Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5484722 — Exemplary damages at 16A McFarlane Street, Mount Victoria, Wellington 6011
Decided 25 Jun 2026 · Published 25 Jun 2026 · Application 5484722
- Exemplary damages
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
- Lpm Property Management New Zealand Limited Hamish Hancock must pay [The tenant/s] $6,308.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
- The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises: a. Replace the mouldy curtains in the laundry/wardrobe space and this must be completed by Thursday 2 July 2026. b. Repair or replace the venetian blinds in the bedroom so they are functional and can be opened and closed and this must be completed by Thursday 2 July 2026. c. Repair or replace the roman blinds in the lounge so they function normally and can be opened and closed and this must be completed by Thursday 2 July 2026. d. Replace the damper on the firebox so the damper can be opened and closed and this work must be arranged by Thursday 2 July 2026 and completed by Thursday 30 July 2026. e. Provide the tenants with updated HHS information for the heating and this must be completed by Friday 26 June 2026.
- As an alternative to compliance with Order 3, the landlord must pay the tenant $3,000 immediately.
- If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 3 or 4 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $3,000. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
- All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- The tenants attended the hearing. The landlord was properly served using the email provided by the landlord on the tenancy agreement. The landlord did not attend nor advise the Tribunal that they required an adjournment.
- The tenants moved into their flat in September 2025. The living area has a firebox. The damper on the firebox was broken when the tenants moved in, which means it cannot be used safely. There was also a gas heater attached to the wall. In October the gas heater set off the carbon monoxide alarms and was removed soon after. It took 32 weeks for the landlord to install a replacement electric panel heater in the living area. The tenants have other maintenance concerns as well that have not been dealt with. The questions I have to decide include: • Should I make work orders? • Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)? • Should I allow compensation and exemplary damages?
Should I make work orders?
- The tenants claim that the landlord did not fix the blinds and did not replace the mouldy curtains. The tenants want the problem fixed.
- Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to carry out repairs. 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. See section 78(1)(e) RTA.
- This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I am persuaded by the photos and their verbal submission that the curtains in the laundry are mouldy and should be replaced to prevent mould spreading, especially as the tenants have their clothes in the same walk in space. I am also persuaded that two of the venetian blinds and most of the roman blinds need strings replaced. The broken damper needs to be fixed because the firebox is needed for the HHS compliance. The landlord must carry out the repairs or buy replacement items.
- As the work order is not being made by consent I am required to make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. I have made a monetary order in the alternative. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) RTA.
- The work order also authorises the tenants to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work if the landlord fails to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. I have set a monetary limit which is the maximum that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) RTA. Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)?
- The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. Breaching the obligation to provide qualifying heating is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and schedule 1A RTA.
- The compliance date for this tenancy was 1 July 2025. The tenants have proved that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard. The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater is and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances but I am not aware of any exemptions for this flat.
- The HHS information in the tenancy agreement records that heating from both the firebox and the gas heater was required to meet the minimum requirements under the HHS. This means both should have been checked and in working order at the start of the tenancy.
- The landlord has now installed an electric panel heater in the living area. I do not have sufficient information to decide if this meets the heating standard. 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/. The tenants have not been given any updated HHS information and so the landlord must calculate the heating capacity by tomorrow and provide this to the tenants.
Should I allow compensation and exemplary damages?
- The tenants have asked for compensation for loss of amenity. This is because they have paid all the rent for a house with proper heating and functioning window coverings but that is not what they have been living with. The tenants have asked for a refund of 30% of the rent. I find this is reasonable and allow the compensation from 28 October 2025, which is when they first let the landlord know, to 11 June 2026 which is when the panel heater was installed. During this time the flat has been very cold and dark, and they are still worried about mould getting onto their clothes.
- I do not find the maintenance issues to be sufficiently serious to justify exemplary damages. However, I have determined that the landlord did not provide qualifying heating, most likely from the start of the tenancy, and I find the landlord committed an unlawful act. 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.
- Considering intention first, I have not heard from the landlord. The emails provided by the tenants show the property managers and the owner both knew about the lack of heating. I find the landlord acted intentionally by not checking that the heater and the firebox were in working order at the start of the tenancy, and by taking so long to install a replacement. The effect for the tenants has been a cold home, frustration because of having to follow up time and time again, most likely the cost of extra power from using their own portable heater, and a feeling that there has been no respect for them as tenants. It is in tenants interests that homes can be heated and that the HHS requirements are taken seriously. There is public interest in the landlord paying exemplary damages to encourage compliance.
- I allow $1,000, which is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar orders against the landlord. Other orders
- Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
- The tenants have made an application for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
- The tenants’ names are suppressed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name and the tenancy address will be published because there is public interest when landlords rent premises that do not comply with the HHS.