What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5501226 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 5501226?

Compensation: Fan & Heater: $60.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5501226?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5501226?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13907017-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5501226 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 5501226?

Compensation: Fan & Heater: $60.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5501226?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5501226?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13907017-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5501226 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5501226 — net $838.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: repairs & HHS	$750.00	repairs & HHS
Compensation: fan & heater	$60.00	fan & heater
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$838.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$838.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5501226 — net $838.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: repairs & HHS	$750.00	repairs & HHS
Compensation: fan & heater	$60.00	fan & heater
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$838.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$838.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Wolfbrook Property Management Limited as agent for Bachik Ahmad & Maria Ahmad must pay [The tenant/s] $838.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenants.
Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy began on 3 June 2025 and was for a fixed term, due to end on 30 June 2026. The rent is $390.00 per week and a bond of $1,560.00 was paid. The premises is a studio apartment within an apartment block.
The tenants have filed an application making the following claims: a. Work order for repairs to the heat pump b. Release from the fixed term tenancy c. Breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). d. Compensation of $750.00 for the landlord’s unreasonable delay in repairing the heat pump e. Exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to repair and maintain the premises
Since filing the application, the heat pump has been repaired, so a work order is no longer required. The claim regarding reduction of the fixed term tenancy is also no longer in issue, since the tenancy has now ended at the end of the fixed term, on 30 June 2026. However, the question remains as to whether there was an unreasonable delay in repairing the heat pump, and whether there has been a breach of the HHS.
The parties provided documentary, photographic, and oral evidence along with their submissions.
In terms of the bond, as the tenancy has just ended, the landlord advises that it has not had the opportunity to finalise utility charges. The landlord states the outgoing inspection has just been completed and the report is pending. Since the bond was not part of the tenants’ claim, and the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to finalise utility charges and complete its outgoing inspection report, I make no order for the bond. General legal principles
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.” For the Tribunal to find in their favour, the tenants must be able to show that the landlord has been in breach of a legal obligation.
In the context of this application, the Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.
Exemplary damages are penalties and can only be awarded for an unlawful act, as set out in various sections of the RTA and as listed in Schedule 1A of the Act. As explained by the Court of Appeal in Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732, they are different from compensation, and are designed to punish and deter, more like a fine. Where one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act, before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA. Repair of the heat pump
In their application, the tenants wrote about the steps taken to address the non- functioning heat pump with the landlord. In terms of the HHS, they wrote that the property has not met the heating requirements, since the heat pump has been non-functional for over a month, leaving the property without an effective and fixed heating source as required under the HHS. The issue was reported to the property manager, and although contractors were arranged to inspect the unit, no timely repair or replacement was carried out. Despite multiple follow-ups and allowing a reasonable period after the remedy notice, the landlord failed to ensure the property complies with the HHS. This has caused ongoing discomfort and inconvenience, particularly as the property has been without adequate heating for an extended period.
The tenants’ evidence at the hearing is that the heat pump stopped working on 23 March 2026 and they notified the landlord. The premises is a studio apartment, with no external windows, so it is not possible to get fresh air into the apartment. They informed the landlord on 23 March 2026, and were told contractors would come. The contractor came and said they were not sure what the issue was, and a different contractor came the following day. Because the heat pump was not functioning, it was hard to sleep due to the heat. Their baby, who is nine months old, developed a heat rash.
The tenants state they informed the landlord that this was an urgent matter, but it was still not resolved, and two weeks later, on 8 April 2026, they issued a 14 day notice. The heat pump was not repaired within the 14 day time frame. When they asked the landlord for a rent reduction, it was suggested that they purchase a fan, which they did, but that simply recirculated the air. Later, when temperatures cooled, as there was no functioning heat pump, they purchased a heater. The tenants were later informed that the heat pump unit would need to be replaced.
The tenants state they were without a functioning heat pump for six weeks. They seek $750.00 or whatever is considered reasonable compensation for the six weeks they were without it.
In response, the landlord has explained that they sought approval from the owner, and this was done promptly. The request was made on 23 March 2026 and the owner’s approval was obtained on the same day, to arrange a contractor to attend. The contractor attended on 27 March and 30 March 2026, and they were unable to initially determine the fault. Because of warranty issues, it took a while to resolve.
The landlord provided a timeline. It notes that on 30 March 2026, the initial diagnosis indicated a possible failed compressor or outdoor power board. The contractor, [Contractor], advised that the unit appeared to still be under manufacturer’s warranty and needed to confirm this before proceeding. There were follow-ups between 30 March to 8 April 2026. On 21 April 2026, [Contractor] attended again, and replaced the fan motor. However, the issue remained, and further testing confirmed that the compressor had failed. Then, around 15 May 2026, the contractor installed a temporary swap out.
The tenants confirmed that they had a functioning heat pump by 14 May 2026. Legal framework
The landlord’s obligations are set out under section 45 of the RTA. This includes the requirement that the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. 1 The landlord is also required to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), and any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.
The extent of the landlord’s obligation to repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 2 The Court noted that the tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. 3 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time. The Court stated: ... the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts 1 Section 45(1)(b) 2 CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007 3 Section 40(1)(d) made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be. 4
In terms of the landlord’s obligations under the HHS, section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
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 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. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. Analysis
Having had regard to the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find that the tenants have established that there was an unreasonable delay in the heat pump being repaired. In making this finding, I acknowledge that the landlord initially took steps to investigate the issue promptly and notified a contractor. The landlord’s evidence shows that once the tenants reported that the heat pump was not functioning, the property manager sought approval from the owner and then arranged for the contractor to attend. The tenant’s evidence confirms that a contractor attended soon afterwards. The landlord states that on 27 March 2026, a technician attended the property. 4 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085
However, the evidence also shows that there was a delay in carrying out the necessary repairs. In view of the nature of this premises, the fact that this was a studio apartment with no opening windows, it was imperative that the heat pump was repaired promptly. The tenants issued a 14 day notice, and the repairs were not undertaken within that period.
It is acknowledged that some of the delays were outside the landlord’s control. However, in view of the circumstances in this case, the tenants’ reliance on the heat pump for temperature control within the premises, this repair ought to have been escalated and remedied more promptly.
It may be noted that having a functioning heat pump is part of the landlord’s obligations under the HHS. It is accepted that the landlord’s evidence shows that the premises complied with the HHS, including in terms of heating, at the start of the tenancy. This is confirmed in the HHS assessment report following an assessment on 9 June 2025. However, I agree with the tenants that since the heat pump was not functioning for over a month, the premises was without an effective and fixed heating source during that time, as required under the HHS.
As a result of my findings, the tenants are to be compensated for the effect on them and their baby, particularly in view of the resulting discomfort and health effects of not having a functioning heat pump within their studio apartment. Therefore, taking into account the nature of the breach, the duration of the problem (6 weeks without a functioning heat pump, inability to control the temperature within the studio apartment), the resulting effect for the tenants (effect of high temperatures on the tenants, their baby, including health effects, inability to heat the premises, and the inconvenience), the amount of $750.00 is awarded in compensation.
The tenants are to also be compensated for having to purchase their own fan and heater, at the cost of $60.00 ($30.00 each). Exemplary damages
Where a landlord has breached any of their obligations under section 45 of the RTA, exemplary damages may be awarded. It must be shown that a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, and the Tribunal must be satisfied that it would be just to make the award, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. 5
The test for exemplary damages, as set out in section 109(3) of the RTA, requires, as a precondition, that the person against whom the order is sought committed the unlawful act intentionally. An intentional act is a deliberate act, not a negligent or careless oversight, or incompetence. In this case, I find that the 5 Section 109(3) of the RTA required intent for exemplary damages is not met, so there is no separate award for exemplary damages. Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord is to pay the tenants’ filing fee, since the tenants have been successful.
Both parties seek name suppression. The tenants are entitled to name suppression, as they have been successful in these proceedings.
In terms of the landlord’s request, having had regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, and noting that the landlord is the unsuccessful party, the Tribunal declines name suppression for the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5501226 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5501226 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.