What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5092428?

The tribunal order states: Ngk Services Limited T/A Propertyscouts Nelson As Agent For Tim And Linda

How much money was awarded in case 5092428?

Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $1,680.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Quiet enjoyment/loss o…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5092428?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5092428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11534964-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5092428?

The tribunal order states: Ngk Services Limited T/A Propertyscouts Nelson As Agent For Tim And Linda

How much money was awarded in case 5092428?

Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $1,680.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Quiet enjoyment/loss o…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5092428?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5092428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11534964-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Ngatitama Street, Nelson South, Nelson 7010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5092428 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5092428 — net $2,107.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain	$1,680.00	Failure to maintain
Compensation: Quiet enjoyment/loss of amenity	$400.00	Quiet enjoyment/loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,107.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,107.00

Order

Ngk Services Limited T/A Propertyscouts Nelson As Agent For Tim And Linda Rogers must pay Emma Jane Ferrez and Pierre Ferrez $2,107.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Due to the unexpected closure of Nelson District Court the hearing was conducted via video conference.
The tenants sought compensation orders relating to Healthy Homes standards/failure to maintain and for loss of amenity/quiet enjoyment.
As 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 in this case, the tenant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, do not infer that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely. Background
This tenancy formed remotely as the tenants were living overseas prior. It commenced 16 June 2025 although their physical move-in date was later. They intend to move back overseas before the fixed-term tenancy ends.
The premises had been marketed for sale prior but it was withdrawn and this fully-furnished tenancy agreement entered into.
This is a quality house in a prime area. The listing photos reflected that, with the owners’ possessions in place rather than any special staging for marketing purposes.
The tenants were less than happy with the condition on entry but that (apart from the issues traversed below) and any possible market rent claim are not the subject of this application, lodged some six months into the tenancy term.

Did the landlord fail to maintain and meet the HHS requirements?

It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA 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, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.
Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The landlord failed to adhere to the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). In this instance the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of the tenancy.
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).
A HHS Report was completed after the 120 days (171 days) and identified a number of failures. These were addressed. The most significant issue claimed by the tenants and confirmed in the report was the lack of heating in the main living area. The other HHS failures identified had not been raised as specific issues by the tenants but the failures would more than likely have compounded the impact of the failure in the heating
No applicable exemplary damages were sought in the application.
The landlord accepted the failure to meet the timeframe for an HHS report.
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 installed heater meets the requirement. The performance of it was the problem.
The main feature of the eventual HHS report was that it confirmed what the tenants had previously stated. Interference with the ducting meant the main living area was not getting heated due to reduced airflow.
While the landlord submitted the problem had not been raised, I prefer the tenants recounting of such notice as more likely. I consider it was raised and not resolved. I have allowed the landlord some slack for the HHS reporting failure as the landlord cited personal circumstances that led to that failure. I must also consider the same circumstances meant prompt and appropriate attention to the heating issue might have not occurred.
The tenants arrived to a Nelson winter from a northern summer. The lack of heating will have exacerbated the impact of the seasonal adjustment required of them. I accept the tenants’ purchased their own heaters, incurring a cost in the purchase as well as the ongoing higher cost of usage, versus the more efficient ducted heat pump, when working.
I have determined the landlord failed to maintain the heating system and consider it more than likely the tenants advised of the problem. Regardless, prompt arrangement of the HHS assessment and report would have identified the problem sooner.
I have calculated compensation on the basis of 12 weeks (allowing for the seasonal demand for heating) and set a daily compensation rate of $20.00. This totals $1,680.00 and that sum feels reasonable overall, allowing for the impact on the tenants and extra costs they incurred. Loss of amenity/quiet enjoyment
The tenancy came fully furnished. There was healthy discussion during the hearing about what “fully furnished” constitutes in such a residential tenancy. A direct comparison with short-term accommodation providers is inappropriate at both a cost and service level of comparison.
What was apparent was that the landlord removed a bed from one bedroom that was clearly shown in the photos. The explanation was that the owners has assumed the tenants would not want that and removed it. The tenants purchased a bed and have used that as a guest bedroom during the tenancy.
The second point of contention was the swap out of the photographed lounge furniture with the in-situ replacement discovered upon entry. It was considered less than like for like. No explanation for the replacement was provided.
There were other issues recounted by the tenants but to be fair, these have been addressed. The demarcation of gardening responsibilities was not clearly understood and I consider the owners stance was incorrect. I believe that has since been clarified and is now mutually understood.
Section 38 RTA provides the tenants shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord. I consider the tenant quiet enjoyment has been impacted by direct owner interaction and suggestions/demands regarding gardening required, and the loss of amenity through the removal or replacement of key furnishing.
In terms of compensation, having considered the overall events and impacts on the tenants, I have settled on a compensation payment of $400.00. Filing fee
Because Emma Jane Ferrez and Pierre Ferrez have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5092428 — net $2,107.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain	$1,680.00	Failure to maintain
Compensation: Quiet enjoyment/loss of amenity	$400.00	Quiet enjoyment/loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,107.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,107.00

