What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5491322 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 5491322?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5491322?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5491322?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13644129-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5491322 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 5491322?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5491322?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5491322?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13644129-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

425 Kainga Road, Brooklands, Christchurch 8083 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5491322 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held today. Background
The tenancy started on 7 March 2025 and ended when the tenants asked to end the fixed term tenancy early.
On 17 April 2026, the Tribunal heard the landlord’s application for rent arrears, cleaning and rubbish removal and break lease fees. Three tenant parties were named in that order. Mr Wood is the sole tenant applicant for this application.
The Tribunal awarded rent arrears to 5 November 2025 after which a new tenancy started.
The Tribunal found the landlord’s claims proved and made a bond order 1 . From the bond of $2,160.00, $1,424.86 was awarded to the landlord and $735.14 to the tenants.
Mr Wood said today that he had not received the bond amount awarded to him. I am unaware whether any stay of the Tribunal’s order dated 17 April 2026 was granted pending the hearing of the tenant’s application. If a stay was granted, it is now lifted which means that the tenant can receive his share of the bond.
I also explained that because the issue of rent arrears and the break lease fee had been determined those matters could not be revisited. The tenant had the opportunity to defend the landlord’s claims for rent and for the break lease fee at the previous hearing. Once issues are determined, the same issues cannot be re-litigated in the same forum.
Mr Wood explained that the other tenants, who left the tenancy before him, pressured him to file a Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) complaint. He also made the application so the earlier order could be explained. Issue
The remaining issue on the tenant’s application is this: • Did the landlord fail to maintain and repair the premises and to comply with the HHS? If so, should the tenant be awarded compensation and/or exemplary damages? Law
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the HHS. 1 See [2026] NZTT 5419868 Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 2 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. Did the landlord fail to maintain and repair the premises and to comply with the HHS? If so, should the tenant be awarded compensation and/or exemplary damages? a) Water pressure and the water temperature
Mr Wood referred to the hot water at the premises being too hot and difficult to regulate. He said the excessive heating of the water caused high power bills. Also, due to the low pressure he had to shower at the gym. 2 [2020] NZDC 17667
Mr Wood said the landlord had a plumber assess the hot water and later the temperature, but it never really got better. He said the plumber told him ‘The whole system needed to be replaced’.
The landlord’s representative said the premises were an old 1950s farmhouse with a header tank and a low-pressure water system. He said the hot water cylinder was set at the minimum temperature to prevent bacteria, and every tap had a mixer. He said the thermostat on the hot water cylinder was replaced to see whether that made a difference. He said the power bills the tenant supplied did not show a high amount for power use.
The landlord’s representative said that there had been no complaints about the water pressure or temperature in the 3 years before this tenancy, and none from the current tenant.
The tenant has failed to prove that the landlord failed in its statutory responsibility under section 45 RTA to maintain and repair the premises. The landlord had a plumber assess the hot water temperature and replace the hot water cylinder thermostat.
A landlord’s section 45 RTA responsibility takes account of the age and character of the premises. These premises were old and had a low-pressure water system fed from a header tank. Possibly the tenant was unaware of how a low-pressure system works.
Only if the landlord had ignored the tenant’s repair request could the Tribunal conclude that there was a breach of responsibility. But the landlord acted on the complaint and had the issue assessed.
There was no breach by the landlord and therefore no basis on which to award compensation and/or exemplary damages. b) HHS
The tenant alleges that the premises were not HHS compliant. He first referred to an overflowing gulley trap that allowed sewage to spill out onto the ground and flow under the house.
This is not a HHS issue, it is a maintenance issue.
The landlord’s representative said that on both occasions when this occurred the problem was addressed promptly, on the first occasion by the end of the next day and on the second occasion by the end of the day. He produced copies of the invoices for the work done; the cause of the blockage was not known. The first invoice 3 records that the area was cleaned and disinfected.
Again, the landlord did not fail in its responsibility to repair the premises. It acted promptly. There was no breach of section 45 RTA.
Mr Wood said that the contractor told him that the gully trap did not meet the required height regulation. However, existing drainage and plumbing is often non-compliant with later regulatory requirements. Other than report what he was told, Mr Wood produced no evidence of non-compliance with any regulations.
The tenant then referred to the premises being cold and draughty. He said there were gaps around the front door and around window seals allowing a constant cold draught.
The landlord’s representative said that the premises had been assessed by an independent contractor for HHS compliance and they were compliant. He said there was a veranda over the front door and the veranda roof had been repaired to stop any leaks. He said there was a seal on the front door, so it was draught proof. He said he was never made aware of any gaps around windows other than in a long email after the tenancy had ended.
Although the landlord did not produce the HHS compliance report in evidence, the onus of proof here rests with the tenant. Mr Wood has not provided any objective evidence such as a HHS assessment to prove any HHS non- compliance. The photos produced in evidence do not assist. The Tribunal cannot make assumptions. There must be evidence to establish a claim for HHS non-compliance.
Further, Mr Wood alleges that the premises were uninhabitable due to non- compliance issues and that was the reason why first, the 2 other tenants left the tenancy, and second, why he then left as well.
The evidence simply does not exist to establish that the premises were uninhabitable. There are no council reports to show regulatory breaches or any other failures to an extent that would render the premises uninhabitable. C) Insulation
Mr Wood alleges that the premises failed to comply with the HHS insulation standard. He said there was no insulation under the floor, in the ceiling, or in the walls. He mentioned that he did not look at the floor or ceiling spaces, but it should have been possible to retro fit insulation in the walls. 3 See Pooman Limited invoice dated 28 April 2025
The HHS do not require the walls to be insulated. There was no breach of the HHS by failing to insulate the walls.
The landlord’s representative said that the ceiling had insulation greater than required by the HHS. There was no underfloor insulation because the area could not be accessed. The HHS allow an exemption for areas that cannot be accessed.
The tenant has not proved any breach of the HHS insulation standard by the landlord. D) Heating
The landlord’s representative said the heat pump at the premises had an output of 8.1kw; the required standard was 5.1kw.
Mr Wood said his bedroom, at the end of the house, never got any heating. He believed the other tenants used heaters in their rooms.
The HHS do not require bedrooms to be heated. The heating standard applies to the living areas.
The tenant has not proved any breach of the HHS heating standard by the landlord.
Also not proved are any increased electricity costs due to a breach by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities.
Without proven breaches by the landlord, the Tribunal cannot award compensation or exemplary damages. There is nothing to compensate and there are no proven unlawful acts. Result
The tenant has failed to prove his claims for breaches of the landlord’s section 45 RTA responsibilities – a failure to maintain and repair the premises and a failure to comply with the HHS.
The application for compensation and/or exemplary damages is therefore dismissed. Comment
The more probable reason for the tenant’s discontent is the fact that the other tenants left the tenancy (a fixed term tenancy) leaving him with the rent liability.
The Tribunal has already made a rent arrears order against the 3 named tenants because they are jointly and severally liable.
Even if I had heard the rent claim again, the tenant would not have succeeded since no landlord breaches have been proved to offset it (referred to by the last adjudicator as equitable offset). Nor would there be any grounds to find differently on the liability of all the tenants to pay the break lease fee.
The tenant might have valid claims against the other tenants. The adjudicator who heard the last application addressed that at paragraph 5 of her order. Any dispute this tenant might have with the other tenants falls within the jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal. Name suppression
Both parties sought an order for name suppression. The tenant is not entitled to name suppression as his application is unsuccessful. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as its defence to the application is successful 4 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5491322 — Rent arrears at 425 Kainga Road, Brooklands, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5491322 — Rent arrears at 425 Kainga Road, Brooklands, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions