Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5407849 — Tenancy dispute at 13 Eastview Grove, Normandale, Lower Hutt 5010
Published 11 February 2026 · Application 5407849
Tenant favoured
- Compensation
- Filing Fee
- Filing Fee Reimbursement
- Healthy homes
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Tenant favoured
From published order
Location
Lower Hutt
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
R Woodhouse
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $3,557.00
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $3,557.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compensation | $3,200.00 | Compensation | |
| Compensation: Heater costs | $329.00 | Heater costs | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $3,557.00 | ||
| Total payable by Landlord to Tenant | $3,557.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5407849 — net $3,557.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Compensation
- Amount
- $3,200.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Compensation
Compensation: Heater costs
- Amount
- $329.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Heater costs
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Tenant $3,557.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant
Tenant $3,557.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Kemeys Brothers Management Limited As Agent For Assen Fam Trust - Bernardus Assen & Carolina Assen must pay Christopher John Charlton and Lesley Feris $3,557.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionTenant Compensation$3,200.00 Compensation: Heater costs$329.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$3,557.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$3,557.00
- The Tribunal orders Kemeys Brothers Management Limited As Agent For Assen Fam Trust - Bernardus Assen & Carolina Assen to install a ducted central heating system equivalent to that in the premises at the time the tenancy commenced. As an alternative to complying with this order, the landlord may pay the tenants $1,000.00 compensation as full and final settlement of all claims in relation to the central heating system.
Reasons
- The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlord. Both parties appeared at the hearing in Lower Hutt today.
BACKGROUND
- The tenants entered into a one-year fixed-term tenancy agreement on 14 March 2025. The premises could fairly be described as being of a superior standard, consistent with the weekly rental of $850 per week.
- The premises were rented with a ducted central heating system. The tenancy agreement includes the required Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) Statement, recording a 12 kW central heating system.
- The evidence is that the central heating was working properly at the start of the tenancy. At the hearing today, the landlord noted that it had been serviced on the day the tenancy commenced. However, on 3 July 2025, the system failed.
- A technician attended the premises on 5 July 2025, but the system could not be repaired.
- 10 July 2025, the landlord advised that the central heating system would not be repaired, but the landlord would install heat pumps to provide heating. As will be discussed below, the tenants have taken that communication as an indication that heat pumps would comply with the landlord’s legal obligations, which the tenants do not consider to be an accurate representation, because it did not take into account contractual obligations.
- Ultimately two heat pumps were installed in the property. The tenants purchased freestanding heaters in addition to provide heating.
- The parties engaged to try and resolve differences around the heating, but when that was not possible, the tenants have filed this application with the Tribunal. I note that the landlord had offered compensation of $4,100.00, reimbursement of the cost of the portable heaters that the tenants purchased, and to install a third heat pump in the lower level of the premises. The tenants declined that offer.
TENANTS CASE
- At the hearing, the tenants confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Compensation for loss of amenity because of loss of heating system. b. Compensation for misleading information. c. Compensation for the purchase of additional heating. d. Compensation for inconvenience e. Work order for installation of a central heating system.
- The tenants said that they entered into a fixed-term tenancy agreement, and in the tenancy agreement, a whole-house heating system was offered. This failed on 3 July 2025, and the landlord replaced this with two heat pumps, which only covered one third of the house. Some of the house is not serviced by those heat pumps. Prior the central heating system would have heated those other rooms by way of ducted hot air into those rooms.
- The tenants said that when they were looking at the premises, they asked about central heating, as it was important to them, and the landlord advised that there was a central heating service. The tenants say that if they had known there was no central heating, they would not have rented the premise.
LANDLORDS CASE
- The property manager states that they do not know precisely what was said during the viewing of the premises.
- It is agreed that the central heating is not working, but the problem is that the unit is now obsolete, so parts cannot be obtained. In order to get heating for the tenants without delay, the landlord had heat pumps installed.
RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
- The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
- With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
- That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
- It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
ANALYSIS
- At the hearing, the tenants confirmed they were seeking compensation on four grounds, as well as a work order, I will consider each return. But before I do, I note that the four compensation claims have considerable overlap. Claim 1 Compensation for loss of amenity
- The tenants seek compensation for loss of amenity, on the basis that some of the house is no longer heated. The tenants consider that the loss of heating should be reflected in the rental they paid, for premises which were not as contracted to receive.
- The landlord does not dispute that there is a reduction of the house that is now heated, but disagrees that it would be in the vicinity of 66% of the house. The landlord seeks the Tribunal to make an assessment on what compensation should be provided. Analysis
- I accept that the premises were rented with ducted central heating. And questionably, that would be a feature that was very important to some tenants, that is not difficult to understand. The tenants’ evidence was that if the premises did not have that feature, they would not have rented it. I have no reason not to accept that, which is a reflection of the importance this feature had for them.
- I also accept that it was a term of the contract, that the premises have ducted central heating, and that extent, when the heating failed and the landlord decided not to replace it, that would breach the contract term.
- The landlord could have negotiated with the tenants, and if they reached an agreement, there would be no problem, and in this case I can see that a negotiation was attempted, but unsuccessful.
- In place of the ducted central heating, the landlord installed two heat pumps. The tenants explained, and I accept, that the heat pumps do not achieve adequate heating to the whole of the premises, to the same extent as central heating did. To that extent, the amenity and comfort that the tenants get in the premises would be less. The tenants pay rent to receive premises with ducted central heating, and they do not receive that, I accept that the heating received from the heat pumps is of a lower standard. In short, it is fair that the tenants are compensated for that loss.
- Taking into consideration that the rent is $850.00, what I must do is work out what a fair level of compensation would be to compensate the tenants for their loss.
- I have determined that compensation at $100 per week would be reasonable, and that is ordered. There has been 32 weeks where the central heating has not worked, and therefore I order compensation of $3,200.00. Claim 2 – Compensation for misleading information
- The tenants consider the email sent by the landlord on 10 July 2025 misled them, because the Healthy Homes Standard is different to what the contractual obligations would be.
- In response, the landlord’s position is that there is no misleading information in the email. Analysis
- On 10 July 2025, the property manager emailed the tenants stating that: As you are aware, the owners had a contractor at the property Saturday morning to check things over and they found a few issues that required further retention. They provided a full report to the owners Monday and a decision was made to replace the old central heating system with two brand-new heat pumps in the living space, the two heat pumps combined are well above the required 8.3. KW required for the healthy homes requirements and these will also be a lot more cost-effective to run over winter for you. As you mentioned that you purchased for heaters, I would ask you to email through a copy of the receipt for these please? The owners will look into some form of compensation but will likely not reimburse for all four heaters. Please pop the receipt through and I will happily see what can be done here. For your patience with the heating issue, the owners have done a really good job with being able to get two heat pumps installed so quickly.
- I have considered the content of the 10 July 2025 email, but I am not persuaded that it is misleading.
- While I have not undertaken a calculation as to the minimum required heating capacity, assuming what the landlord says is correct, that the HHS requires 8.5 kW of heating, then the email is on the face of it correct. It is not the landlord’s role to provide legal advice to the tenants, regarding what the tenants’ legal rights would be in a tenancy. Certainly, a landlord as a contracting party should not act in a deceptive or misleading way, but I do not believe the landlord has done that. The landlord was not required by law raise with the tenants whether they would have any recourse to a contractual breach.
- I do not consider that the communication is misleading; this claim cannot succeed. Claim 3 – Compensation for purchase of additional heating
- The tenants seek compensation for the purchase of additional heating they needed to purchase. To keep warm, the tenants purchased 5 portable heaters. The tenants confirmed that some rent credit was provided. The cost of the heaters was $479, but only $150 in rent credit was given, meaning the difference is $329.00.
- The landlord states that the tenants decided to purchase the heaters. However the landlord did not consider it was reasonable at the time to fund the purchase of the number of heaters the tenants purchased. The landlord notes that over time full reimbursement has been offered in the settlement of the dispute, but turned down by the tenants. Analysis
- As indicated above, it was a term of the tenancy agreement that the premises be centrally heated. I accept what the tenants say, that the heat pumps are not as effective with reaching some of the rooms, which makes sense, as if the ducted central heating was working, every room with ducts would be heated. The house is sizable over multiple levels, and the tenants advised that they purchased five portable heaters to heat rooms that were not warmed by the heat pump. In my assessment it is reasonable that the cost of those be reimbursed, to the sum of $329.00 (the balance).
- However, I note that given the landlord will be reimbursing the purchase of those units, at the end of the tenancy, the tenants will need to leave them all in the Tenancy when they leave. Claim 4 – Compensation for inconvenience
- The tenants seek compensation for the inconvenience that they have suffered. That includes tripping of the electrical system, needing them to go under the house in the dark, in stormy weather. Further, the cold over the winter months effects them comfort and enjoyment in the house. Further, when guests have visited, they have swapped their bedroom so the guests could stay in a warm room. Some bathrooms cannot be used.
- In response, the landlord considers that the landlords have tried to act as quickly as possible. The landlord notes that the central heating was in fact serviced on the day the tenancy started, but later failed. The landlord is not is a position to comment on the stress for the tenants, but believes they have acted as reasonably as possible. Analysis
- The tenants seek compensation for inconvenience, for the central heating not working.
- While I accept that there would have been an inconvenience involved for the tenants, it must also be recognised that houses are complex structures, and there is no guarantee that over the course of a Tenancy, that some problem will arise with the dwelling, that needs the tenants to engage with the landlord, or also to work around the problem as is the case here. Based on the information available, I am not persuaded that additional compensation should be ordered. I have ordered above $100 per week for compensation above, in my view that is a fair level of compensation for all losses associated with the heat pump not working, and the move to the heat pumps. Claim 5 – Work order.
- The tenants seek a work order, for the installation of a whole-house central heating system, which is what they contracted for.
- In response, the landlord states that previously the tenants have not pushed for a new central heating service, it was only raised at the hearing today. Nevertheless, the landlord agrees with me considering this today.
- The landlord notes that they have previously made an offer of $4100 plus a downstairs heat pump. Analysis
- As I indicated to the parties at the hearing, a work order is an order that the Tribunal makes requiring that the landlord (or tenant) do specific work. In this case I am satisfied that a work order must be made, to install a ducted central heating system. The reason I find that order must be made, is because I accept that it is a term of the contract. The premises were rented on the basis that the ducted system was present, and in short, it was a term of the agreement.
- However, the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) confirms that in the situation where the Tribunal makes a work order which is not by consent of the respondent, the Tribunal must make a money order that the respondent can pay as an alternative to doing the work. That means that the respondent can decide to undertake the work directed, that is installed a ducted heating system, or to pay the money, and as long as the respondent does one of those two things, then they comply with the order.
- Taking into consideration that the fixed-term tenancy remains current, but is coming toward the end. I have decided that it would be fair that if the landlord decides not to install the ducted heating system, the landlord should pay the tenants compensation of $1,000. Again, if that money order is paid, then that is full and final settlement of all claims relating to the central heating system.
FILING FEE
- The applicant has been partly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s1, s14, s18, s21, s29, s35, s39, s44, s8
Key findings
- Dispute theme: healthy homes
- Dispute theme: compensation
- Dispute theme: filing fee
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5407849?
The tribunal order states: Kemeys Brothers Management Limited As Agent For Assen Fam Trust -
How much money was awarded in case 5407849?
Compensation: $3,200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Heater Costs: $329.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407849?
The dispute type was not classified.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407849?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13107364-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.