What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5451229 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 5451229?

Property Damage: $2,376.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5451229?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5451229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13517441-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5451229 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 5451229?

Property Damage: $2,376.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5451229?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5451229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13517441-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5451229 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5451229 — net $2,404.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards (heating and draughts	$2,376.00	Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards (heating and draughts
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,404.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,404.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5451229 — net $2,404.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards (heating and draughts	$2,376.00	Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards (heating and draughts
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,404.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,404.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 5pm on Friday 22 May 2026: a. Install a heat pump with at least a 3.4kW capacity in the main living room at the premises ; b. Draught stop the gap and repair the leak in the lounge window; c. Replace or repair the faulty stove elements as required.
Should the landlord fail to comply with the any one or more of the work orders in order 2, the landlord will pay the tenant compensation of $100/week for every week or part week that the work order remains outstanding from 23 May 2026 until the date the work orders are completed or until the tenancy ends, whichever date first occurs.
The compensation under order 3 may be paid by deduction from rent payable.
David Martin must pay [The tenant/s] $2,404.00 immediately as calculated in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background
This was a fixed term tenancy which started on 29 May 2025 and expired on 29 August 2025. It then rolled over to a periodic tenancy.
The weekly rent for the premises is $275. No bond has been paid. The parties explained that in consideration for relatively low rent, the tenancy agreement provided that the tenant would paint the kitchen/lounge area and 2 windows. This work has been completed.
The background to the tenancy is that the tenant was referred to the landlord through a mutual friend. The tenant was looking for temporary accommodation and had a limited budget. The landlord agree to help him by offering a short term tenancy of 3 months for $300/week. The tenant said that he could not afford that rate. They agreed on $275/week and to the tenant doing some painting and decorating work at the premises. The landlord submits that the rent agreed is well below the market rent he could obtain. He referred to Tenancy Services bond data showing that rent for similar properties in the area ranges from $498 in the lower quartile; median rent of $500; and $565 in the upper quartile.
The landlord says he explained to the tenant that the previous tenants had only just moved out and his intention was to refurbish the premises and bring them up to standard. In particular, he advised the tenant that the premises did not comply with healthy homes standards and there was no heating. However, if the tenant wanted the premises on that basis, he could offer a short-term tenancy. He offered to supply the tenant with a heater but the tenant said that he had one.
The tenant disputes the landlord’s version of their discussion. He says that the landlord told him that he believed the premises did comply with healthy homes standards. However, after living there for a few weeks, the tenant found the property to be extremely cold and he looked into a healthy homes checklist. He realised that the premises did not comply with heating requirements and he also believed that there were unreasonable gaps in windows and doors that needed draught stopping. He says that he has been telling the landlord for many months now that these issues need attention. However, his complaints to the landlord have been verbal, not in writing.
After the tenant filed this application on 27 February 2026, the landlord arranged for a healthy homes assessment which he produced in evidence at the hearing (the HHS report). The assessment conducted on 30 March 2026 records that the home does not meet the healthy homes standards for heating and draught stopping. Claims
The tenant seeks work orders requiring the landlord to fix the following issues: a. faulty stovetop elements; b. Re-route the power supply for neighbouring garage so it does not run off the power supply for the premises; c. Install compliant heating at the premises; d. Fix draughts at the premises
The tenant also seeks exemplary damages for breaches by the landlord of healthy homes standards. The relevant law-work orders
The landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements. 1
Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. 2
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. 3 .
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be 1 Sections 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), 2 Section 78(1)(e) RTA 3 Sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) RTA imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. 4

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Healthy Homes Standards

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). 5 The tenant says that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating and draught stopping standards.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 6
This tenancy was required to comply with HHS within 120 days of the commencement date or by 1 July 2025, whichever date first occurred. Therefore, the compliance date for this tenancy was 1 July 2025. Heating standard
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the main living room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
There is no dispute that the landlord did not provide compliant heating in the main living room which is a breach of his obligations. The fact that the tenancy was intended to be temporary; that the landlord was helping the tenant out; and was offering low rent, does not absolve the landlord from his obligations. The RTA specifically provides that any purported waiver by a tenant of any right or power conferred upon tenants by the RTA shall be of no effect. 7
The landlord confirmed that he has arranged for his electrician to install a 2.5kW panel heater in the living room today. However, I note that the landlord’s HHS report says that a heater with a 3.4kW capacity is required. That also means that an electric panel heater is not acceptable. The HHS provides that if the 4 Sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) RTA 5 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA 6 Section 45(1A) and schedule 1A RTA 7 Section 11(3) RTA required heating capacity for the living room is greater than 2.4 kW, then an electric heater is an unacceptable heater, and heating must be provided by a heat pump or some other form of acceptable heating. 8
The tenant has proved his claim and I make work orders accordingly for compliant heating to be installed at the premises. I cannot make an alternative money order because I consider the work relates to a health requirement. However, I have ordered compensation payable to the tenant should the landlord not comply with this and other work orders. Draught stopping
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
There is no dispute, with the landlord’s own HHS report confirming, that the lounge window does not close tightly leaving a gap which is a breach of the draught stopping standard. Both the tenant and the landlord also noted that there is also some possible leaking around the window.
The claim is proved and I make work orders for the repairs accordingly. Maintenance obligations
The landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. 9
It is well settled that the landlord’s obligation is to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects. 10 Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so. 8 Regulations 9 and 10 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) 9 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 10 Section 40(1)(d) RTA Stovetop
The tenant says the stove top elements are not working properly and he wants them fixed. He says he told the landlord verbally about the elements overheating or not working several months ago. He says an electrician was sent and replaced two of the thermostats but the problem has persisted.
The landlord confirms that in response to the tenant’s notice about the stove, an electrician replaced the two thermostats. He thinks this was done in late 2025. He says that the tenant did not notify him that the problem has continued. He has instructed his electrician to investigate the issue today. He has already received a report that one of the elements is not heating up properly.
There is no evidence to establish when this problem was reported to the landlord and whether he has acted in a reasonable timeframe. However, I am satisfied that there is evidence that the stovetop is not working properly and I make a work order accordingly. Power supply issue
The tenant discovered that when the power in his flat was shut off, the power to the neighbouring flat garage door also shut off. In other words, the power supply to the tenant’s flat also supplied power to the neighbouring flat garage. He wants this issue fixed. The landlord provide evidence, and the tenant accepted, that this issue has been remedied. No work order is required.

Should exemplary damages be awarded for the HHS breaches?

I find David Martin committed an unlawful act by failing to provide complaint heating and draught stopping at the premises.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The District Court has said the requirement of intention is not about whether the party was aware they were breaching the Act. Rather, it is about whether they acted intentionally i.e. whether they intended to do whatever it was they did or did not do. 11 .
I consider the landlord cannot plead confusion, lack of knowledge, or ignorance of the law. In a case where the landlord claimed not to be fully aware of his obligations, the District Court held 12 : 11 Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00, DC Auckland,1/5/2001 “Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.”
In summary, intention is proved where the party turns their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately sets out to commit the act. It is unnecessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully, it is enough that they intended to commit the act which is in fact unlawful. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the particular obligation they have failed to perform, ignorance of the law is no defence. They are deemed to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional.
The landlord explained that he always intended to refurbish the premises and bring them up to standard and would have done so, but for helping out the tenant. However, as I have already explained above, the fact that the tenancy was intended to be temporary; that the landlord was helping the tenant out; and was offering low rent, does not absolve the landlord from his obligations. Furthermore, the landlord has been in breach of his HHS obligations since 1 July 2025, a period of almost 10 months, which contradicts an argument that this situation was only intended to be temporary.
I am satisfied that the matter of intention is proved.
It is of significant interest to tenants and the Public that landlords comply with their HHS obligations. The HHS was a major piece of legislation designed to address a well-documented lack of healthy, warm, dry rental houses. The legislation was well publicised over a long period with the initial provisions regarding insulation coming into force from 1 July 2019. The tenant confirmed that the premises have been cold which I find is directly linked to the lack of heating and lounge window draughts.
Considering the factors in s 109, I have determined that it is just to make an award of exemplary damages for the HHS breaches of $2,376 which is 33% of the maximum available award of $7,200. The award is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware that the landlord has committed a breach of this nature previously. Suppression and filing fee 12 TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182
As the tenant has substantially succeeded with his claims, he is entitled to suppression of his name and identifying details as requested and to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5451229 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5451229 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Should exemplary damages be awarded for the HHS breaches?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Should exemplary damages be awarded for the HHS breaches?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions