The year that owners of crappy rentals have been put on notice

Wednesday, 7 January 2026

The 2025 year brought a change to rentals in the sense that from July 1, they had to comply with Healthy Homes Standards.

First passed into law in July 2019, they are minimum standards for things like heating, draining, insulation, ventilation and the stopping of draughts. After July 1, all new and existing tenancies, about over half a million rentals, had to abide by them - in theory at least.

In practice, things may be a way off. But landlords that don’t have standards met can be liable for damages of up to $7200 per failing, or $50,000 for six or more tenancies. If the tenancy tribunal senses intentionality about failing to adhere to the standards, any outcome of a hearing is not likely to go well for the landlord.

Such a case emerged in early October when the owner of Auckland boarding house operator Burnley Lodge Limited, was fined $27,457.94 for multiple breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act at a Mt Eden property. The company was found guilty of maintaining an unsafe and unhealthy property, including black mould, not complying with Healthy Homes Standards, and failing to provide proper documentation to tenants and authorities - and was found to have acted with “intent”.

Heavy handed

Although they tend to be new, a Viaduct Quay apartment was found to be breaching the Healthy Home Standards at a hearing in September.

The unnamed tenants claimed compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment, related to decking and scaffolding work conducted outside of the apartment for eight weeks in the middle of 2025. The landlord had known about the work, ordered by the body corporate and building managers, but even so, they had to fork out $800 - $100 for each week disrupted by the works.

Sympathy

A lack of sufficient heat is one of the most common, but far from the only, way a landlord can fall foul of the standards.

A case from April contained almost every breach possible. The tenant accused the landlord of a failure to maintain the premises, breach of smoke alarm regulations, breach of the standards for ventilation, moisture and drainage and draught stopping, and a breach of tenancy agreement and exemplary damages.

The judgment did not agree 100% with the tenant, but found in favour of them over things like “failing to maintain the property by providing a working stove/oven in a timely manner”, not providing functional heating, proper drainage, draught stoppage, or a proper fire alarm.

Exemplary damages of $2400.00 were awarded to the tenant. But interestingly, the landlord did gain some sympathy from the adjudicator for having recently bought the property and it being her first tenancy; in addition, she worked long hours and had three young children. She admitted mistakes but felt she “tried her best”.

The adjudicator agreed in part, finding the landlord’s interests outweighed the public interest in publishing her name and ordered her details suppressed.

An even more egregious case at Manukau in September evinced somewhat less sympathy from the adjudicator, especially when it was learned the landlord owned many properties.

The tenants, who were casually employed by the landlord, accused him of breaching the Healthy Homes Standards by not providing a range of things including proper kitchen ventilation. They also said the property had been dirty when they moved in and was flea-infested.

The young tenants’ mother had to move into the property to advocate on their behalf, and the lack of response by the landlord took a toll on them.

They ended up claiming compensation of $24,000.00 over breaches under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The adjudicator mainly agreed with the tenants, saying the landlord “indicated that he manages other rental properties, which suggests he is experienced and should be fully aware of his legal obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act. His failure to meet those obligations in this instance is therefore concerning.”

He awarded the tenants a total of $26,027, which included $24,000.00 in exemplary damages.