What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5513318 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 5513318?

Compensation: Heating Standard: $80.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Ventilation Standard: $131.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5513318?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5513318?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14203900-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5513318 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 5513318?

Compensation: Heating Standard: $80.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Ventilation Standard: $131.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5513318?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5513318?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14203900-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5513318 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5513318 — net $239.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Ventilation standard	$131.00	Ventilation standard
Compensation: heating standard	$80.00	heating standard
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$239.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$239.00

On 31 May 2026 the tenants filed an application seeking compensation and exemplary damages.

The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. The tenants appeared. The landlord appeared supported by [service provider], a Property Manager and service provider. History of the tenancy

The tenancy commenced on 16 March 2026 with the fixed term due to end on 14 September 2026.

Following an agreement between the parties the tenancy ended on 29 April 2026.

The bond has been refunded in full to the tenants. Relevant legal considerations

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act’).

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.

That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Exemplary damages

The Tribunal must hear claims for exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.

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 of the Act.

Section 109 of the Act confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.

The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act. Evidence and submissions filed by the parties

The Tribunal is not obligated to refer to every piece of evidence adduced or every argument advanced in the proceeding. As confirmed by the District Court in Repia v Walsh Trust (DC Waitakere CIV 2011-090-56): In writing a decision which will necessarily involve an explanation of the outcome, an adjudicator or Judge seeks usefully and fairly to select from the whole of what has been presented that which, in his or her judgment, will serve to explain the reasons for the conclusions reached. That, indeed, is part of the very process of adjudication.

See also the High Court decisions of Auckland Medical Officer of Health v Birthcare Ltd [2015] NZHC 2689 and Manukau City Council v Trustees of Mangere Lawn Cemetery (1991) 15 NZTPA 58 (HC).

Both parties have filed documents in support of their positions. All of this material has been considered, even if not referred to in this decision. Did the landlord provide the healthy homes report at the commencement of the tenancy?

The tenants claim the landlord failed to provide them with a copy of the healthy homes assessment report at the commencement of the tenancy.

Under section 13A(1A) and (1CA) of the Act, a tenancy agreement must include information about insulation, and must include a signed healthy homes compliance statement.

Under section 45 of the Act, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.

At the hearing the tenants accepted they tenancy agreement included all information required under sections 13A(1A) and (1CA) of the Act. The tenants also accepted that within a “few days” of their request, the landlord provided them with a copy of the healthy homes assessment report completed by Healthy Homes following an assessment of the property on 15 December 2026.

I am satisfied the landlord has complied with their obligations under the Act and the tenant’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages is dismisses.

Did the property comply with the Healthy Homes ventilation standard?

[The tenant/s]claim the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Act which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. The tenancy commenced on 16 March 2026 and the property was required to comply with the HH standards from the commencement of the tenancy.

The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).

The tenants state that the mechanical ventilation in the kitchen was not externally vented. Instead, they discovered it had been vented in to a kitchen cupboard causing cooking odours to linger when in use. A photograph showing the set-up of the extractor fan was provided.

The landlord said prior to the commencement of the tenancy they engaged an independent contractor to complete an HHS assessment at the property. The property was inspection on 15 December 2025 and the report was completed on 19 December 2025. The Tribunal was provided with a copy of that report.

The landlord said, based on the information provided in that report, she believed the kitchen had appropriate mechanical ventilation at the commencement of the tenancy. That is because the report recorded the property met the requirements of the ventilation standard. Specifically, the mechanical kitchen ventilation fan was present, in good condition, with ducting measuring 150mm in diameter, and the unit was ducted to the outside.

The landlord said she now accepts the kitchen extractor fan was not externally vented when the tenants moved into the property.

The landlord also produced a letter from the contractor who completed the HHS assessment at the property. In that letter the contractor acknowledge making an error in assessing compliance with the HHS ventilation standard. They say the error was made after they assumed the “presence of a mushroom-style ventilation outlet on the roof directly above the kitchen rangehood” meant the rangehood was externally ducted. They go on to say that “Due to the construction of the property, which has a skillion roof and an inaccessible ceiling/crawl space, the ducting between the rangehood and the roof outlet could not be visually inspected....Accessing the ducting would have required removing sections of the roof iron in order to establish whether the rangehood was actually connected to the exterior vent”.

Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence I am satisfied the that the mechanical ventilation in the kitchen did not comply with the HHS ventilation standard at the commencement of the tenancy.

However, the Tribunal declines to make an order for exemplary damages. That is because I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities the landlord breached the HHS ventilation standard intentionally. The evidence shows the landlord employed an independent HHS assessor to inspect the property prior to the commencement of the tenancy. The report stated the property complied with the HH ventilation standard. The landlord is not an expert, and was entitled to reply of the information contained in the report.

The tenants have failed to prove any financial loss arising out of the breach beyond a loss of enjoyment due to lingering cooking odour. The tenancy lasted slightly longer than six weeks. I consider that $20.00 per week compensation is appropriate and the amount of $131.00 is ordered.

Did the property comply with the HHS heating standard?

The tenants state the landlord failed to comply with the HHS heating standard as the heat pump installed in the property failed to operate from the commencement of the tenancy.

The tenants say that when they moved into the property they tried to use the heat pump to cool the property down. They say the issue was immediately reported to the landlord who suggested re-setting the system which failed to remedy the fault.

The tenants say that it took the landlord two and half weeks to arrange a contractor to attend the property and investigate the issue. The heat pump was finally being replaced on 14 April 2026. However, due to an installation issue the contractor was required to return to effect a repair.

The landlord said that she believed the heat pump was in good working order, and complied with the HH heating standards based on the HHS report dated 19 December 2026. When the heat pump fault was reported she said she tried to have the issue resolved quickly but was hamstrung by the availability of contractors in the area, Easter, and, once ordered, having to wait for a replacement heat pump to arrive.

The landlord said that the advice she received from her contractor was that the heat pump fault could have been the result of a power surge which was unknown prior to the commencement of the tenancy.

The tenants believed the landlord should have tested the heat pump immediately prior to the commencement of the tenancy and blame a lack of servicing for the fault. No evidence was presented to support their claim that a lack of servicing caused the heat pump fault.

Section 45(1)(bb) of the Act, requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). 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. 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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).

Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence I am satisfied that the heat pump was not working at the commencement of the tenancy in breach of the landlord’s obligations under the Act. However, I am not satisfied the tenants have proved on the balance of probability that the landlord’s actions in failing to provide a working heat pump were intentional. As I have said at paragraph [33] of this decision, the landlord paid for an independent contractor to assess the property and determine compliance with the HH standards. That report confirmed the heat pump was working and complied with the heating standard. On that basis I decline to make an order for exemplary damages.

The tenant’s initial use of the heat pump was not to warm the property but to cool it down. I accept the landlord’s evidence that they took immediate steps to try and remedy the issue but the of a replacement heat pump took time for reasons beyond their control. During the period the tenants were without heat pump the weather cooled down and the property was cold. I find the tenant’s are entitled to compensation for loss of enjoyment in the property for this reason.

The tenants have failed to provide evidence to prove their actual loss, such as utility bills showing additional power use from heating the premises. On that basis the Tribunal must consider what compensation would be appropriate. The tenants said that the property was cold for approximately one month. I consider the likely additional cost of heating the property to be in the range of $20.00 per week. On that basis I award $80.00 compensation for breach of the HH heating standard. Did the landlord comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016?

[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Act by failing to comply with all the requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.

Under section 45(1)(ba) and 138A of the Act, landlords must ensure that photoelectric smoke alarms are installed in all rental properties. For each level of a property there must be a smoke alarm, and a smoke alarm must be present within 3 meters of every bedroom door. Smoke alarms must be installed on or near the ceiling in accordance with the manufactures instructions and not in dead air spaces.

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenants claim the landlord failed to install smoke alarms in the property for the duration of their tenancy.

The landlord states that at the commencement of the tenancy they purchased two photoelectric smoke alarms that were left on top of the wardrobe in the second bedroom and on top of the cabinet in the master bedroom. The smoke alarms were not fixed to the ceiling as the new brackets needed to be attached to the ceiling which the landlord said the tenants had agreed to do.

Having heard from the parties I am satisfied that: a. There was a discussion between the parties where it was agreed the tenants would install the new photoelectric smoke alarms after fixing the brackets to the ceiling. 1 b. The tenants failed to install the new smoke alarms; and c. The tenants failed to advise the landlord of their decision not to install the new smoke alarms.

Under the Act the landlord cannot devolve their legal obligations in respect smoke alarms to the tenants, and they remain responsible for ensuring the smoke alarms were installed and operational at the start of the tenancy.

However, under section 40(1)(d) of the Act tenants have a responsibility to notify the landlord of the need for any repairs to the property. In this case I am satisfied the tenants agreed to install the smoke alarms but then changed their mind. The tenants should have immediately informed the landlord of their decision not to install the smoke alarms and the need for them to be installed. This would have then provided the landlord with an opportunity to have their contractor attend, fix the new brackets to the ceiling, and install the smoke alarms as required by the Act.

I am satisfied that the property had working photoelectric smoke alarms but the smoke alarms had not been properly installed.

While there is a technical breach of the Act by the landlord, I find the tenants have contributed to the breach by failing to install the smoke alarms as agreed, and by failing to communication their change of position to the landlord. On that basis I decline to make an order for compensation or exemplary damages. Did the landlord comply with their obligation to provide the property reasonable clean and tidy?

[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which require the landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 1 That is because one of the tenants gave evidence recalling this conversation while the other claimed not to remember it. I find it more likely than not that this conversation occurred and the agreement reached.

Breaching this obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the Act.

The tenants said that the landlord left the following items at the property: a. Old construction timber with protruding nails stacked in the yard. b. New timber was stacked against the side of the house. c. Old windows and a door were left in the garden shed along with a ladder. d. Blue tiles were left outside; and e. The third bedroom contained items belonging to the landlord including furniture, linen and personal documents. Photographs in support of the tenants claim were provided.

The landlord said that: a. Timber was stored around the property as their builders had not yet finished a construction project at the neighbouring cottage. The landlord had delayed the construction project as the tenants were unhappy with the disruption caused by their contractors. There was a verbal agreement between the parties that the material would be removed once the work was complete. b. The garden shed was not initially included in the tenancy agreement. However, the tenants offered to help clear the items out of the shed by taking a trailer load of rubbish to the dump and selling the windows and door on Market Place. c. The blue tiles were left in a box on the deck. These tiles were removed within three weeks of the tenancy starting. d. With regards to the items in the third bedroom, the tenancy agreement records that property was contained some items of furniture and these items were recorded in the pre-tenancy inspection report. The landlord said the parties had agreed these items could remain in the property. A copy of the tenancy agreement and pre-tenancy inspection photographs were provided. The landlord said that at no time during the tenancy did the tenants bring these issues to their attention and it was only after the tenancy ended that a complaint was made.

Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence I am satisfied that: a. Construction materials had been left at the property at the commencement of the tenancy. These materials were stacked, out of the way of the tenants against the house and in the corner of the section. The evidence does not show nails protruding from the old timber. b. I prefer the evidence of the landlord that the parties had agreed the building material could remain on site until such time as construction could be completed. This construction was delayed following complaints by the tenants. c. I am satisfied that items were left in the garden shed. However, I accept the landlord’s evidence the tenants had offered to help remove and sell these items. d. The tenancy agreement and pre-tenancy inspection report shows the property was partially furnished and that items belonging to the landlord remained on the premises.

I note that the tenants failed to raise the issue of failing to provide the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition during the tenancy. The tenants did not serve the landlord with a 14-day breach notice requiring the landlord to remove the items, nor did they apply for a work order.

It is clear from the correspondence that at the commencement of the tenancy the parties had a positive collaborative relationship. The tenants had offered to help the landlord with various things, including clearing out the garden shed and selling the windows and door. However, when the relationship soured the tenants raised a number of complaints.

Based on the photographic evidence I am satisfied that the property was provided partially furnished and in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. I am satisfied the building materials were stacked in a way so as to not caused inconvenience or loss of use to the tenants. These materials were required to complete an ongoing building project which the landlord paused to prevent disruption to the tenants. For these reasons the tenants claims are not made out and the claim is dismissed. Did the landlord comply with their obligation to provide the property in a reasonable state of repair?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Act by failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

Specifically the tenants claim the landlord failed to ensure there were base boards around the deck. They say that base boards were required to prevent their dogs and young child from accessing the area underneath the house.

The tenants accepted that they did not raise the issue with the landlord during the tenancy.

The landlord accepts there are no baseboards around the deck and said the area has been left open to allow airflow under the property and provide access to the plumbing.

The difficulty for the tenants is that they have failed to prove that enclosing the deck with base boards is a legal requirement giving rise to a breach of the landlord’s obligations for failing to maintain the property.

The Tribunal is not aware of any regulation requiring base boards to be fitted to a deck. Base boards are not structurally required but are frequently used for aesthetic reasons or keep pests out from underneath a house.

The claim is not made out and is dismissed. Did the landlord breach the tenants right to quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment?

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has breached their right to quiet enjoyment amount to harassment by: a. Asking the tenants to install smoke alarms and help remove rubbish. b. Failing to ensure the property was HHS compliant resulting in the landlord’s contractors coming to the property to carry out repairs. c. Asking for their contractors to have access to the property, sometimes at short notice. Specifically: i. A roofing contractor visited the property without notice asking for access to the roof in relation to the extractor fan. ii. An electrical contractor attended the property to inspect the extractor fan. iii. A heat pump contractor attended the property on three occasions to inspect the heat pump when the fault was reported, install the new heat pump, and finally, to repair a refrigerant leak. iv. Another contractor came to the property to replace the spa pool cover.

The landlord accepts that they arranged contractors to attend the property but said: a. They gave as much notice as they could. b. They were trying to remedy the issues with the heat pump and kitchen extractor fan as quickly as possible. c. They believed they were working collaboratively with the tenants to complete the repairs while accommodating the tenant’s family life and their child’s sleep schedule. d. That 48 hours’ notice was given for the spa pool cover replacement. e. That the spa pool contractor did not need to access inside the property. f. That the heat pump contractor did not need to access inside the property to repair the refrigerant leak.

A tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment is set out in section 38(1) of the Act. That section prided that a tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or the landlord’s agent. In addition a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) of the Act.

Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation.” Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.

From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”

Accordingly, in this case the question I must consider is whether the evidence supports that the landlord has harassed the tenant. Having considered the evidence, I find there is no evidence to support that situation for these reasons.

I have previously found the parties agreed the tenants would assist with the installation of the smoke alarms, help clear the garden shed and sell the landlord’s windows and door on Market Place. There was no evidence of coercion or harassment by the landlord in reaching these agreements with the tenants.

The landlord and their contractors only sought limited access to the property for the express purpose of inspecting and/or repairing the kitchen ventilation and heat pump.

The tenants were notified in advance of these visits and on each occasion granted access to the property. There was no evidence to show the landlord or their agents engaged in oppressive or coercive conduct to obtain this access. Or, that while on site, the contractors behaved unprofessionally.

The roofing contractor who turned up unannounced sought and was granted access to the property. The tenants were entitled to decline access, but choose not to do so.

Appropriate notice was given for access to the property to replace the spa pool cover.

In my view the landlord has responded appropriately to remedy issues of disrepair that were reported by the tenant. These issues were previously unknown and were unexpected. I am not satisfied that six visits by four contractors over a period of 44 days amounts to a breach of the tenants right to quiet enjoyment. Nor am I satisfied that the landlord and their contractors behaviour reaches the threshold of harassment. For these reasons I find the tenants claim is not made is dismissed. Other matters

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Both parties seek name suppression.

Section 95A of the Act provided that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).

In this case both parties have been substantially successful and suppression orders are made.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5513318 — net $239.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Ventilation standard	$131.00	Ventilation standard
Compensation: heating standard	$80.00	heating standard
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$239.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$239.00