What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5404989?

The tribunal order states: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Ymy Elsted Ltd must pay Amy Murphy

How much money was awarded in case 5404989?

Breach Of Healthy Homes Standards: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Cost Of Healthy Homes Report: $172.50 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Increased Heating Costs: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5404989?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5404989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13642241-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5404989?

The tribunal order states: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Ymy Elsted Ltd must pay Amy Murphy

How much money was awarded in case 5404989?

Breach Of Healthy Homes Standards: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Cost Of Healthy Homes Report: $172.50 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Increased Heating Costs: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5404989?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5404989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13642241-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Elsted Place, Goodwood Heights, Auckland 2105 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5404989 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5404989 — net $2,200.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Breach of Healthy Homes Standards	$1,500.00	Breach of Healthy Homes Standards
Increased heating costs	$250.00	Increased heating costs
General damages	$250.00	General damages
Cost of Healthy Homes report	$172.50	Cost of Healthy Homes report
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,200.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,200.50

Order

Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Ymy Elsted Ltd must pay Amy Murphy $2,200.50 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing in person on 31 March 2026.
The tenant applied to the Tribunal on 3 December 2025 for compensation and exemplary damages for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. Tenancy Agreements
The tenant signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 23 February 2023 to 21 February 2024. The agreement included information about the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
The appended Healthy Homes Statement indicated that the premises did not comply with the moisture and drainage standards, stating: “The property was not deemed to have appropriate gutters and downpipes that efficiently drain storm water, surface water and ground water to an appropriate outfall.” The tenancy agreement recorded that these standards had been assessed on 23 June 2020.
The version of the agreement provided by the tenant at the hearing did not include the Healthy Homes Statement (a standalone document) but did include some information and the same comment about non-compliance with the moisture and drainage standards.
The ownership of the premises changed, and the landlord prepared a “renewal agreement” which was signed on 3 August 2023. This provided for a fixed term from 1 August 2023 to 21 February 2024. The agreement stated that the premises already complied with the HHS and referred to an attached statement of the current level of compliance.
A second renewal agreement was signed on 23 January 2025. This referred to the current tenancy for a fixed term from 23 February 2023 to 21 February 2025 and created a renewed fixed term from 22 February 2025 to 21 February 2026. The agreement stated that the premises complied with the HHS and the current level of compliance with the HHS remained unchanged.
The weekly rent was $735.00. Background
A short summary of the background facts is as follows: • The landlord was provided with a copy of a Healthy Homes assessment report dated 16 December 2021 when they took over management of the premises in August 2023. This stated that the premises were fully compliant. • On 7 December 2023 the tenant raised a concern about cold draughts of air coming through the bedroom windows. The entry inspection report dated 20 February 2023 referred to three cracked windowpanes. • On 24 April 2024 the tenant asked for the landlord to arrange a Healthy Homes assessment, noting that the last one was done 4 years ago. The tenant said all homes needed to be compliant by July 2025. • On 2 May 2024 the tenant reported that she had had a house wash done, and water had come through the top and bottom of the front door and through the top of the bedroom windows. The tenant said this could be why the house was cold. • On 6 May 2024 the landlord received quotes for repairing the window glass and sealing the gaps. There is an invoice from Papatoetoe Glass dated 22 May 2024. The landlord said the work covered the gaps in the windows, not just the window glass, as per his email of 6 May 2024. Papatoetoe Glass commented: We are able to provide a quote for the 4x cracked panels, however for the draughty window frames it is best to get a builder in as there will be an underlying issue with the frame and/or the stays most likely. • The tenant obtained a Healthy Homes assessment report dated 25 July 2025. This found that the property did not comply with the drainage and draught stopping standards. • On 31 July 2025 the tenant served a notice to remedy the gutters and draughts coming from the dining room French doors, the bathroom and bedroom. • There is an invoice from E7 Handyman dated 13 August 2025 for cleaning the gutter and sealing the windows. On 15 August 2025 the author of the Healthy Homes report emailed the landlord stating that they were satisfied the issues had been resolved. Relevant Law
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements. For example, the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The landlord must also, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the HHS within 21 days after receiving the request (sections 123A and section 45(1AC)). Breach of this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an “unlawful act” for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00.
The tenant submits that the landlord is in breach of the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Act, which requires compliance with the HHS. The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the ventilation standard, the moisture ingress and drainage standard and the draught stopping standard.
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 draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require 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.
Breach 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. Analysis Information about Healthy Homes Compliance
Residential tenancy agreements must include certain information about compliance with the HHS. The statement that must be included in a tenancy agreement pursuant to section 13A(1CA) and on renewal pursuant to section 13A(1CB) must include the information required by regulations 34 to 39 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
The original tenancy agreement seems to have included the information required by the regulations. In the “renewal” (which was not a renewal in the sense of granting a new tenancy on expiry of the fixed term) there is reference to a document showing the current level of compliance. There is a statement that the landlord will comply with the HHS. It may well be that the document showing the current level of compliance was a reference to the Healthy Homes Statement appended to the original tenancy agreement (which, I note, the tenant said she had not seen).
Information about the HHS was provided. While the documentation is hard to piece together, I find that there was no failure to provide the required information in the tenancy agreements.
The tenant criticised the landlord’s failure to carry out an updated Healthy Homes assessment despite her requests. In my view, the landlord was not obligated to obtain a further report. The tenant was entitled to request Healthy Homes information which the landlord had retained, but not to compel the landlord to obtain advice whether the premises complied. There is no clear evidence that the tenant requested a copy of any Healthy Homes information (such as the 2021 report) or that the landlord failed to provide it.
The tenant claimed exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to provide inspection reports. There is no requirement in the Act for a landlord to provide copies of inspection reports to the tenant. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction under the Privacy Act. Compliance with Healthy Homes Standards
The landlord relied on the 2021 Healthy Homes report when they took over management in August 2023. The report showed the premises complied with the HHS. The reference to non-compliance in the tenancy agreement appears to have been an administrative error by the previous property manager. However, the report obtained by the tenant in 2025 found non-compliance with the drainage standard because the gutters were blocked. The previous gutter clean had been performed on 17 August 2022. The draught stopping standard was not complied with because there were “multiple draught failures with gaps greater than 3mm” involving the kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom windows.
I find that the drainage and draught stopping standards were not complied with. The failure to comply with the drainage standard was also, in my view, a failure to maintain. The gutters do not seem to have been cleaned for several years and I would expect this to be part of annual maintenance. However, the failure is relatively minor and there is no evidence of leaks or other detrimental effect on living conditions because of blocked guttering.
The tenant served a notice to remedy the gutters and draughts on 31 July 2025. Both issues were remedied within about two weeks. The case law which has developed around a landlord’s maintenance obligation has said that a landlord is not in breach of their maintenance obligation if they do not remedy a latent or hidden defect (Barfoot & Thompson v Casey (District Court Auckland, CIV 2005- 004-001762, 7 November 2007)). This means that a landlord’s maintenance obligation is limited to observable or notified defects, and a tenant has an independent obligation to notify the landlord of damage or the need for repairs. Further, landlords must investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention in a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Limited (District Court Wellington, CIV 2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010)).
This approach is arguably less persuasive in connection with the HHS, because the regulations are designed to ensure that all residential dwellings meet certain minimum standards. On that basis, a landlord does not avoid non-compliance because a failure to comply with a particular standard was not brought to their attention or was not easily observable. It would defeat the purpose of the regulations to prescribe minimum standards if, in the event of non-compliance with the HHS, a tenant had no right of recourse until the landlord had been given a reasonable time to remedy, or if the defect was not obvious. In other words, it is arguable that the regulations impose strict liability on landlords to ensure premises comply with the HHS at all times. If that is right, then even though the landlord acted reasonably promptly to remedy the breach of the draught standard, there was still a breach of the HHS.
The tenant’s evidence was that she had raised concerns about draughts from the windows since late 2023. In April 2024 the tenant requested a Healthy Homes assessment. The landlord’s evidence was that the tenant did not raise issues with draughts between May 2024 and July 2025. The issue was then fixed in a few weeks. That is correct, however, I am concerned that the window repairs in May 2024 did not address the gaps in the windows. Based on the comment from Papatoetoe Glass, it seems likely that they simply replaced the window glass and did not address the issue with draughts. The invoice only referred to “3x4mm clear float” which I understand is a reference to the glass panes.
This is not a case where exemplary damages would be appropriate. The landlord was responsive to the tenant’s concerns. Unfortunately, the property did have an issue with cold draughts which was not fully addressed until a notice to remedy was issued. The tenant claimed compensation for 6 weeks of rent for the period from 1 July 2025 (identified by the tenant as the deadline for compliance with the HHS) to the date of compliance ($4,410.00). The tenant also claimed increased power costs ($420.00). The tenant said the condition of the home had a negative impact on her children’s health. The landlord submitted that the claim for 6 weeks rent was excessive, the premises were weathertight and complied with the heating standard, and minor draughts or gutter issues would not cause a marked increase in heating costs.
I find that compensation of $1,500.00 should be awarded for breach of the HHS, together with $250.00 to acknowledge that the draughts would probably have resulted in higher heating costs, the amount of which is difficult to assess. I award $250.00 in general damages for sickness, anxiety and loss of amenity. I also award the cost of the Healthy Homes report ($172.50) which was necessary to establish that the premises were non-compliant. Filing Fee
The tenant has shown that there was a breach of the HHS. I award the filing fee. Corrigendum The landlord’s name was corrected on 22 May 2026.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5404989 — net $2,200.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Breach of Healthy Homes Standards	$1,500.00	Breach of Healthy Homes Standards
Increased heating costs	$250.00	Increased heating costs
General damages	$250.00	General damages
Cost of Healthy Homes report	$172.50	Cost of Healthy Homes report
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,200.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,200.50

Order

Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Ymy Elsted Ltd must pay Amy Murphy $2,200.50 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing in person on 31 March 2026.
The tenant applied to the Tribunal on 3 December 2025 for compensation and exemplary damages for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. Tenancy Agreements
The tenant signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 23 February 2023 to 21 February 2024. The agreement included information about the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
The appended Healthy Homes Statement indicated that the premises did not comply with the moisture and drainage standards, stating: “The property was not deemed to have appropriate gutters and downpipes that efficiently drain storm water, surface water and ground water to an appropriate outfall.” The tenancy agreement recorded that these standards had been assessed on 23 June 2020.
The version of the agreement provided by the tenant at the hearing did not include the Healthy Homes Statement (a standalone document) but did include some information and the same comment about non-compliance with the moisture and drainage standards.
The ownership of the premises changed, and the landlord prepared a “renewal agreement” which was signed on 3 August 2023. This provided for a fixed term from 1 August 2023 to 21 February 2024. The agreement stated that the premises already complied with the HHS and referred to an attached statement of the current level of compliance.
A second renewal agreement was signed on 23 January 2025. This referred to the current tenancy for a fixed term from 23 February 2023 to 21 February 2025 and created a renewed fixed term from 22 February 2025 to 21 February 2026. The agreement stated that the premises complied with the HHS and the current level of compliance with the HHS remained unchanged.
The weekly rent was $735.00. Background
A short summary of the background facts is as follows: • The landlord was provided with a copy of a Healthy Homes assessment report dated 16 December 2021 when they took over management of the premises in August 2023. This stated that the premises were fully compliant. • On 7 December 2023 the tenant raised a concern about cold draughts of air coming through the bedroom windows. The entry inspection report dated 20 February 2023 referred to three cracked windowpanes. • On 24 April 2024 the tenant asked for the landlord to arrange a Healthy Homes assessment, noting that the last one was done 4 years ago. The tenant said all homes needed to be compliant by July 2025. • On 2 May 2024 the tenant reported that she had had a house wash done, and water had come through the top and bottom of the front door and through the top of the bedroom windows. The tenant said this could be why the house was cold. • On 6 May 2024 the landlord received quotes for repairing the window glass and sealing the gaps. There is an invoice from Papatoetoe Glass dated 22 May 2024. The landlord said the work covered the gaps in the windows, not just the window glass, as per his email of 6 May 2024. Papatoetoe Glass commented: We are able to provide a quote for the 4x cracked panels, however for the draughty window frames it is best to get a builder in as there will be an underlying issue with the frame and/or the stays most likely. • The tenant obtained a Healthy Homes assessment report dated 25 July 2025. This found that the property did not comply with the drainage and draught stopping standards. • On 31 July 2025 the tenant served a notice to remedy the gutters and draughts coming from the dining room French doors, the bathroom and bedroom. • There is an invoice from E7 Handyman dated 13 August 2025 for cleaning the gutter and sealing the windows. On 15 August 2025 the author of the Healthy Homes report emailed the landlord stating that they were satisfied the issues had been resolved. Relevant Law
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements. For example, the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The landlord must also, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the HHS within 21 days after receiving the request (sections 123A and section 45(1AC)). Breach of this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an “unlawful act” for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00.
The tenant submits that the landlord is in breach of the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Act, which requires compliance with the HHS. The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the ventilation standard, the moisture ingress and drainage standard and the draught stopping standard.
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 draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require 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.
Breach 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. Analysis Information about Healthy Homes Compliance
Residential tenancy agreements must include certain information about compliance with the HHS. The statement that must be included in a tenancy agreement pursuant to section 13A(1CA) and on renewal pursuant to section 13A(1CB) must include the information required by regulations 34 to 39 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
The original tenancy agreement seems to have included the information required by the regulations. In the “renewal” (which was not a renewal in the sense of granting a new tenancy on expiry of the fixed term) there is reference to a document showing the current level of compliance. There is a statement that the landlord will comply with the HHS. It may well be that the document showing the current level of compliance was a reference to the Healthy Homes Statement appended to the original tenancy agreement (which, I note, the tenant said she had not seen).
Information about the HHS was provided. While the documentation is hard to piece together, I find that there was no failure to provide the required information in the tenancy agreements.
The tenant criticised the landlord’s failure to carry out an updated Healthy Homes assessment despite her requests. In my view, the landlord was not obligated to obtain a further report. The tenant was entitled to request Healthy Homes information which the landlord had retained, but not to compel the landlord to obtain advice whether the premises complied. There is no clear evidence that the tenant requested a copy of any Healthy Homes information (such as the 2021 report) or that the landlord failed to provide it.
The tenant claimed exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to provide inspection reports. There is no requirement in the Act for a landlord to provide copies of inspection reports to the tenant. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction under the Privacy Act. Compliance with Healthy Homes Standards
The landlord relied on the 2021 Healthy Homes report when they took over management in August 2023. The report showed the premises complied with the HHS. The reference to non-compliance in the tenancy agreement appears to have been an administrative error by the previous property manager. However, the report obtained by the tenant in 2025 found non-compliance with the drainage standard because the gutters were blocked. The previous gutter clean had been performed on 17 August 2022. The draught stopping standard was not complied with because there were “multiple draught failures with gaps greater than 3mm” involving the kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom windows.
I find that the drainage and draught stopping standards were not complied with. The failure to comply with the drainage standard was also, in my view, a failure to maintain. The gutters do not seem to have been cleaned for several years and I would expect this to be part of annual maintenance. However, the failure is relatively minor and there is no evidence of leaks or other detrimental effect on living conditions because of blocked guttering.
The tenant served a notice to remedy the gutters and draughts on 31 July 2025. Both issues were remedied within about two weeks. The case law which has developed around a landlord’s maintenance obligation has said that a landlord is not in breach of their maintenance obligation if they do not remedy a latent or hidden defect (Barfoot & Thompson v Casey (District Court Auckland, CIV 2005- 004-001762, 7 November 2007)). This means that a landlord’s maintenance obligation is limited to observable or notified defects, and a tenant has an independent obligation to notify the landlord of damage or the need for repairs. Further, landlords must investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention in a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Limited (District Court Wellington, CIV 2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010)).
This approach is arguably less persuasive in connection with the HHS, because the regulations are designed to ensure that all residential dwellings meet certain minimum standards. On that basis, a landlord does not avoid non-compliance because a failure to comply with a particular standard was not brought to their attention or was not easily observable. It would defeat the purpose of the regulations to prescribe minimum standards if, in the event of non-compliance with the HHS, a tenant had no right of recourse until the landlord had been given a reasonable time to remedy, or if the defect was not obvious. In other words, it is arguable that the regulations impose strict liability on landlords to ensure premises comply with the HHS at all times. If that is right, then even though the landlord acted reasonably promptly to remedy the breach of the draught standard, there was still a breach of the HHS.
The tenant’s evidence was that she had raised concerns about draughts from the windows since late 2023. In April 2024 the tenant requested a Healthy Homes assessment. The landlord’s evidence was that the tenant did not raise issues with draughts between May 2024 and July 2025. The issue was then fixed in a few weeks. That is correct, however, I am concerned that the window repairs in May 2024 did not address the gaps in the windows. Based on the comment from Papatoetoe Glass, it seems likely that they simply replaced the window glass and did not address the issue with draughts. The invoice only referred to “3x4mm clear float” which I understand is a reference to the glass panes.
This is not a case where exemplary damages would be appropriate. The landlord was responsive to the tenant’s concerns. Unfortunately, the property did have an issue with cold draughts which was not fully addressed until a notice to remedy was issued. The tenant claimed compensation for 6 weeks of rent for the period from 1 July 2025 (identified by the tenant as the deadline for compliance with the HHS) to the date of compliance ($4,410.00). The tenant also claimed increased power costs ($420.00). The tenant said the condition of the home had a negative impact on her children’s health. The landlord submitted that the claim for 6 weeks rent was excessive, the premises were weathertight and complied with the heating standard, and minor draughts or gutter issues would not cause a marked increase in heating costs.
I find that compensation of $1,500.00 should be awarded for breach of the HHS, together with $250.00 to acknowledge that the draughts would probably have resulted in higher heating costs, the amount of which is difficult to assess. I award $250.00 in general damages for sickness, anxiety and loss of amenity. I also award the cost of the Healthy Homes report ($172.50) which was necessary to establish that the premises were non-compliant. Filing Fee
The tenant has shown that there was a breach of the HHS. I award the filing fee. Corrigendum The landlord’s name was corrected on 22 May 2026.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5404989 — Healthy homes at 20 Elsted Place, Goodwood Heights, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5404989 — Healthy homes at 20 Elsted Place, Goodwood Heights, Auckland 2105

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