Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5439476 — Healthy homes
Decided 9 Apr 2026 · Published 9 Apr 2026 · Application 5439476
- Healthy homes
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
- JC Property Group Limited John Cheung must carry out the following work to the premises, to be completed by 24 April 2026: a. repair the shower area, including the hole in the shower wall, and ensure the shower can be used safely; b. repair the drainage serving the premises, including the blocked drain and associated stormwater issues causing flooding to the carport and shed area; c. clear and repair the guttering serving the premises so as to prevent overflow and water ingress; d. repair the front and back doors, including any associated seals or gaps, so that rainwater does not enter the premises and unreasonable draughts are prevented; e. repair defective window latches and door latches so that the premises are reasonably functional and weather-tight; f. repair the hot water system so that hot water is supplied at a safe temperature; g. remove rubbish left by previous tenants from the front and rear of the premises; and h. remedy unreasonable gaps and holes in the premises causing draughts.
- As an alternative to compliance with Order 2, JC Property Group Limited John Cheung must pay [The Tenants] $7,500.00 immediately.
- If JC Property Group Limited John Cheung fails to comply with either Order 2 or 3 above, [The Tenants] may undertake the work and charge the Landlord the cost of that work up to $7,500.00. Those costs may be set off against rent payable.
- The JC Property Group Limited John Cheung must pay [The Tenants] general compensation of $2,000.00.
- The JC Property Group Limited John Cheung must pay [The Tenants] exemplary damages of $3,250.00, made up as follows: a. $1,500.00 for breach of section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986; b. $750.00 for breach of the Healthy Homes draught stopping standard; and c. $1,000.00 for breach of the Healthy Homes moisture ingress and drainage standard.
- The JC Property Group Limited John Cheung must reimburse [The Tenants] the filing fee of $28.00.
Reasons
- The Tenant attended the hearing. The Landlord did not attend the hearing and has not contacted the registry prior to the hearing seeking to postpone the hearing or to explain their non-attendance.
- The Tenants sought work orders, compensation, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
- Their case was that the premises were affected by a number of defects from the start of the tenancy or shortly after, and that, despite repeated notification, including by way of s 56 notices, the Landlord failed to remedy them.
Has the Landlord failed to comply with their maintenance obligations?
- Under section 45(1)(a) to (ca) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, maintain them in a reasonable state of repair, and comply with relevant requirements concerning buildings, health, and safety. Where the Tribunal finds those obligations have not been met, it may make a work order under section 78(1)(e). Where a work order is not made by consent, the Tribunal must also make an alternative monetary order, subject to the statutory exceptions. It may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and recover the cost, subject to a monetary limit.
- I find that the Landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and failed to provide them in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
- The Tenants’ evidence was that there was a hole in the shower wall adjacent to the power mains and that they were told not to use the shower. They said they had never used the shower and instead showered elsewhere, including at friends’ homes, baths, and the gym. The hearing notes record that an electrician (contractor) told them not to use the shower. I accept that evidence. It establishes a serious defect affecting safe use of the premises.
- I also accept the Tenants’ evidence concerning the drainage, flooding, guttering, and rain ingress. They described flooding in the carport and shed area from about 19 December 2025 and continuing through wet weather. I was able to view photographs of the flooding filed by the Tenants. They said the drain was blocked, that debris collected from a large overhanging tree, that gutters were rusted and overflowing, and that rain entered under both front and back doors in light and heavy rain. Their evidence was that these matters were logged on [Property website] and that nothing of substance was done to remedy them. I have viewed the [Property website] records (screenshots).
- In relation to locks, latches, and doors, the hearing records clarifies that the issue is not one of security in the strict sense, but ordinary use and weather-tightness. The Tenants said window latches did not close properly, the back door did not close properly, the toilet door locked itself, and gaps under doors and around frames allowed draughts and rain to enter. I accept that evidence.
- The Tenants also proved that the hot water was excessively hot. Their evidence was that the water temperature was about 73 degrees and that a missing valve or regulator was identified, but the problem remained. I accept that evidence.
- I accept the Tenants’ evidence that rubbish left by previous tenants remained at the front and back of the premises and was not removed. That was a failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
- The Tenants’ evidence was that these issues were logged on the [Property website] app and also served a 14-day breach notice on the Landlord. There were 16 logged maintenance issues, and that, other than pest treatment and a limited trade attendance, nothing meaningful was done. I accept that evidence.
- On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the Landlord breached s 45 of the Act by failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and cleanliness. A work order is appropriate.
- In setting the alternative monetary order and the cap for tenant-completed works, the Tribunal must choose a figure that is realistic and proportionate. The defects requiring remediation include drainage, guttering, weather-tightness, hot water regulation, shower repair, and rubbish removal. On the available evidence, I fix both sums at $7,500.00. Should exemplary damages be awarded for the Landlord’s failure to maintain?
- Breach of the landlord’s obligations under s 45 is also an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to $7,200.00.
- I find that the Landlord committed an unlawful act. The defects were obvious and significant. They affected the Tenants’ ability to shower safely, keep their premises dry, and live in basic comfort.
- The Tenants gave repeated notice, including through [Property website] and a 14-day notice. Yet the evidence was that the Landlord did not meaningfully address the core problems. The Landlord has not come to the hearing to challenge or contest the Tenants’ claims
- Under section 109(3), exemplary damages may be awarded where the unlawful act was intentional and it is just to do so, having regard to the landlord’s intent, the effect on the tenants, the tenants’ interests, and the public interest. I am satisfied those factors justify an award here.
- The effect on the Tenants was substantial. They were unable to use the shower, were on edge when it rained, and were required to live with repeated flooding, draughts, and unresolved issues which impacted their amenity and safety (habitability). The public interest supports a meaningful award where a landlord, after notice, does not respond to serious maintenance and habitability issues. I award $1,500.00 exemplary damages under section 45 in connection with this unlawful act. Did the Landlord fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Regulations relating to draught stopping?
- The Tenants also claim that the Landlord failed to comply with the Healthy Homes draught stopping standard. All private rentals were required to comply by 1 July 2025. The standard requires that premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building and that allow draughts to arise.
- I find that standard was breached. The Tenants’ evidence was that rain came in under the front and back doors, bedroom doors sat materially above the floor, and window latches did not close properly, allowing draughts into the premises.
- There is no evidence of any applicable exemption.
- I therefore find the Landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to comply with the Healthy Homes draught stopping standard. Having regard to section 109(3), I award $750.00 exemplary damages. That amount reflects that the issue was ongoing and significant, while recognising some overlap with the broader repair failures. Did the Landlord fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Regulations relating to moisture and drainage?
- The Tenants also claim breach of the Healthy Homes moisture ingress and drainage standard. That standard requires efficient systems to drain stormwater, surface water, and groundwater.
- I have addressed the blocked drain causing the surrounds of the premises to flood. In addition, the gutters were also blocked. A contractor was sent to clear them. He remarked to one of the Tenants that there would be little use in doing so, however, as the adjoining flats all share the same roof and have an intersecting, continuous gutter system and their gutters were blocked also. Nothing further was done to address the blocked gutters. The drainage and gutters are critical to proper drainage.
- I find that standard was breached. The Tenants proved recurrent flooding affecting the carport and shed area, blocked drainage, overflowing gutters, and water entering beneath doors. The Tenants evidence was that these problems were ongoing and not remedied after notice. There is no evidence of any exemption.
- I therefore find the Landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to comply with the Healthy Homes moisture ingress and drainage standard. Given the seriousness and recurrence of the flooding and water ingress, I award $1,000.00 exemplary damages.
Were there issues pertaining to bond lodgement which the Tribunal must address?
- Although the original application raised late bond lodgement, the hearing notes record that the bond was lodged and that this point was not ultimately pursued. I therefore make no separate finding or award in relation to the bond. General Compensation for Loss of Amenity
- The Tenants are entitled to compensation for loss of amenity and inconvenience. The most significant features are the inability to use the shower, the repeated flooding and water ingress, the excessive hot water temperature, and the ongoing draughts and disrepair. The hearing notes also record that rent was reduced to $300 in February, but that does not extinguish the claim for compensation for the proven breaches. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
- On the available evidence, and without a detailed schedule of pecuniary loss, I assess compensation at $2,000.00. That is a moderate but meaningful sum for the inconvenience and loss of amenity proved.
- The Tenants are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee of $28.00
- I approve the Tenants’ request for name suppression as they have succeeded in their case and do not want to have issues in future if they should have to find alternative accommodation and worry this determination will deter Landlord’s from renting to them. I agree there is a real risk of prejudice if their names and identifying details are published in connection with this decision.