landlord around November / December 2022, nothing was done. The tenant stated the plumber came in January / February 2023 and changed the cistern. The tenant stated that the plumber attended “a lot” in January 2024 and that sewerage entered the hot water cylinder cupboard.
The landlord stated that the issue had been raised in the 14-day notice issued in January 2024 and that the root cause had been attributed to the occupants flushing non-biodegradable material. The tenant accepted this. Electricity to garage
The tenant stated that during the property viewing that had been advised by the landlord’s agent that the garage had electricity. The tenant stated that they pointed out to the agent that wires appeared to be hanging loose, and that agent said that something would be done, but nothing was.
In September 2023, the tenant stated that they showed an electrician who had been at the property for another reason. It was then established that there was in fact, no electricity supply to the garage. The matter was not addressed, and in January 2024 the tenant included it in their notice. In response, the landlord stated that they would raise the matter with the owner, but nothing further occurred.
The landlord questioned whether the agent would have advised the tenant that there was electricity to the garage when there as not. The landlord stated that they had obtained a quote to remove the wiring but accepted that the matter had not been addressed. Interference
The tenant stated they had received an email from the landlord in response to the issues with the garage stating that they would demolish it. The tenant also stated that the plumber who investigated the sewerage issue had said inappropriate things about what caused the blockage. The tenant stated that a contractor had made a comment about what the landlord had said about them which they felt was inappropriate.
The landlord denies the allegations.
The tenant has produced the tenancy agreement, three 14-day notices, two issued on 29 January 2024, and one issued 30 June 2025. The tenant provided a selection of email and text messages, some of which were undated, together with several photographs and short videos taken over the course of the tenancy.
The landlord provided each of the three-monthly inspection reports which included photographs and details of any maintenance issues raised. Law
Section 45(1) (bb) requires the landlord to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS), which set out the minimum requirements for heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping for residential rental properties.
The HHS standards for this tenancy came into effect on 09 November 2022, being 90 days after the tenancy commenced.
Landlords must also ensure there are no unreasonable gaps or holes in walls, ceilings, windows, floors, or doors that cause noticeable draughts.
The property must have effective drainage systems to remove storm and ground water from the tenancy building, and a ground moisture barrier if there is an enclosed subfloor space, unless it is not reasonably practicable to install one.
The HHS heating standard requires that the main living room in every rental property must have a fixed heating device that can heat the room to at least 18°C. The heater must be efficient, safe, and not an open fire or an un-flued gas heater.
The HHS drainage standard requires that all rental properties must have efficient drainage for the removal of storm water, surface water, and ground water. This includes having appropriate gutters, downpipes, and drains to prevent water from pooling around or under the house.
During the tenancy, the property was also subject to the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR), which set out requirements for residential properties. The HHS obligations are additional to HIR, and generally more stringent.
Regulation 14 states that every house, to such extent deemed necessary local authority, must have efficient drainage for removal of storm, surface, and ground water.
Regulation 16 requires that every house must be provided with an adequate and effective means of sewage disposal. This means the house must have proper facilities to dispose of sewage in a sanitary way, ensuring health and hygiene standards are met for the occupants.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
In Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV 2009 085-001431, 24 February 2010 the Court stated: “I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair the defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”.
Whether the landlord has failed to meet their obligations will involve an objective assessment of the evidence.
Failure to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable condition under section 45(1)(b), failure to comply with the HHS under section 45(1) (bb), and meet obligations under section 45(1)(c) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded.
Under section 38(2) of the Act, a landlord must not cause or permit and interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
In the case of Smith v Floris, Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at 6, the Tribunal stated:
“Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents....”
Under section 39(3) an interference that also amounts to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00 may be awarded.
Harassment is not defined in the Act. In the case of MacDonald v Dodds, CIV- 2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010, the Court considered harassment to mean "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person”.
Whether interference has occurred will depend on the proven facts and an objective assessment of whether the act in question exceeds what a tenant could reasonably be expected to endure under the circumstances.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109(3) of the Act.
In awarding exemplary damages, the Tribunal must consider: i. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. ii. The effect of the unlawful act. iii. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. iv. The public interest; and v. Whether it is just to make the award
If there are multiple breaches of an obligation (multiple instances of unlawful acts) that could otherwise individually be the subject of an exemplary damages order, only one order of exemplary damages may be made for a breach of a particular section. Analysis and decision
The onus of proving these claims rests with the tenant. The standard required is the balance of probabilities. The tenant must establish that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached the terms of the agreement or the provisions of the Act.
In reaching my decision I have considered all evidence placed before the Tribunal, even if I do not specifically refer to it.
During the hearing, the tenant did not appear to be familiar with the claims or the supporting evidence. They stated that it had been prepared by a third party. The tenant spent time during the hearing scrolling through their mobile device looking for evidence to support the claims.
Overall, there was a lack of evidence on which to make an independent assessment.
The tenant appeared to be uncertain as to dates.
I prefer the evidence of the landlord, which was clearer and, in my opinion, more reliable.
There were no issues raised during the first inspection on 16 November 2022. There is no maintenance issues noted in the April 2024, July 2024, and January 2025 inspection reports.
I am not satisfied that the issue regarding the fireplace was raised prior to January 2024. I accept that, for a short period of time the property did not comply with the HHS heating standard.
Although I acknowledge that it occurred over the summer months into autumn, I accept that the tenant has suffered a loss of amenity, in that there was a degree of discomfort, and the tenant did not receive what they had bargained for under the agreement. I award the tenant compensation of $500.00.
The draught issue was raised with the landlord in the 14-day notice in January 2024 and then again 30 June 2025 but was not addressed until the end of the tenancy in November 2025. The delay was unreasonable.
The tenant stated the draught made the living room uncomfortable. I am satisfied that the tenant has suffered a loss of amenity, and I award the tenant compensation of $500.00.
There is no evidence concerning the windows and the claim is dismissed.
Drainage is included in the January 2024 notice. There is no evidence of it being raised before that. However, the property inspection report dated 08 March 2023 notes that drainage in front of the garage has been identified as an issue. One of the photographs produced by the tenant was taken on 27 May 2023, and shows recent drainage work in front of the garage.
The property inspection report dated 28 June 2023 notes two areas of leaking guttering / down pipe reported by the tenant. No leaks from these areas were noted in the April 2024 report.
I accept the landlord’s submission that the videos were taken during heavy rain and that they may not have been indicative of the overall effectiveness of the drainage system.
There is insufficient evidence to make a proper objective assessment nor establish that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately. The claim is dismissed.
The roof was included in the January 2024 notice. In the June 2025 notice, the tenant acknowledges that the roof has been fixed, but not inspected. There is no evidence of it being raised as an ongoing issue between January 2024 and June 2025.
Although the tenant claimed it repeatedly leaked there are only two videos,’ one of which was recorded while the roof was being cleaned August 2025. On the evidence, I am not satisfied that a breach has been established.
Apart from the tenant’s oral evidence about the gas heater, there is no other supporting evidence. This is insufficient to establish a breach.
Issues concerning plumbing / sewerage were raised in the June 2025 notice. They appear to relate to a clean-up as opposed to the substantive work. The photographs produced are limited.
There is insufficient evidence to make an independent objective assessment or establish that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately.
There are no photographs showing the inside of the garage or the wiring. There is insufficient evidence to establish that the redundant wiring was dangerous or posed a healthy and safety risk.
Although there was an unreasonable delay, I am not satisfied that the tenant suffered any actual loss. On that basis, I award nominal damages of $50.00.
Regarding the interference, there is no evidence other than the tenant’s oral evidence. The allegations lack detail, including dates and times. I am not satisfied that there has been an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy amounting to harassment.
The breaches for which exemplary damages may be considered relate to the HHS heating and draught standard, and the garage. Having considered the factors in section 109(3) of the Act, I am not satisfied that exemplary damages are justified in the circumstances. Costs
As the tenant has been partly successful, I order reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that their name or identifying particulars of that party not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Globally assessed I find that both parties have been sufficiently successful, and I order suppression of their names and the address of the property.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5409270 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5409270 — Healthy homes

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