Order

Ngk Services Limited T/A Propertyscouts Nelson As Agent For Tim And Linda Rogers must pay Emma Jane Ferrez and Pierre Ferrez $2,107.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Due to the unexpected closure of Nelson District Court the hearing was conducted via video conference.
The tenants sought compensation orders relating to Healthy Homes standards/failure to maintain and for loss of amenity/quiet enjoyment.
As 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 in this case, the tenant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, do not infer that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely. Background
This tenancy formed remotely as the tenants were living overseas prior. It commenced 16 June 2025 although their physical move-in date was later. They intend to move back overseas before the fixed-term tenancy ends.
The premises had been marketed for sale prior but it was withdrawn and this fully-furnished tenancy agreement entered into.
This is a quality house in a prime area. The listing photos reflected that, with the owners’ possessions in place rather than any special staging for marketing purposes.
The tenants were less than happy with the condition on entry but that (apart from the issues traversed below) and any possible market rent claim are not the subject of this application, lodged some six months into the tenancy term.

Did the landlord fail to maintain and meet the HHS requirements?

It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA 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, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.
Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The landlord failed to adhere to the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). In this instance the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of the tenancy.
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).
A HHS Report was completed after the 120 days (171 days) and identified a number of failures. These were addressed. The most significant issue claimed by the tenants and confirmed in the report was the lack of heating in the main living area. The other HHS failures identified had not been raised as specific issues by the tenants but the failures would more than likely have compounded the impact of the failure in the heating
No applicable exemplary damages were sought in the application.
The landlord accepted the failure to meet the timeframe for an HHS report.
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 installed heater meets the requirement. The performance of it was the problem.
The main feature of the eventual HHS report was that it confirmed what the tenants had previously stated. Interference with the ducting meant the main living area was not getting heated due to reduced airflow.
While the landlord submitted the problem had not been raised, I prefer the tenants recounting of such notice as more likely. I consider it was raised and not resolved. I have allowed the landlord some slack for the HHS reporting failure as the landlord cited personal circumstances that led to that failure. I must also consider the same circumstances meant prompt and appropriate attention to the heating issue might have not occurred.
The tenants arrived to a Nelson winter from a northern summer. The lack of heating will have exacerbated the impact of the seasonal adjustment required of them. I accept the tenants’ purchased their own heaters, incurring a cost in the purchase as well as the ongoing higher cost of usage, versus the more efficient ducted heat pump, when working.
I have determined the landlord failed to maintain the heating system and consider it more than likely the tenants advised of the problem. Regardless, prompt arrangement of the HHS assessment and report would have identified the problem sooner.
I have calculated compensation on the basis of 12 weeks (allowing for the seasonal demand for heating) and set a daily compensation rate of $20.00. This totals $1,680.00 and that sum feels reasonable overall, allowing for the impact on the tenants and extra costs they incurred. Loss of amenity/quiet enjoyment
The tenancy came fully furnished. There was healthy discussion during the hearing about what “fully furnished” constitutes in such a residential tenancy. A direct comparison with short-term accommodation providers is inappropriate at both a cost and service level of comparison.
What was apparent was that the landlord removed a bed from one bedroom that was clearly shown in the photos. The explanation was that the owners has assumed the tenants would not want that and removed it. The tenants purchased a bed and have used that as a guest bedroom during the tenancy.
The second point of contention was the swap out of the photographed lounge furniture with the in-situ replacement discovered upon entry. It was considered less than like for like. No explanation for the replacement was provided.
There were other issues recounted by the tenants but to be fair, these have been addressed. The demarcation of gardening responsibilities was not clearly understood and I consider the owners stance was incorrect. I believe that has since been clarified and is now mutually understood.
Section 38 RTA provides the tenants shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord. I consider the tenant quiet enjoyment has been impacted by direct owner interaction and suggestions/demands regarding gardening required, and the loss of amenity through the removal or replacement of key furnishing.
In terms of compensation, having considered the overall events and impacts on the tenants, I have settled on a compensation payment of $400.00. Filing fee
Because Emma Jane Ferrez and Pierre Ferrez have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5092428 — State of repair at 7 Ngatitama Street, Nelson South, Nelson 7010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5092428 — State of repair at 7 Ngatitama Street, Nelson South, Nelson 7010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain and meet the HHS requirements?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain and meet the HHS requirements?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions