What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5467911 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5467911?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5467911?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5467911?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13878039-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5467911 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5467911?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5467911?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5467911?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13878039-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 13 Queens Avenue, Mount Eden, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5467911 — Leaks

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

This tenancy began on 2 February 2024 and concluded on 19 March 2025.

The tenant says the property was not compliant with the Healthy Homes draught stopping standard until 28 November 2024. She also says the property did not comply with the Healthy Homes heating standard. She seeks: a) a rent rebate of 70% of the rent paid between 2 February 2024 and 28 November 2024, totalling $14,899. b) compensation of $80 per month towards additional heating costs arising from the landlord's failure to comply with the heating standard. c) reimbursement of $300 for water charges, which she says resulted from a leak, and; d) reimbursement of the filing fee. Did the landlord breach their obligations under s 45 in relation to the draught stopping and heating standards? Draught stopping

The tenant's evidence is that there were draughts throughout the property. At the commencement of the tenancy she did not raise this issue because she had been told the property complied with the Healthy Homes Standards.

On 17 May 2024, a contractor engaged by Barfoot & Thompson attended to install seals in some areas of the property. The tenant says those seals were incorrectly installed, leaving draughts entering the property. She says she raised this issue with the landlord, resulting in the 17 May visit. The landlord says they have no record of that communication. They do not dispute that the visit occurred but say it may instead have been a proactive maintenance measure.

The tenant says that on 27 May 2024 she again raised the incorrect installation with the property manager but received no response. She then raised the issue again during the routine inspection on 31 July 2024, when the draughts were recorded on the inspection report.

The property manager produced evidence showing that, on 5 August 2024, the landlord obtained a response from Good Home. Although the enquiry itself is not entirely clear, The Good Home New Zealand, who are a Healthy Homes Consulting outfit. They appear to have advised that there was no issue, noting that, as a rule of thumb, a $2 coin should not fit through any gap. However, there is no evidence that this advice was communicated to the tenant. It appears from the evidence that there was no follow-up with the tenant after her concerns raised on 31 July 2024.

After receiving no response, the tenant served a 14-day notice on 19 September 2024 requiring the landlord to remedy the draught stopping issues through an appropriately qualified tradesperson. She also sought compensation of $80 per month for additional heating costs.

On 29 September 2024, a contractor engaged by Barfoot & Thompson attended and remedied one of the identified draughts by installing wooden battens around the bathroom window, which was one of three areas identified by the tenant.

There is no evidence of further communication from the tenant after that attendance. She says she was waiting for a follow-up Healthy Homes inspection, which she says had been promised in response to the 14-day notice. The landlord disputes that such a promise was made and says that they, together with the owner, independently decided to commission a further Healthy Homes assessment.

The assessor engaged by the landlord contacted the tenant on 1 November 2024 to arrange the Healthy Homes inspection. On 11 November 2024 the parties agreed that the assessment would occur on 13 November 2024.

During that assessment, the Healthy Homes assessor confirmed to the tenant, Sophia, that the property did not comply with the draught stopping standard.

On 26 November 2024, a different Barfoot & Thompson contractor attended and carried out further remedial work. The tenant says that the remaining affected windows were addressed at that time.

The Healthy Homes assessor returned on 28 November 2024. The assessor found that the contractor's work had not adequately remedied the remaining draughts and rectified them during this visit. The tenant accepts that the draught stopping issues were fully remedied during this visit on 28 November 2024. The landlord also accepts that this is the date compliance was achieved. Heating

The tenancy agreement records that the property complied with the Healthy Homes heating standard. It states that the required heating capacity for the main living room was 4.3 kW and that the installed heat pump had a capacity of 4.3 kW.

The original Healthy Homes assessment, undertaken by Healthy Homes New Zealand on 22 May 2020, assessed the required heating capacity as 4.3 kW. At that time compliance was not yet required and no heat pump had been installed.

Between that assessment and the commencement of this tenancy, a heat pump was installed. The tenancy agreement records that it had a heating capacity of

3 kW.

However, the Good Home Healthy Homes assessment undertaken on 13 November 2024 concluded that the required heating capacity was 3.8 kW but that the installed heat pump had an output of only 3.2 kW. It follows that the tenancy agreement incorrectly recorded the installed heat pump as having a capacity of

3 kW when, in fact, it had an output of only 3.2 kW.

Although the Good Home assessment concluded that the heating standard was satisfied, I consider that assessment to contain an error. The assessor concluded that the required heating capacity was 3.8 kW and the installed heat pump produced 3.2 kW. The assessor applied the 80% tolerance available to certain heaters installed before 1 July 2019 (Healthy Homes Standards, Schedule 1(s4(2)) The tenancy agreement also fails to provide a statement explaining the circumstances of the exemption as required by s4(4) of the standards..

However, the evidence establishes that no qualifying heater existed at the time of the 2020 assessment. Accordingly, the tolerance provision did not apply. The landlord was required to provide heating meeting 100% of the required heating capacity of 3.8kw.

I therefore find that the property did not comply with the Healthy Homes heating standard throughout the remainder of the tenancy, until it ended on 19 March 2025.

Did the landlord commit an unlawful act?

Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires landlords to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.

Section 45(1A) provides that failure to comply with those standards constitutes an unlawful act.

It follows that the property was not compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards and that the landlord committed an unlawful act. Exemplary damages

Section 109(2)(b) provides that exemplary damages are unavailable where an application is made more than 12 months after the commission of the unlawful act.

The tenant accepts that compliance with the draught stopping standard was achieved on 28 November 2024. When this application was filed in March 2026, more than 12 months had elapsed. Accordingly, exemplary damages are unavailable in relation to that unlawful act.

Section 109(1) provides that where a landlord or tenant commits an unlawful act, the Tribunal may order payment of exemplary damages. However, s 109(3) sets out the matters relevant to such an award, including, at s 109(3)(a), the intent of the person committing the unlawful act.

In relation to the heating standard, I am satisfied that no such intent has been established. The landlord relied upon the advice of a Healthy Homes assessor. Although I have found that assessment to be incorrect, the landlord reasonably relied upon incorrect expert advice indicating that the property complied. In those circumstances, the requisite intent has not been established.

Accordingly, exemplary damages are not available for the heating standard breach. Compensation

I accept the tenant's evidence that the property suffered from significant draughts and that these made the home more difficult to heat. I also accept that, while the landlord was responsive on occasions, they failed to investigate the issues adequately.

This case must also be considered as one involving a failure to maintain the premises.

Irrespective of the Healthy Homes compliance deadline of 1 June 2024, the heating and draught issues were maintenance obligations for the landlord from the commencement of the tenancy.

Although I have found a breach of s 45(1)(bb), relevant to the declaration of an unlawful act, that finding does not excuse earlier non-compliance. Prior to the Healthy Homes compliance date, the landlord remained subject to the maintenance obligation in s 45(1)(b), requiring the premises to be maintained in a reasonable state of repair.

A property that is free from draughts which are relatively easy to remedy, particularly where the tenancy agreement records that the property fully complies with the Healthy Homes Standards, is a reasonable expectation of a tenant.

Once the tenant identified these issues, the landlord's responses, while prompt on some occasions, were not sufficiently thorough. The clearest example occurred after the tenant raised the issue during the inspection on 31 July 2024. Although the landlord made enquiries, they never followed up with the tenant. Given that the previous Healthy Homes assessment had been completed four years earlier, considerably more comprehensive investigations were warranted once the tenant reported ongoing problems.

The tenant seeks what is, in substance, compensation for non-pecuniary loss arising from diminished enjoyment and amenity.

Non-pecuniary damages are more commonly awarded in tort than in contract. However, they may be available in contractual claims where the purpose of the contract is to provide enjoyment, relaxation or peace of mind. That principle was recognised in Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd [1973] QB 233.

I consider that principle applicable here. The tenant is entitled to compensation for the loss of enjoyment arising from the ongoing draughts and inadequate heating.

I also accept, on the evidence before me, that the tenant suffers from a health condition that may have been exacerbated byt the temperature in the property. However, I do not consider the level of compensation sought being 70% of the rent over the relevant period to be justified. I am not satisfied that the tenant received only 30% of the benefit of the premises. Rather, she had full use of the property, albeit with materially diminished comfort and enjoyment due to the draught and heating issues.

I consider that compensation equivalent to a 15% rent rebate over a period of 43 weeks appropriately reflects that loss.

I calculate that amount as $74.25 per week. Over 43 weeks, this totals $3,192.75.

I therefore award compensation of $3,192.75.

The tenant also seeks separate compensation for increased heating costs. I accept that the electricity bills demonstrate increased heating expenditure during the colder winter months, with those costs reducing as temperatures increased. That pattern is consistent with what would ordinarily be expected.

Regardless, I accept that the tenant incurred additional heating costs as a result of the landlord's breaches. However, I consider that loss is adequately recognised within the compensation already awarded. I therefore make no separate award for heating expenses. Water charges award

During the hearing, the parties agreed by consent that the tenant should receive reimbursement of $300 for water charges.

I make that award by consent. Filing fee and suppression

As the tenant has been substantially successful, I award reimbursement of the filing fee.

I also grant the tenant's application for suppression.

Reasons