What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5301386?

The tribunal order states: Mark Mcilroy, Kirsty Wall and Richard Gawith as Trustees of the Fourmacs

How much money was awarded in case 5301386?

Property Damage: $1,250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301386?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301386?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12320018-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5301386?

The tribunal order states: Mark Mcilroy, Kirsty Wall and Richard Gawith as Trustees of the Fourmacs

How much money was awarded in case 5301386?

Property Damage: $1,250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301386?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301386?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12320018-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

46 Athol Terrace, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5301386 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5301386 — net $1,278.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages – Breaches of Healthy Homes Standards	$1,250.00	Exemplary damages – Breaches of Healthy Homes Standards
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,278.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,278.00

Order

Mark Mcilroy, Kirsty Wall and Richard Gawith as Trustees of the Fourmacs Rental Property Trust must pay Riley William McQuillan, Matene Dethierry, Tyrone Huffam-Mutu, Devyn Koko and Germayne Carrol $1,278.00 immediately as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its agent, Ms Atkinson of Asset Property Management Christchurch Ltd. Mr McQuillan and Mr Dethierry attended for the tenants.
The tenants have applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 20 December 2025 and orders in relation to alleged breaches of Healthy Homes Standards.
The landlord opposes an early termination of the tenancy and claimed the cost of cleaning the oven. A claim for advertising fees was withdrawn at the hearing. The landlord also claimed the bond, if the tenancy is terminated early. Background
The tenancy started on 20 December 2024 and is for a fixed term to 20 December 2025.
The tenancy agreement records that the premises comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.
On 17 December 2025 a property assessor inspected the premises for the landlord. There was no evidence of when its first report was issued, the report provided by the landlord at the hearing records that the report was “modified” on 20 December 2025 (“the landlord’s report”). The landlord’s report states the premises do not comply with the Health Homes Standards in respect of ceiling insulation and drainage.
Ms Atkinson said that the landlord obtained the report, intending to sell the property. That does not seem consistent with the tenancy agreement being signed on 20 December 2024, for a tenancy starting that date. In any event, the landlord has been on notice since December 2024, (from an assessor they engaged) that the premises do not meet the Healthy Homes Standards.
On or about 5 June 2024, Police executed a search at the premises. As a result of that search some tenants have been charged and non-association orders have been imposed. This means that most of the tenants cannot live at the premises until the charges have been determined.
On 25 June, the tenants also obtained a report from a Healthy Homes Assessor (“the tenant report”). That report also records that the premises do not comply with the insulation or drainage standards. It also states that premises do not comply with the draught stopping standard. Reduction of Fixed Term Tenancy
A tenancy agreement is a contract. When parties enter a fixed term tenancy, they are bound by the terms that they have agreed to. Usually, the term of the contract will be applied strictly. A decision maker would only interfere with that term in limited circumstances.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants claim that there has been an unforeseen change in their circumstances meaning that they can no longer live together. They say that this is causing hardship in that they are paying for premises that they cannot live in. They said that only two of them are working.
The tenants did not provide documentary evidence to corroborate their claims in relation to non-association or their financial position. I am mindful that charges are pending. They have not yet been proved.
This is a joint tenancy. Each of the tenants is liable for the rent, individually and as a collective. Mr McQuillan is working and has not been charged with any offences. He says that he has been covering the rent, but his weekly income is less than the rent. It seems that he is trying to do the right thing, but is realistic the situation that all parties find themselves in.
I discussed the practical reality of the situation with the parties at the hearing, and the landlord maintained its opposition to early reduction of the fixed term. It was entitled to do so.
I have considered whether I can or should terminate the entire tenancy having regard to Mr McQuillan’s situation only. I have regard to the decision in Tenant v Landlord [2024] NZTT 4925973. Applying that decision, I could terminate the entire tenancy if I was satisfied that the criteria under s66 have been met, in relation to Mr McQuillan.
It is arguable that there has been an unforeseen change in Mr McQuillan’s circumstances in that he could not have foreseen that his flatmates would be charged and unable to live at the premises. However, those flatmates are jointly liable for the rent and could continue to meet their obligations. Alternatively, Mr McQuillan could have found replacement flatmates.
The evidence from the tenants was sparse. Even if there had been an unforeseen change in their circumstances, they failed to establish that one or all of them would suffer severe hardship if the tenancy is not terminated. The application for reduction of the fixed term tenancy is dismissed. Both parties remain liable for all of their obligations until the end of the fixed term (or earlier by agreement).
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. If I had reduced the term of the tenancy, I would have awarded the landlord 12 weeks rent in compensation, having regard to the reasons for the termination and the landlord’s loss of rental income. Healthy Homes Standards
The tenants also requested early termination of the tenancy on the basis that the premises do not meet the Healthy Homes Standards.
The matters raised in both Healthy Homes Reports do not give grounds to terminate the tenancy. Further, the District Court confirmed there is an obligation on the tenant to give the landlord notice to undertake necessary repairs, prior to leaving a tenancy on the basis that repairs are required. See - Li v Onecall Property Management Ltd [2023] NZDC 9332. In this case the tenants did not give the landlord an opportunity to repair and only raised issues after their arrests when one of their mothers obtained a Healthy Homes Report to support their release from the tenancy.
The evidence (from both Healthy Homes reports) establishes that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to: a. Insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016; and b. Comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Both Healthy Homes statements record that the ceiling insulation fails to meet those requirements. The landlord’s report states that the insulation complies with the Building Code, but the coverage is uneven and needs to be put back in place. The tenant’s report says the insulation needs to be “topped up”.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For this tenancy the date was within 120 days of the commencement of the tenancy, by 19 April 2025.
Both reports record that the drainage system is deficient in multiple locations and does not efficiently or effectively drain to an appropriate outfall.
In summary, the premises were required to meet minimum insulation standards from the start of the tenancy but did not. The premises were required to comply with the drainage standard from 19 April 2025, but did not.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord was aware of the non-compliance from 20 December 2024, at the latest and took no steps to achieve compliance. I find they have committed an unlawful act. I also find that the unlawful act was intentional; the landlord obtained a report which said the premises did not comply and did nothing to address that.
The non-compliance was modest, in terms of other claims to the Tribunal. However, compliance with minimum standards is a mandatory obligation and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.
Having regard to the extent of the non-compliance and the landlord’s failure to act, I consider a modest award of exemplary damages is appropriate in this case. I award $1,250.00.
For completeness, I note that the tenants did not provide any evidence of loss of amenity arising from the non-compliance, or any other evidence to substantiate a compensation claim.
As the tenants were partially successful, I also award them reimbursement of their filing fee. Landlord Claims
The landlord claimed the cost of oven cleaning. It has not yet incurred that cost. As the tenancy has not been terminated, the tenants still have the opportunity to clean the oven. This aspect of the landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord also claimed reimbursement of the bond. There is no basis to release the bond to the landlord. The rent is currently up to date. The landlord did not agree to early termination and the grounds under s66 RTA were not met, so the tenancy continues, and the bond remains at the bond centre. This claim is also dismissed.
The landlord withdrew a claim for advertising fees at the hearing.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5301386 — net $1,278.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages – Breaches of Healthy Homes Standards	$1,250.00	Exemplary damages – Breaches of Healthy Homes Standards
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,278.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,278.00

Order

Mark Mcilroy, Kirsty Wall and Richard Gawith as Trustees of the Fourmacs Rental Property Trust must pay Riley William McQuillan, Matene Dethierry, Tyrone Huffam-Mutu, Devyn Koko and Germayne Carrol $1,278.00 immediately as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its agent, Ms Atkinson of Asset Property Management Christchurch Ltd. Mr McQuillan and Mr Dethierry attended for the tenants.
The tenants have applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 20 December 2025 and orders in relation to alleged breaches of Healthy Homes Standards.
The landlord opposes an early termination of the tenancy and claimed the cost of cleaning the oven. A claim for advertising fees was withdrawn at the hearing. The landlord also claimed the bond, if the tenancy is terminated early. Background
The tenancy started on 20 December 2024 and is for a fixed term to 20 December 2025.
The tenancy agreement records that the premises comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.
On 17 December 2025 a property assessor inspected the premises for the landlord. There was no evidence of when its first report was issued, the report provided by the landlord at the hearing records that the report was “modified” on 20 December 2025 (“the landlord’s report”). The landlord’s report states the premises do not comply with the Health Homes Standards in respect of ceiling insulation and drainage.
Ms Atkinson said that the landlord obtained the report, intending to sell the property. That does not seem consistent with the tenancy agreement being signed on 20 December 2024, for a tenancy starting that date. In any event, the landlord has been on notice since December 2024, (from an assessor they engaged) that the premises do not meet the Healthy Homes Standards.
On or about 5 June 2024, Police executed a search at the premises. As a result of that search some tenants have been charged and non-association orders have been imposed. This means that most of the tenants cannot live at the premises until the charges have been determined.
On 25 June, the tenants also obtained a report from a Healthy Homes Assessor (“the tenant report”). That report also records that the premises do not comply with the insulation or drainage standards. It also states that premises do not comply with the draught stopping standard. Reduction of Fixed Term Tenancy
A tenancy agreement is a contract. When parties enter a fixed term tenancy, they are bound by the terms that they have agreed to. Usually, the term of the contract will be applied strictly. A decision maker would only interfere with that term in limited circumstances.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants claim that there has been an unforeseen change in their circumstances meaning that they can no longer live together. They say that this is causing hardship in that they are paying for premises that they cannot live in. They said that only two of them are working.
The tenants did not provide documentary evidence to corroborate their claims in relation to non-association or their financial position. I am mindful that charges are pending. They have not yet been proved.
This is a joint tenancy. Each of the tenants is liable for the rent, individually and as a collective. Mr McQuillan is working and has not been charged with any offences. He says that he has been covering the rent, but his weekly income is less than the rent. It seems that he is trying to do the right thing, but is realistic the situation that all parties find themselves in.
I discussed the practical reality of the situation with the parties at the hearing, and the landlord maintained its opposition to early reduction of the fixed term. It was entitled to do so.
I have considered whether I can or should terminate the entire tenancy having regard to Mr McQuillan’s situation only. I have regard to the decision in Tenant v Landlord [2024] NZTT 4925973. Applying that decision, I could terminate the entire tenancy if I was satisfied that the criteria under s66 have been met, in relation to Mr McQuillan.
It is arguable that there has been an unforeseen change in Mr McQuillan’s circumstances in that he could not have foreseen that his flatmates would be charged and unable to live at the premises. However, those flatmates are jointly liable for the rent and could continue to meet their obligations. Alternatively, Mr McQuillan could have found replacement flatmates.
The evidence from the tenants was sparse. Even if there had been an unforeseen change in their circumstances, they failed to establish that one or all of them would suffer severe hardship if the tenancy is not terminated. The application for reduction of the fixed term tenancy is dismissed. Both parties remain liable for all of their obligations until the end of the fixed term (or earlier by agreement).
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. If I had reduced the term of the tenancy, I would have awarded the landlord 12 weeks rent in compensation, having regard to the reasons for the termination and the landlord’s loss of rental income. Healthy Homes Standards
The tenants also requested early termination of the tenancy on the basis that the premises do not meet the Healthy Homes Standards.
The matters raised in both Healthy Homes Reports do not give grounds to terminate the tenancy. Further, the District Court confirmed there is an obligation on the tenant to give the landlord notice to undertake necessary repairs, prior to leaving a tenancy on the basis that repairs are required. See - Li v Onecall Property Management Ltd [2023] NZDC 9332. In this case the tenants did not give the landlord an opportunity to repair and only raised issues after their arrests when one of their mothers obtained a Healthy Homes Report to support their release from the tenancy.
The evidence (from both Healthy Homes reports) establishes that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to: a. Insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016; and b. Comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Both Healthy Homes statements record that the ceiling insulation fails to meet those requirements. The landlord’s report states that the insulation complies with the Building Code, but the coverage is uneven and needs to be put back in place. The tenant’s report says the insulation needs to be “topped up”.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For this tenancy the date was within 120 days of the commencement of the tenancy, by 19 April 2025.
Both reports record that the drainage system is deficient in multiple locations and does not efficiently or effectively drain to an appropriate outfall.
In summary, the premises were required to meet minimum insulation standards from the start of the tenancy but did not. The premises were required to comply with the drainage standard from 19 April 2025, but did not.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord was aware of the non-compliance from 20 December 2024, at the latest and took no steps to achieve compliance. I find they have committed an unlawful act. I also find that the unlawful act was intentional; the landlord obtained a report which said the premises did not comply and did nothing to address that.
The non-compliance was modest, in terms of other claims to the Tribunal. However, compliance with minimum standards is a mandatory obligation and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.
Having regard to the extent of the non-compliance and the landlord’s failure to act, I consider a modest award of exemplary damages is appropriate in this case. I award $1,250.00.
For completeness, I note that the tenants did not provide any evidence of loss of amenity arising from the non-compliance, or any other evidence to substantiate a compensation claim.
As the tenants were partially successful, I also award them reimbursement of their filing fee. Landlord Claims
The landlord claimed the cost of oven cleaning. It has not yet incurred that cost. As the tenancy has not been terminated, the tenants still have the opportunity to clean the oven. This aspect of the landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord also claimed reimbursement of the bond. There is no basis to release the bond to the landlord. The rent is currently up to date. The landlord did not agree to early termination and the grounds under s66 RTA were not met, so the tenancy continues, and the bond remains at the bond centre. This claim is also dismissed.
The landlord withdrew a claim for advertising fees at the hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301386 — Healthy homes at 46 Athol Terrace, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301386 — Healthy homes at 46 Athol Terrace, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions