What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5206553?

The tribunal order states: Accommodation Centre Limited T/A Harcourts Asset Managers and X Y Liang

How much money was awarded in case 5206553?

Compensation: $1,150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5206553?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5206553?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11985920-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5206553?

The tribunal order states: Accommodation Centre Limited T/A Harcourts Asset Managers and X Y Liang

How much money was awarded in case 5206553?

Compensation: $1,150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5206553?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5206553?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11985920-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Brookby Crescent, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5206553 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5206553 — net $1,177.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,150.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,177.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,177.00

Order

Accommodation Centre Limited T/A Harcourts Asset Managers and X Y Liang must pay Liezel Esterhuizen and EJ Esterhuizen $1,177.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Bowden represented Harcourts and the landlord.
The tenants claim compensation for breach by the landlords of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). Background
The tenants had viewed several rental properties before deciding that this one was most suitable for their requirements. One of the things that attracted them was the large garage. They had cars and equipment that were in storage, and they wanted the garage to house them and work on them.
But during their two viewings, there was no access the garage. Their evidence was that the agent told them that garage was up to standard. The house was of a good standard.
The tenants signed a tenancy agreement on 7 November 2024. The term of the tenancy began on 14 November.
The agreement did not include, and the tenants did not receive, the required Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) compliance information. The agreement stated, “At the time of preparing this tenancy agreement the Healthy Homes Standards and/or Insurance Policy details for the premises are not known. An updated and complete landlord statement will be given to the tenant within 120 days of the commencement date”.
When the tenants obtained possession of the premises and accessed the garage, they were disappointed with its condition. There were loose wires dangling from rafters, broken electrical fittings and, most worryingly for them, plaster board linings that appeared to have had sections cut of them.
They did some research and concluded that the linings were likely to contain asbestos. The landlords accept that they do contain asbestos.
The tenants wanted the electrical wiring and fittings in the garage to be repaired and made safe and they expected there to be an asbestos management plan in place before that work was started.
They also wanted the garage to be relined to encapsulate the original linings. They offered to do the relining themselves if the landlord paid for the materials. The landlords agreed and the tenants completed that work over the Christmas break.
The landlords maintained that there was no need for an asbestos management plan because the linings were not going to be disturbed by the electrical work. Ultimately, the electrician produced a plan, and the electrical work was completed by mid-December. The work included rewiring, repairing electrical fittings and replacing the distribution board.
The landlords had the premises assessed for HHS compliance and a completed HHS statement, dated 12 November, was provided to the tenants.
The report did not provide any information about the garage. It stated that there was no ground vapour barrier under the house and no exemption applied. It said that the underfloor insulation consisted of foil and that it was compliant.
The ground vapour barrier was installed on 21 March 2025, 7 days after the 120 days for HHS compliance had passed. At the same time, the foil insulation was replaced. The tenants said that the installers told them that the foil was in poor condition and below the required thermal level.
The tenants said that during the (unusually wet) summer months, before the ground vapour barrier and new insulation was installed, there was an unpleasant smell coming up from below the floor in one area of the premises. That went and the house was much warmer after the work was completed. Law
Under section 45 of the Act, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. There is no claim for exemplary damages.
Under s13A of the Act, a landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed.
Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. The Act expressly provides that the alternative to providing this information applies only after the landlord has made all reasonable efforts to obtain the information.
The landlord must also provide detailed HHS information relating to the premises as prescribed by the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. There are no exceptions to that requirement.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. The Landlords’ Position
The landlords say that the garage was in a reasonable state of repair and that they were not required to do anything to it. The cladding was not a health risk because it was not damaged or otherwise in a condition that put at risk anyone’s health.
They said that the foil insulation was not damaged and that it was therefore compliant. The ground vapour barrier was installed only slightly late due to budget constraints. They denied that the tenants were entitled to compensation. Findings
I find that the evidence does not prove that the foil insulation was damaged. The evidence about what the contractors said is hearsay. The HHS report contains photographs showing it to be in good condition.
It follows that there was no breach in relation to the insulation. Plainly there was a breach in relation to the ground moisture barrier, albeit a minor one. That said, I do not accept budget constraints as an excuse. The landlords had ample time to comply and should have done so.
I do not accept that the garage was in reasonable state of repair. The garage did not need to be up to the standard of the house, but the fact that it was a garage does not mean that it was acceptable to provide it in any condition. I accept the tenants’ evidence that they were told that the garage was “up to standard”. I note as well, that no good reason was provided for the garage not being accessible when the tenants viewed the premises.
There was damage to an electrical socket and loose wires, even if they were not live, they were a concern.
The state of the lining, given that it contained asbestos, was justifiably a concern to the tenants. Given the age and condition of the lining – the lining was incomplete and appears to have been cut and removed in places – it was reasonable for the tenants to be concerned about its safety.
In my view, these issues should have been considered by the landlords before the premises were offered for rent and prospective tenants should have been made fully aware of the level HHS compliance and the condition of the garage.
There have been clear breaches of the requirements to provide HHS information regarding the insulation and more generally. But it is the type of insulation and the absence of the ground moisture barrier that is most pertinent.
The Act requires the information to be provided at the time the tenancy agreement is provided to the tenant. That is because the tenant should have the HHS information before they sign the agreement. It is too late after that because the tenant is by then committed to the tenancy. There is no evidence that the landlords made all reasonable efforts to obtain and provide the information with the tenancy agreement.
The tenants said that if they had received that information and if they had been made aware of the condition of the garage, they may well have taken one of the other properties they had viewed. Conclusion
In my view the tenants are entitled to compensation. This is not only for the fact that they were unable to use the garage for a month but also because they were denied relevant information and therefore the opportunity to make an informed decision about taking the tenancy. They lost the opportunity to take another rental property that may have been better for them.
There were storage charges of $150 and the loss of use of the garage for a month for which I award $200. I award $800 for the lost opportunity of having a rental property that complied with HHS.
Taking all things into consideration, I award $1,150 compensation. I also award the filing fee.
I have made this order against both respondents. Harcourts were the landlord’s agents, but the landlord was absent and Harcourts were responsible for the tenancy agreement and HHS compliance information. Therefore, it is appropriate that they are treated as a landlord in this instance.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5206553 — net $1,177.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,150.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,177.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,177.00

Order

Accommodation Centre Limited T/A Harcourts Asset Managers and X Y Liang must pay Liezel Esterhuizen and EJ Esterhuizen $1,177.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Bowden represented Harcourts and the landlord.
The tenants claim compensation for breach by the landlords of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). Background
The tenants had viewed several rental properties before deciding that this one was most suitable for their requirements. One of the things that attracted them was the large garage. They had cars and equipment that were in storage, and they wanted the garage to house them and work on them.
But during their two viewings, there was no access the garage. Their evidence was that the agent told them that garage was up to standard. The house was of a good standard.
The tenants signed a tenancy agreement on 7 November 2024. The term of the tenancy began on 14 November.
The agreement did not include, and the tenants did not receive, the required Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) compliance information. The agreement stated, “At the time of preparing this tenancy agreement the Healthy Homes Standards and/or Insurance Policy details for the premises are not known. An updated and complete landlord statement will be given to the tenant within 120 days of the commencement date”.
When the tenants obtained possession of the premises and accessed the garage, they were disappointed with its condition. There were loose wires dangling from rafters, broken electrical fittings and, most worryingly for them, plaster board linings that appeared to have had sections cut of them.
They did some research and concluded that the linings were likely to contain asbestos. The landlords accept that they do contain asbestos.
The tenants wanted the electrical wiring and fittings in the garage to be repaired and made safe and they expected there to be an asbestos management plan in place before that work was started.
They also wanted the garage to be relined to encapsulate the original linings. They offered to do the relining themselves if the landlord paid for the materials. The landlords agreed and the tenants completed that work over the Christmas break.
The landlords maintained that there was no need for an asbestos management plan because the linings were not going to be disturbed by the electrical work. Ultimately, the electrician produced a plan, and the electrical work was completed by mid-December. The work included rewiring, repairing electrical fittings and replacing the distribution board.
The landlords had the premises assessed for HHS compliance and a completed HHS statement, dated 12 November, was provided to the tenants.
The report did not provide any information about the garage. It stated that there was no ground vapour barrier under the house and no exemption applied. It said that the underfloor insulation consisted of foil and that it was compliant.
The ground vapour barrier was installed on 21 March 2025, 7 days after the 120 days for HHS compliance had passed. At the same time, the foil insulation was replaced. The tenants said that the installers told them that the foil was in poor condition and below the required thermal level.
The tenants said that during the (unusually wet) summer months, before the ground vapour barrier and new insulation was installed, there was an unpleasant smell coming up from below the floor in one area of the premises. That went and the house was much warmer after the work was completed. Law
Under section 45 of the Act, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. There is no claim for exemplary damages.
Under s13A of the Act, a landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed.
Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. The Act expressly provides that the alternative to providing this information applies only after the landlord has made all reasonable efforts to obtain the information.
The landlord must also provide detailed HHS information relating to the premises as prescribed by the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. There are no exceptions to that requirement.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. The Landlords’ Position
The landlords say that the garage was in a reasonable state of repair and that they were not required to do anything to it. The cladding was not a health risk because it was not damaged or otherwise in a condition that put at risk anyone’s health.
They said that the foil insulation was not damaged and that it was therefore compliant. The ground vapour barrier was installed only slightly late due to budget constraints. They denied that the tenants were entitled to compensation. Findings
I find that the evidence does not prove that the foil insulation was damaged. The evidence about what the contractors said is hearsay. The HHS report contains photographs showing it to be in good condition.
It follows that there was no breach in relation to the insulation. Plainly there was a breach in relation to the ground moisture barrier, albeit a minor one. That said, I do not accept budget constraints as an excuse. The landlords had ample time to comply and should have done so.
I do not accept that the garage was in reasonable state of repair. The garage did not need to be up to the standard of the house, but the fact that it was a garage does not mean that it was acceptable to provide it in any condition. I accept the tenants’ evidence that they were told that the garage was “up to standard”. I note as well, that no good reason was provided for the garage not being accessible when the tenants viewed the premises.
There was damage to an electrical socket and loose wires, even if they were not live, they were a concern.
The state of the lining, given that it contained asbestos, was justifiably a concern to the tenants. Given the age and condition of the lining – the lining was incomplete and appears to have been cut and removed in places – it was reasonable for the tenants to be concerned about its safety.
In my view, these issues should have been considered by the landlords before the premises were offered for rent and prospective tenants should have been made fully aware of the level HHS compliance and the condition of the garage.
There have been clear breaches of the requirements to provide HHS information regarding the insulation and more generally. But it is the type of insulation and the absence of the ground moisture barrier that is most pertinent.
The Act requires the information to be provided at the time the tenancy agreement is provided to the tenant. That is because the tenant should have the HHS information before they sign the agreement. It is too late after that because the tenant is by then committed to the tenancy. There is no evidence that the landlords made all reasonable efforts to obtain and provide the information with the tenancy agreement.
The tenants said that if they had received that information and if they had been made aware of the condition of the garage, they may well have taken one of the other properties they had viewed. Conclusion
In my view the tenants are entitled to compensation. This is not only for the fact that they were unable to use the garage for a month but also because they were denied relevant information and therefore the opportunity to make an informed decision about taking the tenancy. They lost the opportunity to take another rental property that may have been better for them.
There were storage charges of $150 and the loss of use of the garage for a month for which I award $200. I award $800 for the lost opportunity of having a rental property that complied with HHS.
Taking all things into consideration, I award $1,150 compensation. I also award the filing fee.
I have made this order against both respondents. Harcourts were the landlord’s agents, but the landlord was absent and Harcourts were responsible for the tenancy agreement and HHS compliance information. Therefore, it is appropriate that they are treated as a landlord in this instance.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5206553 — Tenancy dispute at 5 Brookby Crescent, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5206553 — Tenancy dispute at 5 Brookby Crescent, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions