What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5362805?

The tribunal order states: A1 Property Managers Limited and Le Liu must pay Ahmed Moukhtar Ali

How much money was awarded in case 5362805?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Immediately Being: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5362805?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5362805?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13099732-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5362805?

The tribunal order states: A1 Property Managers Limited and Le Liu must pay Ahmed Moukhtar Ali

How much money was awarded in case 5362805?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Immediately Being: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5362805?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5362805?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13099732-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

42 Fern Drive, Halswell, Christchurch 8025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5362805 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5362805. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
immediately being	$500.00		immediately being
exemplary damages for failure to provide complete and accurate Healthy Homes information with the tenancy agreement and	$500.00		exemplary damages for failure to provide complete and accurate Healthy Homes information with the tenancy agreement and

Order

A1 Property Managers Limited and Le Liu must pay Ahmed Moukhtar Ali $1,000.00 immediately being $500 exemplary damages for failure to provide complete and accurate Healthy Homes information with the tenancy agreement and $500 compensation for failing to comply with insulation requirements.
The tenant’s claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims compensation and exemplary damages for various alleged breaches by the landlords of their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) relating mainly to the condition of the premises and compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Background
The tenant and his family were looking for another rental property and they heard about the premises from a friend. The tenant approached the landlord who agreed to offer the tenant the tenancy.
The landlord then appointed A1 Property Managers (A1) who dealt with the tenancy agreement.
At the end of February 2024 A1 sent the agreement the tenant. It included an HHS compliance statement in the usual form stating that will comply with the HHS. A1 say that attached to the agreement was a document headed “Healthy Homes Standards – Current Level of Compliance”. The tenant disputes that.
The document stated that the premises did not comply with the any of the HHS and that the landlord was awaiting a healthy homes assessment.
The parties signed the agreement at the beginning of March. The tenancy start date was 25 March.
The HHS compliance date for this tenancy was 120 days after the start of the tenancy being 23 July 2024.
On 8 March the landlord had the premises assessed for HHS compliance. The report found that the premises met four of the six standards. They failed on the insulation and draught stopping standards.
The report stated that there was a circular area above the stairs where there was no insulation and therefore it did not comply with the insulation standard. It was described as a “skylight” area but there was no skylight. It was practicable to install insulation there.
It further stated that there were gaps at the front and back doors and at the French doors that could cause draughts.
By early April the landlord had carried out work to the doors which she said remediated the gaps and risk of draughts from them.
The landlord produced a copy of an email to the tenant dated 10 April 2024 which attached a copy of the HHS report, confirmed that the door draughts had been attended to and said that the roof insulation work would be completed within a few days. The tenant denied receiving the report.
The roof insulation work consisted of installing a skylight where the circular uninsulated area was. That was completed by the beginning of July 2024.
The landlord produced a copy of an email to the tenant that attached an updated HHS statement.
Shortly after the skylight was installed, the tenant reported that it was leaking, and water was dripping from it onto the stairs. The landlord responded promptly by sending the contractor back to the premises to rectify the problem.
On 14 July the tenant reported that the skylight was still leaking. The contractor went back on 22 July.
On 19 August the tenant reported more leaking, and the contractor went back on 20 August. The landlord said that there were no more reports of leaking after that.
The landlord sent an inspector to the premises on 19 December to check that the installation was sound and there is a report confirming that it appeared to have been carried out to a satisfactory tradesman-like standard and it was weathertight.
The report refers to a roof leak related to a pipe penetration that had been repaired. That leak was unrelated to the sky light.
The roof penetration was from the hot water overflow pipe. A1 says that the leak was repaired promptly after it was reported to them.
There is no written record of any other complaints from the tenant during the tenancy, but the tenant says that he complained to A1 that the premises were damp, cold and difficult to keep warm. Law
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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.
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.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. The landlord must also provide an HHS compliance statement and information with the tenancy agreement. The information must be complete and accurate.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. Evidence and Assessment
The tenant provided an HHS assessment report following an assessment on 18 September 2025. The report found that the premises did not comply with the HHS in four respects namely. a. There were gaps in the ceiling insulation. b. The output of the heat pump was less than the minimum requirement and the legality of the top up heater should be checked. c. There were gaps and unreasonable draughts. It recommended 10m to 20m of draught sealing and a front door stripe. d. Repairs and maintenance to the guttering may be needed to achieve HHS compliance.
The author of the landlord’s HHS report, Steve Mills, attended the hearing and gave evidence. In summary, his evidence was as follows. a. There were gaps in the ceiling insulation but because there was excess insulation in places, the R value met the requirement and so the insulation was compliant. He also said that there was an area of the roof space that was covered by chip board with no insulation over it. But he found some insulation under the board. It was not sufficient but because there needs to be a gap between the insulation and the roof above it, more could not be installed. b. The top heater, which was fixed to the wall is legal because the heat pump was installed before 2019. c. He did not agree that were gaps and unreasonable draughts. d. The guttering was acceptable. There was very little fall but the water entering the gutters would flow to the downpipes without any overflowing the guttering.
I have no reason to question the experience and competence of either Mr Mills or the author of the tenant’s HHS report. After considering both reports, other evidence and the HHS regulations, I have come to the following conclusions. a. I accept that the boarded area in the roof space was needed for safety to gain access to the roof space and that it was impracticable to install more insulation there. b. I do not accept that other gaps in the ceiling insulation were acceptable. The regulations state that, among other things, the insulation must be installed in accordance with NZS 4246:2016. That standard requires the insulation must fully cover the ceiling. To the extent that were gaps in the insulation, it was not compliant. I understand the logic of Mr Mill’s reasoning but to take it to an extreme, it would allow there to be piles of insulation in one place and none elsewhere. That would largely defeat the purpose of the regulations. c. The photographs in the tenant’s report show some gaps at windows but only in one dimension. For the windows shown, there are two contact points, and it does not follow that a gap at one will allow a draught. The other contact point may exclude a draught. I am, therefore, not satisfied that the tenant’s evidence proves that there were unreasonable gaps causing draughts from the windows. d. As for the French doors I accept that they were compliant by the compliance date and that the tenant did not report any problem with them to the landlords during the tenancy. e. I accept Mr Mills’ evidence regarding the guttering. I note that the tenant’s assessor state that repairs or maintenance may be required. It has not been proved that it was required. Findings
I find that the tenant received a HH compliance statement and related information. He was aware of the importance of the information from a previous experience when he turned down a tenancy because he was not happy with the level of HH compliance. It is unlikely that he would have accepted this tenancy without that information.
The evidence establishes that the premises complied with HHS by the compliance date in all respects except the ceiling insulation.
The leaking from the new skylight was minor and the landlords took reasonable steps to remedy the problem. I find that they were not breach of their repairing obligations in that respect.
The landlords also complied with their obligations by repairing the leak around the hot water discharge pipe.
The landlords were in breach by not providing accurate HH information at the start of the tenancy. I do not accept that landlords can say that they don’t have the information and still comply with the requirement. Saying that there is no compliance doesn’t change the fact that no information was given. It was also incorrect to say that.
The Regulations require the information to be given. It does not allow for exceptions where the information is not available because there has been no assessment. In practice, landlords should not grant a tenancy until they have the required information and can provide it to the tenant.
It is important that tenants are provided with complete and accurate information and an award of exemplary damages is warranted. I have awarded $500.
I have found that the ceiling insulation was not compliant because there were gaps. I accept that the landlords relied on a professional assessment report and therefore they took no action to remedy the deficiency. Arguably there should be an award of exemplary damages because the landlords should have been aware of the requirement that the insulation must cover the ceiling, and it was apparent from the photographs that it didn’t. But I find that it was not so obvious that they were unreasonable to rely on the report. There is therefore no award of exemplary damages.
The gaps in the insulation would have allowed heat to escape and would made the premises colder and more difficult to heat. The main effect would be that power bills would be higher. I therefore award $500 compensation.
There was a crack in a wall which was not structural and which I find had little or no effect on the tenant.
The tenant has had limited success and so I do not award the filing fee.
There is no compelling reason to order suppression of the tenant’s name and so the principle of open justice prevails.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5362805. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
immediately being	$500.00		immediately being
exemplary damages for failure to provide complete and accurate Healthy Homes information with the tenancy agreement and	$500.00		exemplary damages for failure to provide complete and accurate Healthy Homes information with the tenancy agreement and

Order

A1 Property Managers Limited and Le Liu must pay Ahmed Moukhtar Ali $1,000.00 immediately being $500 exemplary damages for failure to provide complete and accurate Healthy Homes information with the tenancy agreement and $500 compensation for failing to comply with insulation requirements.
The tenant’s claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims compensation and exemplary damages for various alleged breaches by the landlords of their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) relating mainly to the condition of the premises and compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Background
The tenant and his family were looking for another rental property and they heard about the premises from a friend. The tenant approached the landlord who agreed to offer the tenant the tenancy.
The landlord then appointed A1 Property Managers (A1) who dealt with the tenancy agreement.
At the end of February 2024 A1 sent the agreement the tenant. It included an HHS compliance statement in the usual form stating that will comply with the HHS. A1 say that attached to the agreement was a document headed “Healthy Homes Standards – Current Level of Compliance”. The tenant disputes that.
The document stated that the premises did not comply with the any of the HHS and that the landlord was awaiting a healthy homes assessment.
The parties signed the agreement at the beginning of March. The tenancy start date was 25 March.
The HHS compliance date for this tenancy was 120 days after the start of the tenancy being 23 July 2024.
On 8 March the landlord had the premises assessed for HHS compliance. The report found that the premises met four of the six standards. They failed on the insulation and draught stopping standards.
The report stated that there was a circular area above the stairs where there was no insulation and therefore it did not comply with the insulation standard. It was described as a “skylight” area but there was no skylight. It was practicable to install insulation there.
It further stated that there were gaps at the front and back doors and at the French doors that could cause draughts.
By early April the landlord had carried out work to the doors which she said remediated the gaps and risk of draughts from them.
The landlord produced a copy of an email to the tenant dated 10 April 2024 which attached a copy of the HHS report, confirmed that the door draughts had been attended to and said that the roof insulation work would be completed within a few days. The tenant denied receiving the report.
The roof insulation work consisted of installing a skylight where the circular uninsulated area was. That was completed by the beginning of July 2024.
The landlord produced a copy of an email to the tenant that attached an updated HHS statement.
Shortly after the skylight was installed, the tenant reported that it was leaking, and water was dripping from it onto the stairs. The landlord responded promptly by sending the contractor back to the premises to rectify the problem.
On 14 July the tenant reported that the skylight was still leaking. The contractor went back on 22 July.
On 19 August the tenant reported more leaking, and the contractor went back on 20 August. The landlord said that there were no more reports of leaking after that.
The landlord sent an inspector to the premises on 19 December to check that the installation was sound and there is a report confirming that it appeared to have been carried out to a satisfactory tradesman-like standard and it was weathertight.
The report refers to a roof leak related to a pipe penetration that had been repaired. That leak was unrelated to the sky light.
The roof penetration was from the hot water overflow pipe. A1 says that the leak was repaired promptly after it was reported to them.
There is no written record of any other complaints from the tenant during the tenancy, but the tenant says that he complained to A1 that the premises were damp, cold and difficult to keep warm. Law
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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.
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.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. The landlord must also provide an HHS compliance statement and information with the tenancy agreement. The information must be complete and accurate.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. Evidence and Assessment
The tenant provided an HHS assessment report following an assessment on 18 September 2025. The report found that the premises did not comply with the HHS in four respects namely. a. There were gaps in the ceiling insulation. b. The output of the heat pump was less than the minimum requirement and the legality of the top up heater should be checked. c. There were gaps and unreasonable draughts. It recommended 10m to 20m of draught sealing and a front door stripe. d. Repairs and maintenance to the guttering may be needed to achieve HHS compliance.
The author of the landlord’s HHS report, Steve Mills, attended the hearing and gave evidence. In summary, his evidence was as follows. a. There were gaps in the ceiling insulation but because there was excess insulation in places, the R value met the requirement and so the insulation was compliant. He also said that there was an area of the roof space that was covered by chip board with no insulation over it. But he found some insulation under the board. It was not sufficient but because there needs to be a gap between the insulation and the roof above it, more could not be installed. b. The top heater, which was fixed to the wall is legal because the heat pump was installed before 2019. c. He did not agree that were gaps and unreasonable draughts. d. The guttering was acceptable. There was very little fall but the water entering the gutters would flow to the downpipes without any overflowing the guttering.
I have no reason to question the experience and competence of either Mr Mills or the author of the tenant’s HHS report. After considering both reports, other evidence and the HHS regulations, I have come to the following conclusions. a. I accept that the boarded area in the roof space was needed for safety to gain access to the roof space and that it was impracticable to install more insulation there. b. I do not accept that other gaps in the ceiling insulation were acceptable. The regulations state that, among other things, the insulation must be installed in accordance with NZS 4246:2016. That standard requires the insulation must fully cover the ceiling. To the extent that were gaps in the insulation, it was not compliant. I understand the logic of Mr Mill’s reasoning but to take it to an extreme, it would allow there to be piles of insulation in one place and none elsewhere. That would largely defeat the purpose of the regulations. c. The photographs in the tenant’s report show some gaps at windows but only in one dimension. For the windows shown, there are two contact points, and it does not follow that a gap at one will allow a draught. The other contact point may exclude a draught. I am, therefore, not satisfied that the tenant’s evidence proves that there were unreasonable gaps causing draughts from the windows. d. As for the French doors I accept that they were compliant by the compliance date and that the tenant did not report any problem with them to the landlords during the tenancy. e. I accept Mr Mills’ evidence regarding the guttering. I note that the tenant’s assessor state that repairs or maintenance may be required. It has not been proved that it was required. Findings
I find that the tenant received a HH compliance statement and related information. He was aware of the importance of the information from a previous experience when he turned down a tenancy because he was not happy with the level of HH compliance. It is unlikely that he would have accepted this tenancy without that information.
The evidence establishes that the premises complied with HHS by the compliance date in all respects except the ceiling insulation.
The leaking from the new skylight was minor and the landlords took reasonable steps to remedy the problem. I find that they were not breach of their repairing obligations in that respect.
The landlords also complied with their obligations by repairing the leak around the hot water discharge pipe.
The landlords were in breach by not providing accurate HH information at the start of the tenancy. I do not accept that landlords can say that they don’t have the information and still comply with the requirement. Saying that there is no compliance doesn’t change the fact that no information was given. It was also incorrect to say that.
The Regulations require the information to be given. It does not allow for exceptions where the information is not available because there has been no assessment. In practice, landlords should not grant a tenancy until they have the required information and can provide it to the tenant.
It is important that tenants are provided with complete and accurate information and an award of exemplary damages is warranted. I have awarded $500.
I have found that the ceiling insulation was not compliant because there were gaps. I accept that the landlords relied on a professional assessment report and therefore they took no action to remedy the deficiency. Arguably there should be an award of exemplary damages because the landlords should have been aware of the requirement that the insulation must cover the ceiling, and it was apparent from the photographs that it didn’t. But I find that it was not so obvious that they were unreasonable to rely on the report. There is therefore no award of exemplary damages.
The gaps in the insulation would have allowed heat to escape and would made the premises colder and more difficult to heat. The main effect would be that power bills would be higher. I therefore award $500 compensation.
There was a crack in a wall which was not structural and which I find had little or no effect on the tenant.
The tenant has had limited success and so I do not award the filing fee.
There is no compelling reason to order suppression of the tenant’s name and so the principle of open justice prevails.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5362805 — Healthy homes at 42 Fern Drive, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5362805 — Healthy homes at 42 Fern Drive, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions