What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426188 about?

The tribunal order states: The respondent’s name is changed to reflect the name on the parties’ tenancy

How much money was awarded in case 5426188?

Compensation: Maintenance Matters: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: No insulation during w…: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Stress - Delayed tenan…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426188?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13437776-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426188 about?

The tribunal order states: The respondent’s name is changed to reflect the name on the parties’ tenancy

How much money was awarded in case 5426188?

Compensation: Maintenance Matters: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: No insulation during w…: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Stress - Delayed tenan…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426188?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13437776-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5426188 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5426188 — net $1,778.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Stress - Delayed tenancy	$400.00	Stress - Delayed tenancy
Compensation: No insulation during winter	$750.00	No insulation during winter
Compensation: Maintenance matters	$600.00	Maintenance matters
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,778.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,778.00

Order

The respondent’s name is changed to reflect the name on the parties’ tenancy agreement.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Connor Williams must pay the tenant $1,778.00 immediately calculated as follows: DescriptionTenant Compensation: Stress - Delayed tenancy $400.00 Compensation: No insulation during winter $750.00 Compensation: Maintenance matters $600.00 Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $1,778.00
The landlord must rectify the lawn area, where broken glass keeps appearing, by 13 May 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The respondent was represented by counsel.
The tenant claims compensation from the landlord amounting to $4,738.50 for breaches by the landlord including that: a. The landlord caused her stress by the inconvenience of not having the premises ready for occupation on the date agreed in the tenancy agreement and b. The landlord failed to provide premises that met insulation requirements for Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and, c. The landlord failed to maintain the premises.

Did the landlord inconvenience the tenant regarding the start date for the tenancy?

The parties were in discussion for some time about the applicant renting the [Tenancy address suppressed] property. The tenant visited the property before signing the tenancy agreement and knew about the damage that was being repaired before she could occupy the premises. A previous tenant had caused considerable damage to the house and the grounds. Because the tenant was in an existing tenancy and was required to give notice to that landlord, she coordinated that notice with a move in date for [Tenancy address suppressed]. By 23 April the landlord was confident that the tenancy could begin on 28 April and the parties signed a tenancy agreement to that effect. However it wasn’t possible for the tenancy to move in on that date. The tenant and her children had to find a place to stay until 16 May. This created stress and inconvenience for the tenant which warrants compensation.
In determining the amount to order I refer to, Applicant [name suppressed] v Singh (2022) NZTT Auckland 4315225 which suggests appropriate bands where awards are made for emotional harm damages: “A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $1,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 and upwards.”
I have determined that “A” is an appropriate band in this case. The tenant experienced ‘stress and anxiety’ due to being unable to occupy the premises with her three children for almost three weeks after the date agreed in the tenancy agreement. She was fortunate to have parents who could help but that was a disruption for then and the tenant. There was insufficient evidence that the tenant paid rent to her parents. It could be that the tenant received the benefit of almost three weeks rent free with her parents.
Based on the evidence available I have set compensation at $400.00 for that period when the rental was not ready to occupy.

Did the landlord provide premises that met Healthy Homes Standards?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached HHS obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies, Healthy Homes Regulations.
There was no dispute that ceiling insulation was not present in the premises in January 2026.
The landlord submitted that the pre-purchase inspection carried out in 2019 showed that that ceiling was insulated when the landlord purchased the property. However in January 2026 the tenant discovered that a significant amount of insulation was not in the ceiling. It is not known when it was removed. It is most likely that at it was removed some time before the current tenancy. The effect was that the tenant lived through a winter in premises that was not insulated as it should have been. I am satisfied that this defect was not caused by any action on the part of the landlord. While it is important to periodically check the condition of insulation, it is reasonable for the landlord to assume that insulation remained in the ceiling from one tenancy to the next.
The tenant stated that the premises was extremely cold during the winter months. There was no evidence provided by the tenant that could give an indication of the cost of additional power the tenant paid due to the lack of insulation.
I have assessed compensation based on there being an increased cost of heating the premises and the inconvenience relating to occupying colder premises. I have ordered compensation of $750.00 to be paid by the landlord to the tenant.
Regarding other HHS obligations, I am satisfied from the report provided in evidence by the landlord, that there is remedial work to be carried out to a gutter, a door and an extractor fan. These minor issues do not warrant an order for compensation for a breach of HHS but will be addressed when considering the landlord’s responsibility to maintain the premises.

Did the landlord maintain the premises?

The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. She referred to glass in lawn, sewage blockages, a cracked gutter and a front door the needed repair to prevent a draught.
The problem with the glass appearing in the lawn came about because a previous tenant carried out activities that caused broken glass in that area. However instead of removing all the glass the landlord covered over the glass to create a lawn area. The glass now appears through the lawn. The landlord has failed to remedy this problem.
The sewage pipe blocked causing an overflow of sewage on the back lawn. The tenant claimed that the landlord did not act quickly enough to avoid further overflows. I have considered the evidence regarding the landlord’s actions after being informed of the problem and am satisfied that the landlord did employ suitable contractors to rectify the problem, including unblocking the drain and having a section of drain replaced.
The tenant referred to a cracked gutter. Photos show a gutter that was broken. The broken gutter would allow water to flow onto the property. The landlord failed to rectify this within a reasonable time.
The tenant referred to the front door allowing a draught into the house. On 14 May 2025 the landlord texted the tenant stating that the door was repaired and that he would replace the door in 6 weeks. There isn’t a text from the tenant for a further repair of the door after this. The HHS report indicated that there was a gap in the sidelight at the front door that needed to be fixed but that is different from a gap in the front door. Having considered the information provided by the parties I find that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the landlord failed to maintain the door that was referred to in texts on 14 May 2025.
The landlord provided evidence of other maintenance that was addressed promptly.
In summary, I am satisfied that some areas of the property were not maintained as they should be and have ordered compensation of $600.00 be paid to the tenant. I have also made a work order. Work order
I have ordered that the landlord is to rectify the lawn area where broken glass keeps appearing by 10 May 2026. That is important because the lawn area currently presents a danger to the tenants and her children in an ongoing tenancy. Tenancy termination
The tenant requested an order from the tribunal that the landlord’s notice was retaliatory, and the tenancy should continue. An order is not necessary because the landlord rescinded the termination notice on 15 January 2026, the day after sending the notice. Summary
This order has taken account of all matters raised by the tenant in her application. Not all matters require a decision by the Tribunal. Filing Fee
Because the tenant has been successful with the claim the filing fee of $28.00 is ordered to be paid by the landlord. Suppression
The tenant has applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim and therefore name suppression is granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5426188 — net $1,778.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Stress - Delayed tenancy	$400.00	Stress - Delayed tenancy
Compensation: No insulation during winter	$750.00	No insulation during winter
Compensation: Maintenance matters	$600.00	Maintenance matters
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,778.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,778.00

Order

The respondent’s name is changed to reflect the name on the parties’ tenancy agreement.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Connor Williams must pay the tenant $1,778.00 immediately calculated as follows: DescriptionTenant Compensation: Stress - Delayed tenancy $400.00 Compensation: No insulation during winter $750.00 Compensation: Maintenance matters $600.00 Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $1,778.00
The landlord must rectify the lawn area, where broken glass keeps appearing, by 13 May 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The respondent was represented by counsel.
The tenant claims compensation from the landlord amounting to $4,738.50 for breaches by the landlord including that: a. The landlord caused her stress by the inconvenience of not having the premises ready for occupation on the date agreed in the tenancy agreement and b. The landlord failed to provide premises that met insulation requirements for Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and, c. The landlord failed to maintain the premises.

Did the landlord inconvenience the tenant regarding the start date for the tenancy?

The parties were in discussion for some time about the applicant renting the [Tenancy address suppressed] property. The tenant visited the property before signing the tenancy agreement and knew about the damage that was being repaired before she could occupy the premises. A previous tenant had caused considerable damage to the house and the grounds. Because the tenant was in an existing tenancy and was required to give notice to that landlord, she coordinated that notice with a move in date for [Tenancy address suppressed]. By 23 April the landlord was confident that the tenancy could begin on 28 April and the parties signed a tenancy agreement to that effect. However it wasn’t possible for the tenancy to move in on that date. The tenant and her children had to find a place to stay until 16 May. This created stress and inconvenience for the tenant which warrants compensation.
In determining the amount to order I refer to, Applicant [name suppressed] v Singh (2022) NZTT Auckland 4315225 which suggests appropriate bands where awards are made for emotional harm damages: “A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $1,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 and upwards.”
I have determined that “A” is an appropriate band in this case. The tenant experienced ‘stress and anxiety’ due to being unable to occupy the premises with her three children for almost three weeks after the date agreed in the tenancy agreement. She was fortunate to have parents who could help but that was a disruption for then and the tenant. There was insufficient evidence that the tenant paid rent to her parents. It could be that the tenant received the benefit of almost three weeks rent free with her parents.
Based on the evidence available I have set compensation at $400.00 for that period when the rental was not ready to occupy.

Did the landlord provide premises that met Healthy Homes Standards?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached HHS obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies, Healthy Homes Regulations.
There was no dispute that ceiling insulation was not present in the premises in January 2026.
The landlord submitted that the pre-purchase inspection carried out in 2019 showed that that ceiling was insulated when the landlord purchased the property. However in January 2026 the tenant discovered that a significant amount of insulation was not in the ceiling. It is not known when it was removed. It is most likely that at it was removed some time before the current tenancy. The effect was that the tenant lived through a winter in premises that was not insulated as it should have been. I am satisfied that this defect was not caused by any action on the part of the landlord. While it is important to periodically check the condition of insulation, it is reasonable for the landlord to assume that insulation remained in the ceiling from one tenancy to the next.
The tenant stated that the premises was extremely cold during the winter months. There was no evidence provided by the tenant that could give an indication of the cost of additional power the tenant paid due to the lack of insulation.
I have assessed compensation based on there being an increased cost of heating the premises and the inconvenience relating to occupying colder premises. I have ordered compensation of $750.00 to be paid by the landlord to the tenant.
Regarding other HHS obligations, I am satisfied from the report provided in evidence by the landlord, that there is remedial work to be carried out to a gutter, a door and an extractor fan. These minor issues do not warrant an order for compensation for a breach of HHS but will be addressed when considering the landlord’s responsibility to maintain the premises.

Did the landlord maintain the premises?

The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. She referred to glass in lawn, sewage blockages, a cracked gutter and a front door the needed repair to prevent a draught.
The problem with the glass appearing in the lawn came about because a previous tenant carried out activities that caused broken glass in that area. However instead of removing all the glass the landlord covered over the glass to create a lawn area. The glass now appears through the lawn. The landlord has failed to remedy this problem.
The sewage pipe blocked causing an overflow of sewage on the back lawn. The tenant claimed that the landlord did not act quickly enough to avoid further overflows. I have considered the evidence regarding the landlord’s actions after being informed of the problem and am satisfied that the landlord did employ suitable contractors to rectify the problem, including unblocking the drain and having a section of drain replaced.
The tenant referred to a cracked gutter. Photos show a gutter that was broken. The broken gutter would allow water to flow onto the property. The landlord failed to rectify this within a reasonable time.
The tenant referred to the front door allowing a draught into the house. On 14 May 2025 the landlord texted the tenant stating that the door was repaired and that he would replace the door in 6 weeks. There isn’t a text from the tenant for a further repair of the door after this. The HHS report indicated that there was a gap in the sidelight at the front door that needed to be fixed but that is different from a gap in the front door. Having considered the information provided by the parties I find that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the landlord failed to maintain the door that was referred to in texts on 14 May 2025.
The landlord provided evidence of other maintenance that was addressed promptly.
In summary, I am satisfied that some areas of the property were not maintained as they should be and have ordered compensation of $600.00 be paid to the tenant. I have also made a work order. Work order
I have ordered that the landlord is to rectify the lawn area where broken glass keeps appearing by 10 May 2026. That is important because the lawn area currently presents a danger to the tenants and her children in an ongoing tenancy. Tenancy termination
The tenant requested an order from the tribunal that the landlord’s notice was retaliatory, and the tenancy should continue. An order is not necessary because the landlord rescinded the termination notice on 15 January 2026, the day after sending the notice. Summary
This order has taken account of all matters raised by the tenant in her application. Not all matters require a decision by the Tribunal. Filing Fee
Because the tenant has been successful with the claim the filing fee of $28.00 is ordered to be paid by the landlord. Suppression
The tenant has applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim and therefore name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426188 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426188 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord inconvenience the tenant regarding the start date for the tenancy?

Did the landlord provide premises that met Healthy Homes Standards?

Did the landlord maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord inconvenience the tenant regarding the start date for the tenancy?

Did the landlord provide premises that met Healthy Homes Standards?

Did the landlord maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions