New Zealand Healthy Homes Standards Enforcement Report 2026

What 348 Tenancy Tribunal Decisions Reveal About Landlord Risk

Commissioned by MiHT Home Energy Care, Auckland. miht.co.nz

What 348 Tribunal Cases Show:

Landlords are being taken to the Tenancy Tribunal over Healthy Homes failures, and most are losing.

Landlords lost in 73% of cases where a Healthy Homes claim was the main issue before the Tribunal. For heating and ventilation claims specifically, that figure was 100%. Every primary claim in those two categories resulted in an adverse finding against the landlord.

Financial penalties were common. A penalty called exemplary damages is awarded by the Tribunal when a landlord's failure is found to be serious, regardless of whether the tenant suffered a direct financial loss. The Tribunal applied it in 61% of all cases. Among the 104 verified primary Healthy Homes cases where financial data was extracted, 81 resulted in a financial award. The average award, combining exemplary damages and compensation, was $4,154.52 and the median was $2,700.00. The highest single award was $31,434.00. Combined, these 81 awards totalled $336,515.82 over five months, and that figure is likely an undercount. Cases where a Healthy Homes fine was bundled together with other tenancy breaches were excluded, since the two could not be reliably separated.

The Tribunal found intentional breach of the Standards in 27% of all cases. Intentional breach does not require proof that a landlord set out to harm anyone. It means the Tribunal found the landlord knew about the problem, or should have known, and did not act. The most common basis for this finding was the landlord's own HHS assessment report, where the report had identified a deficiency and no action followed.

Documentation determined outcomes more than any other single factor. Where landlords succeeded in defending cases, they almost always had communication records. Where landlords lost, the most common failure was missing or inaccurate paperwork, not the physical condition of the property.

Three things, stated plainly:

Getting a Healthy Homes assessment and not acting on its findings is worse than not getting one. The Tribunal treats that assessment as proof the landlord knew about the problem.

An old assessment does not carry the same weight as a current one. When assessment age was raised as an issue at the Tribunal, the adverse outcome rate was 61%, nearly double the rate in cases where it was not raised.

Property managers are held to a higher standard than private landlords. Where adjudicators found intentional breach, they treated the professional status of the property manager as an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one.

About This Report

This report analyses all publicly available New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal decisions from January to May 2026 in which the Healthy Homes Standards were mentioned. It represents a complete capture of that period. Every decision matching that criterion identified through a systematic review of Tribunal records has been included.

Each decision was reviewed and coded across more than 60 variables, covering what was alleged, what the adjudicator found, what financial penalties were applied, and what documentation each party produced. A separate qualitative review of 348 case summaries was conducted to identify the reasoning patterns adjudicators use most often, the defences that succeed, and the defences that consistently fail. All five standards, heating, ventilation, moisture and drainage, insulation, and draught stopping, were subject to a further case-brief review to identify the specific complaints tenants raise, the defences landlords attempt, and the practical actions that change outcomes.

This is the first edition of an ongoing series. MiHT will publish this analysis twice yearly, covering each successive six-month period. Future editions will include trend comparisons against this baseline.

All decisions were sourced from publicly available Tribunal records. The findings reflect what has actually happened in adjudicated cases, not projections or survey estimates.

This report does not constitute legal advice. Readers with specific compliance questions should seek independent legal guidance.

This is the H1 2026 edition, covering January to May 2026. The next edition will cover June to December 2026 and will be published in early 2027.

About the Dataset

The 348 decisions examined cover Tribunal locations across New Zealand. Auckland-region hearings, covering Auckland, North Shore, Waitakere, and Manukau, account for 108 cases, or 31% of the total.

Where findings in this report are expressed as percentages, the base used in the calculation is stated clearly. Not every variable was present in every decision. Where a data point was absent from the source document, it has been coded accordingly and excluded from percentage calculations for that variable.

Section 1: The Scale of Enforcement

What the Tribunal data shows

The Healthy Homes Standards came into force between 2019 and 2021, with compliance deadlines phased across different tenancy types. The final deadline passed on 1 July 2025. From that date, every private rental in New Zealand has been required to fully comply, with no remaining grace period tied to tenancy start dates.

This report covers 348 Tribunal decisions from January to May 2026, entirely after that final deadline, in which the Healthy Homes Standards were mentioned. In many cases the HHS claim was the primary matter before the Tribunal. In others it arose alongside separate disputes, such as bond refunds, rent arrears, or quiet enjoyment, within the same hearing. In a smaller number of cases it appeared as a counterclaim raised by the landlord.

Who is bringing these cases

Tenants initiated 77% of the cases in the dataset. Landlords initiated 22%. The remaining 1% were brought by the Chief Executive of the relevant government agency, a relatively rare category, but significant, as these cases tend to involve serious or repeated failures.

The tenant-initiated proportion matters for property managers. Enforcement pressure is coming from within the tenancy, not from government inspection. A tenant who believes their home does not meet the Standards can file at the Tribunal directly, at low cost, without needing legal representation. The barrier to bringing a claim is low. The barrier to defending one poorly is high.

Landlord-initiated cases, predominantly rent arrears claims, produced roughly even outcomes: 22 wins and 21 losses among determined cases. The 73% adverse outcome figure discussed above applies specifically to tenant-initiated primary HHS claims, not to cases landlords bring themselves. Where a landlord goes to the Tribunal over unpaid rent, they are not at a systematic disadvantage. The complication is that tenants frequently respond to a rent arrears claim with an HHS counterclaim of their own. A landlord can win the arrears claim and still walk away with a net loss, once the tenant's Healthy Homes award is offset against it

What happens when a case goes to the Tribunal

When a Healthy Homes claim was the primary matter before the Tribunal, meaning it was the central dispute rather than a side issue, landlords lost in 73% of determined cases. Landlords succeeded in 19% of cases. The remaining cases were either partially determined or not resolved on the merits.

For two specific standards the loss rate was higher still. On primary claims involving ventilation, landlords lost in 9 of 9 determined cases. On primary claims involving heating, landlords lost in 8 of 8 determined cases. No landlord succeeded on a primary ventilation or heating claim in the five-month period covered by this report.

Where a property had multiple Healthy Homes failures brought as a combined claim, the loss rate was 85%. That is higher than any individual standard except ventilation and heating. A portfolio property with more than one compliance gap does not face additive risk. It faces compounding risk.

Financial penalties

Two types of financial award appear most often in the dataset.

Compensation covers a tenant's direct financial loss, for example, the cost of running a portable heater in a property that lacked compliant fixed heating, or costs arising from a home that was unhealthy to live in. It requires the tenant to demonstrate a loss and connect it to the landlord's failure.

Exemplary damages work differently. They are awarded when the Tribunal considers a landlord's failure serious enough to warrant a financial penalty in the public interest, regardless of whether the tenant suffered a direct financial loss. A landlord can be ordered to pay exemplary damages even where the tenant cannot demonstrate they lost money. This is why exemplary damages appear far more frequently in the dataset than compensation alone.

The Tribunal awarded exemplary damages in 61% of all cases examined. Among the 104 verified primary Healthy Homes cases where financial data was extracted, 81 resulted in a financial award. That figure combines exemplary damages and compensation, calculated gross and not reduced by any separate counterclaim a landlord may have been awarded in the same proceeding. The average award was $4,154.52 and the median was $2,700.00. The spread between those two figures reflects the influence of a small number of very large awards. The highest single award was $31,434.00, in case 5412529. For most cases the realistic financial exposure sits closer to the median than the average. Both figures matter: the median gives a realistic baseline, the average reflects what happens when documentation failures compound.

In 59 cases the Tribunal also awarded the tenant's $28 filing fee on top of other penalties. It is a small amount, but its routine recovery signals something worth noting: the cost of bringing a claim is low and tenants know it is recoverable.

In 57% of all cases the Tribunal recorded an unlawful act finding, a formal finding that the landlord breached a legal obligation under the Residential Tenancies Act. An unlawful act finding does not always produce a financial award on its own, but it preceded an exemplary damages award in the large majority of cases where it appeared.

Section 2: What a Tribunal Claim Looks Like

Most property managers think of a Healthy Homes Tribunal claim as a single issue, a heating complaint, a ventilation failure, a compliance statement dispute. The data tells a different story.

Claims arrive bundled

Looking at what tenants actually claimed across the 348 cases in this dataset, compensation was sought in 70% of cases and exemplary damages in 58%. Those two figures indicate that tenants are not simply asking the Tribunal to fix a problem. They are pursuing financial awards, and they are doing so specifically. Exemplary damages are no longer an incidental outcome. They are being claimed as a deliberate part of the filing strategy in more than half of all cases.

Maintenance failure appeared alongside HHS claims in 57% of cases. This is among the most significant findings in the dataset for property managers, because it means an HHS dispute and a maintenance failure complaint are travelling together in the majority of hearings. A property manager who thinks of Healthy Homes compliance and maintenance responsiveness as separate concerns is managing two risks that the Tribunal treats as connected.

Bond refund claims appeared in 42% of cases. Landlord entry or quiet enjoyment breaches appeared in 31% of cases. Retaliatory notice appeared in 52 cases, 15% of the dataset.

What the bundling means in practice

A property manager served with a Tribunal application over a heating deficiency may find themselves defending several claims at once. These can include the heating claim itself, a maintenance failure complaint, a bond dispute, a quiet enjoyment allegation, and an exemplary damages claim, all in the same hearing. Each element is assessed separately. Each carries its own evidentiary burden. And each is affected by the same documentation gaps that drive adverse outcomes on the primary HHS claim.

The property manager who walks into a hearing with complete communication records, current contractor invoices, and a documented response history is defending all of those claims from a stronger position simultaneously. The property manager who walks in without those records is exposed across all of them at once.

Rent arrears appeared as a landlord cross-claim in 87 cases, 25% of the dataset. In practice, many of these cases began as landlord-initiated rent arrears proceedings where the tenant filed an HHS counterclaim in response. The landlord came to the Tribunal to recover unpaid rent and left defending a Healthy Homes case as well.

What tenants are specifically claiming

Beyond the headline figures, the standards most frequently in dispute across the dataset, whether as the primary issue or a contributing factor, were moisture and drainage (135 cases), ventilation (118 cases), draught stopping (128 cases), insulation (106 cases), and heating (97 cases). The HHS compliance statement was raised as the primary standard in dispute in 40 cases.

Smoke alarms appeared as a complaint theme in 41 cases, 12% of the dataset. Smoke alarm compliance sits under a separate legal obligation from the Healthy Homes Standards, but it is being bundled into the same hearings frequently enough that a property manager with an HHS exposure should treat smoke alarm compliance as part of the same risk profile, not a separate one.

Tenants are also pursuing rent rebates or abatements, a reduction in rent for the period during which a property failed to meet the required standard. This appeared in 11 cases and is a category likely to grow as tenant awareness of available remedies increases.

Section 3: What Is Failing

Two categories of failure

The cases in this dataset reveal two distinct categories of failure. The first is physical, systems that are absent, non-compliant, or in poor condition. The second is documentary, paperwork that is missing, inaccurate, or out of date. Both categories produce adverse outcomes. They do not produce them equally, and understanding the difference matters for anyone managing a rental portfolio.

The physical picture

A qualitative review of 348 case summaries identified the physical issues most commonly in dispute. The figures below reflect how often each issue appeared in case summaries, they indicate where scrutiny is concentrated, not where non-compliance was established in every case. Each of the five standards is examined in detail in Sections 4 through 8, with full figures given there.

Moisture ingress and roof leaks were the most commonly cited physical failing in the overview data, and moisture and drainage was the most pervasive standard in the dataset by case-brief frequency, even though it does not always appear as the primary claim. Moisture failures frequently overlapped with mould complaints in the same hearing. The ground moisture barrier is a particular hidden risk within this standard, covered in detail in Section 6.

Draught stopping gaps were the second most commonly cited physical failing. Section 8 covers the detailed findings.

Extractor fans that were missing or non-compliant were the third most common. The most common ventilation complaint involves missing bathroom extractor fans, but missing kitchen extractor fans appeared almost as frequently. Both are legally required. Section 5 covers the ventilation findings in detail.

Insulation that was absent or insufficient was the fourth most common. Section 7 covers the detailed findings.

Heating that was absent or insufficient was the fifth most common. The most common heating complaint is not an absent system but a malfunctioning one, a heat pump that fails during a tenancy and is not promptly investigated and repaired produces the same Tribunal outcome as a property with no heating at all. That finding is covered in detail in Section 4.

Mould was recorded as a physical issue in a meaningful minority of case summaries, but converted to an upheld finding in only a fraction of those. Mould can result from tenant behaviour, structural failure, or both, and adjudicators require evidence to establish the cause. The distinction between structural and lifestyle mould is examined in Section 6.

Gutters and downpipes were a recurring contributing factor to moisture ingress and are among the most photographable complaints in the dataset. Overflowing or damaged gutters are easy to evidence with photographs. Their frequency suggests they are not being caught early enough or connected clearly to Healthy Homes moisture obligations when they fail.

Condensation appeared less often than the other physical issues, and where it was present it rarely appeared alone. It typically sat at the intersection of inadequate ventilation, insufficient heating, and poor insulation, a symptom of multiple concurrent failures rather than a standalone issue.

The HHS compliance statement as a standalone claim

The HHS compliance statement is not only a documentation requirement. It is a prosecutable standard in its own right.

The compliance statement is a written declaration a landlord must provide to a tenant at or before the start of a tenancy, accurately stating whether the property meets each Healthy Homes Standard. Failing to provide it, or providing one that is inaccurate, is a standalone ground for a Tribunal claim, not just an administrative oversight.

In the dataset, the HHS compliance statement was the primary standard in dispute in 40 cases, the fourth most common primary claim category. On those primary claims, landlords lost in 54% of determined cases.

Documentary failings

In 57 cases the compliance statement was never provided to the tenant. Of those 57 cases, landlords lost in 31, a 54% loss rate directly attributable to a missing document.

In 49 cases the compliance statement was provided but was inaccurate or misleading, meaning it recorded compliance with standards the property did not actually meet. Of those 49 cases, landlords lost in 38, a 78% loss rate. An inaccurate compliance statement produced a worse outcome than a missing one.

Where a compliance statement was provided late, after the tenancy had started rather than at or before commencement, the outcome was 6 losses and 6 wins. Late provision is materially better than inaccuracy, but it is not equivalent to compliance.

The reason the inaccuracy finding is more damaging than the omission finding is the inference it supports. A missing compliance statement suggests administrative failure. An inaccurate one suggests the landlord either did not check what they certified, or certified compliance they knew did not exist. Adjudicators drew that inference consistently across the dataset. In several cases it was the primary basis for an intentional breach finding.

Contractor invoices and service records followed the same pattern. In 107 cases no contractor invoices were produced. In 70 cases only partial records were available. In the 18 cases where landlords succeeded on a primary HHS claim, invoice and service records were present or partial in 9 of the 14 where this was actually in issue, a genuine majority. They were absent in only 5.

Section 4: A Closer Look at Heating

Heating was the primary standard in 28 cases and a contributing factor in a further 69, touching 97 cases in total across the dataset. Where heating was the central matter before the Tribunal, no landlord succeeded, a result confirmed in 8 of 8 determined cases. Across the wider set of 28 cases, where heating was significant but not always the central dispute, landlords succeeded in 7 of 20 determined cases.

What tenants are scrutinising in heating cases

The figures below show what tenants raised in hearings where heating was in dispute. They indicate where scrutiny is concentrated, and where property managers need documentation ready.

Heat pump malfunctioning was the most common complaint, appearing in 32% of heating briefs. This is the finding that most directly challenges the assumption that a compliant installation is sufficient protection. A heat pump that was compliant at installation becomes a liability the moment it fails and the response is inadequate.

No heat pump installed at all appeared in 20% of heating briefs. Compliance deadline missed appeared in 20%. Heat pump present but insufficient capacity appeared in 19%. Heating capacity calculation disputed appeared in 17%. Heating available in one room only appeared in 7%.

What property managers should take from this

The malfunctioning heat pump finding reshapes the risk entirely. Most property managers focus on whether a qualifying heater is installed. The data shows that tenants are equally likely to challenge a malfunctioning system as an absent one. Once a tenant notifies a landlord or property manager that a heat pump is not working, the repair obligation is triggered. The breach that follows is not the malfunction itself. It is the failure to investigate and respond promptly.

One adjudicator's finding on a landlord's failure to follow up after a repair was direct:

My finding is that the landlord did not investigate sufficiently.

In a separate case, where a heat pump went unrepaired through winter, another adjudicator was equally direct:

The landlord does not seem to have had any concern for the preceding 9 weeks during which they were on notice that the heat pump did not work. It was not repaired within 14 days at all.

The capacity calculation finding, appearing in 17% of heating briefs, produced a consistent pattern. Calculations done by landlords, family members, or unqualified persons were regularly challenged and frequently rejected. In one case the adjudicator recorded that the landlord had his daughter and an acquaintance assist with the heating capacity assessment. That assessment did not withstand scrutiny. Independent calculation by a qualified assessor is the only reliable protection where capacity is disputed.

One further adjudicator finding is worth stating plainly:

It is not a defence to a claim for a breach of the HHS to say that heating was not provided because it was over warmer months in the summer. The requirement to provide heating is strict.

What prevents adverse outcomes in heating cases

The prevention lessons from heating case briefs point to four specific actions: documenting the heating system condition at the start of each tenancy, responding promptly and in writing to every malfunction report, obtaining an independent assessment before each tenancy begins, and verifying that any capacity calculation has been done by a qualified person using the correct methodology.

Relying on an HHS certificate alone, the most common defence in heating cases, appearing in 41% of briefs, consistently failed to protect landlords where the system had changed, degraded, or malfunctioned since the assessment. A certificate records a moment in time. The heating obligation is continuous.

Section 5: A Closer Look at Ventilation

Ventilation was the primary standard in 23 cases and a contributing factor in a further 95, touching 118 cases in total across the dataset. Where ventilation was the central matter before the Tribunal, no landlord succeeded, a result confirmed in 9 of 9 determined cases in Section 1. Across the wider set of 23 cases, where ventilation was significant but not always the central dispute, landlords succeeded in 2 of 19 determined cases. The case-brief review below identifies the specific patterns driving that outcome.

What tenants are scrutinising in ventilation cases

No extractor fan in bathroom was the most common ventilation complaint, appearing in 44% of ventilation briefs. Fan present but not working appeared in 35%. No extractor fan in kitchen appeared in 31%. Fan present but inadequate appeared in 23%. Fan not venting to exterior appeared in 6%. Fan installed late in the tenancy appeared in 6%.

What property managers should take from this

Two findings stand out.

The kitchen blind spot is the most actionable. Missing kitchen extractor fans appeared in 31% of ventilation briefs, almost as frequently as missing bathroom fans. Property managers consistently focus on the bathroom and overlook the kitchen. Both are legally required. Checking only one is not sufficient, and the data shows that tenants know this.

The fan present but not working finding, 35% of ventilation briefs, mirrors the heating malfunction pattern exactly. A compliant installation that fails and is not promptly repaired produces the same outcome as an absent installation. Once notified, the repair obligation is triggered.

Installing a fan after the issue was raised appeared as a defence in 28% of ventilation briefs. Late installation sometimes mitigated damages but did not eliminate liability. The adjudicator's reasoning was consistent: late installation confirms non-compliance existed. It does not cure it.

Adjudicators were direct about the kitchen requirement:

Noting that the HHS are an obligation on the landlord, and it is not for the tenant to persistently request compliance.

And on the venting requirement:

The landlord has clearly breached the ventilation standard under the HHS and they have committed an unlawful act. I am satisfied that the landlord's failure to comply was intentional because he knew (or ought to know) the work required and the deadline for compliance, which was also set out in the HHS assessment report.

Adjudicators found intentional breach in 43% of ventilation cases examined in the case-brief review, materially higher than the full dataset average of 27%. The likely reason is that the ventilation requirement is well-known, the fix is relatively inexpensive, and the failure is therefore harder to characterise as anything other than a choice.

What prevents adverse outcomes in ventilation cases

The prevention lessons from ventilation case briefs produced one finding above all others: install before the tenancy commences, not during it. This appeared in 67% of all ventilation cases examined for prevention, more than two thirds of all ventilation cases could have been avoided if the system was in place and documented before the tenancy started.

Documentation of fan installation appeared in 57% of ventilation cases examined for prevention. Having a working fan is not enough. A property manager must be able to prove it was there and working at the start of the tenancy. Checking both bathroom and kitchen extraction appeared in 25% of cases examined for prevention. Confirming one fan is often mistaken for confirming both, and the kitchen fan is the one most often missed. Ensuring the fan vents to the exterior rather than the ceiling cavity appeared in 4%. A fan that runs but only vents into the ceiling space does not meet the standard, even though it appears to be working.

Section 6: A Closer Look at Moisture and Drainage

Moisture and drainage was the primary standard in 37 cases and a contributing factor in a further 98, touching 135 cases in total, more than any other standard. The case-brief review below reveals a standard with a more complex evidence picture than heating or ventilation, and a higher landlord win rate as a result.

What tenants are scrutinising in moisture cases

Damp or moisture ingress through walls or floors was the most common complaint, appearing in 40% of moisture briefs. Blocked or broken gutters, downpipes, or spouting appeared in 24%. Ground moisture barrier missing or damaged appeared in 18%. Mould resulting from moisture appeared in 17%. Flooding or pooling water appeared in 8%. Subfloor drainage issues appeared in 4%.

What property managers should take from this

Three findings from the moisture complaint data are worth specific attention.

Damp through walls or floors at 40% is the most common complaint, but it is also the hardest for tenants to prove. Tenants feel damp. Proving it is a landlord's breach rather than condensation from lifestyle requires expert evidence.

Gutter and downpipe failures at 24% are the second most common complaint and are far easier for tenants to evidence. Photographs of overflowing gutters or damaged spouting are typically sufficient to establish the complaint. Property managers who inspect and document gutter condition at each tenancy start and after heavy weather events eliminate the most photographable complaint in the moisture dataset.

The ground moisture barrier at 18% is a hidden risk. This failure is not visible during a routine inspection. A property can appear dry at surface level while lacking a compliant barrier beneath. Several cases in the dataset involved moisture ingress findings where an independent assessment identified the ground moisture barrier as the root cause, but only after the landlord commissioned one.

The patterns unique to moisture cases

Four patterns appear in moisture cases that do not feature as prominently in other standards.

The failed repair trap is the most significant. A repair that fails repeatedly is treated as one continuous breach, not separate events. One adjudicator stated:

I do not accept the first leak amounts to two events. In my view this leak was one event that was poorly fixed the first five times.

A landlord who makes five inadequate attempts to fix a roof leak has not discharged their obligation five times. They have committed one prolonged breach, and the duration of that breach affects the size of the award.

The investigation obligation is the second. 48 case briefs, 24% of moisture cases, involved adjudicator findings that the landlord failed to investigate the source of the moisture rather than simply addressing the visible symptom. Patching a ceiling without finding where the water is entering is insufficient. The obligation is to identify and fix the cause, not to manage the presentation.

Painting over mould appeared in the reasoning sections of 10% of moisture case briefs as an aggravating factor. Adjudicators treated it not as a maintenance failure but as evidence of awareness and concealment. It converts a non-compliance finding into something that looks deliberate. One adjudicator recorded:

Premises must be able to be used and lived in, in the normal responsible way, without mould developing. If this cannot be done then it is the landlord problem.

The structural versus lifestyle mould distinction appeared explicitly in 23 case summaries. Where adjudicators found mould to be structural in origin, caused by inadequate insulation, moisture ingress, or insufficient ventilation capacity, the tenant behaviour defence consistently failed. Where mould could be shown to result from tenant behaviour, the defence had a better prospect. Tenant use that contributes to mould does not eliminate landlord liability if the underlying cause is structural. As one adjudicator noted:

Weighing the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the tenant's use of the premises did contribute to the mould contamination, but the primary cause of the contamination was the pre-existing mould and the landlord's inadequate attempts to remove the mould.

What prevents adverse outcomes in moisture cases

Written communication records appeared in 58% of moisture cases examined for prevention, more than any other preventive action in this standard. The timeline of who knew what and when is the central question in most moisture hearings. When did the tenant first report the issue? What did the landlord say in response? How long before a tradesperson attended? Without written records a landlord cannot answer any of those questions at a hearing. The adjudicator quoted in case 5331361 made the evidential standard clear:

Where lay observations conflict with objective professional evidence, the Tribunal generally prefers the latter.

Prompt engagement of a specialist tradesperson, not a handyman, appeared in 16% of moisture cases examined for prevention. Moisture sources are often hidden. A leak visible only at the ceiling may originate in the roof, a wall cavity, a plumbing joint, or a blocked gutter. The obligation is to find and fix the source.

Section 7: A Closer Look at Insulation

Insulation was the primary standard in 24 cases and a contributing factor in a further 82, touching 106 cases in total across the dataset. The case-brief review below reveals several patterns that do not appear in other standards.

What tenants are scrutinising in insulation cases

Underfloor insulation missing or insufficient appeared in 28% of insulation briefs. Ceiling insulation missing or insufficient appeared in 26%. Insulation statement inaccurate or misleading appeared in 9%. Insulation R-value below required standard appeared in 7%. Insulation removed and not replaced appeared in 6%. Insulation damaged or slumped appeared in 5%. Insulation statement missing from tenancy agreement appeared in 5%.

What property managers should take from this

Three findings from the insulation complaint data warrant specific attention.

Underfloor and ceiling complaints are almost equally common at 28% and 26%. Property managers who focus on ceiling insulation at inspection and assume underfloor is fine are missing roughly half the scrutiny in insulation cases. Both spaces need to be physically inspected before each tenancy, not assumed to be in the same condition as when last checked.

The insulation statement appeared as a specific complaint in 14% of insulation briefs, combining the inaccurate statement (9%) and the missing statement (5%). This is separate from the physical insulation condition. A landlord can have adequate physical insulation and still face a claim because the statement documenting it is wrong or absent. Both the physical condition and the document must be correct.

The slumped or damaged insulation complaint, appearing in 5% of briefs, points to a failure that is invisible without physical inspection. Insulation that was adequate at installation can compress, slip, or be disturbed over time. A compliance certificate based on an assessment conducted at installation will not detect these changes.

The patterns unique to insulation cases

Three patterns appear in insulation cases that are not prominent elsewhere in the dataset.

The verification gap is the most important. In multiple insulation case briefs, remedial work was completed but never independently verified. The intentional breach was not failing to do the work. It was failing to confirm the work achieved the required standard. Case 5317690 establishes this precisely:

I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to comply with the HHS. This is because the landlord did not take steps to confirm that the remedial work carried out in January 2021 was sufficient.

An insulation top-up that leaves the property below the required R-value is still a breach. Only independent post-remediation verification establishes that compliance was achieved.

The tradesperson disturbance pattern appeared in 11 insulation cases, 8% of the briefs. Insulation was disturbed, moved, or removed during other building or plumbing work accessing the roof or subfloor, and was never reinstated. The landlord was unaware the change had occurred. This pattern does not appear in other standards because insulation physically occupies the same spaces as building services. After any tradesperson accesses the roof or subfloor, insulation condition must be re-checked and documented.

The furniture exclusion argument failed consistently. In case 5377985 the adjudicator was direct:

To say that the tenant's furniture prevented him from checking the ceiling insulation is no excuse; furniture can be moved.

Roof and subfloor spaces must be physically inspected regardless of what the tenant has stored near access points.

Adjudicators found intentional breach in 47% of insulation case briefs, materially higher than the full dataset average of 27%. The insulation standard has been in force longest and is well-publicised. Adjudicators appear less willing to accept that non-compliance is unintentional in this category than in standards involving more technical compliance questions.

What prevents adverse outcomes in insulation cases

Physical inspection and photography of insulation before each tenancy appeared in 29% of insulation cases examined for prevention, higher than for any other standard. The lesson appearing in nearly a third of all insulation cases is not simply "get an assessment." It is "physically go and look." Slumped ceiling insulation, compressed underfloor batts, and gaps from tradesperson access are not detectable from a compliance certificate based on an older inspection.

The adjudicator in case 5375071 recorded what is perhaps the clearest summary of the prevention lesson available in the dataset:

The landlord also accepts that it would have been prudent to obtain a reassessment report before this tenancy started.

Section 8: A Closer Look at Draught Stopping

Draught stopping was the primary standard in 21 cases and a contributing factor in a further 107, touching 128 cases in total, the highest secondary rate of any standard. The case-brief review below reveals a standard with a different character from the others, more defensible on the physical facts, but with a documentation profile that catches many landlords by surprise.

What tenants are scrutinising in draught stopping cases

The compliance statement was the most common draught stopping complaint, appearing in 26% of draught stopping briefs. This does not appear at this prominence in any other standard. For every other standard the physical failure drives the claim. In draught stopping cases the document failure is as prominent as any physical gap.

Gaps around or in windows appeared in 7%. General draughts throughout the property appeared in 7%. Gaps around or under external doors appeared in 6%. Ranch slider gaps appeared in 6%. Open fireplace or chimney gaps appeared in 5%.

What property managers should take from this

The compliance statement finding is the standout. More than one in four draught stopping cases begins not with a physical draught but with a missing or inaccurate document. A landlord whose compliance statement does not address draught stopping specifically, or addresses it inaccurately, is already in a poor position before any physical inspection occurs.

The physical complaints, such as windows, doors, and ranch sliders, each appear at only 6-7%. No single gap type dominates. It is the accumulation of small gaps, and the failure to document their condition at tenancy start, that drives claims.

Adjudicators were consistent on the timing question. In case 5436749:

It seems most likely the house did not meet the HHS requirements for draught stopping at the start of the tenancy. The first major repairs to the windows were within days of the tenancy starting, so I cannot see how a house certified as having no draughts at the start of the tenancy could become so draughty within a week.

The landlord's pre-tenancy certificate was disbelieved entirely because subsequent events contradicted it.

On the compliance statement obligation specifically, the adjudicator in case 5362805 stated:

In practice, landlords should not grant a tenancy until they have the required information and can provide it to the tenant. I do not accept that landlords can say that they don't have the information and still comply with the requirement.

The defensive assessment trap

The most significant unique finding from the draught stopping data concerns the risk of commissioning a post-tenancy assessment to defend a claim.

In case 5360966, a landlord commissioned an HHS assessment after a draught stopping claim was filed. That assessment confirmed the breach the landlord was trying to deny. The adjudicator recorded:

The report itself confirms in multiple areas that there were breaches of the draught stopping standards requiring rectification.

The landlord's own defensive tool became the tenant's best evidence.

This risk is specific to draught stopping. Gaps can worsen over time, appear seasonal, or be created by normal use of the property. A post-tenancy assessment will reflect current conditions, which may be worse than conditions at the start of the tenancy, or may confirm the tenant's complaint precisely. Before commissioning any assessment after a claim is filed, a property manager needs to be confident the assessment will show compliance. If that confidence does not exist, the assessment may do more harm than good.

Photographic evidence in draught stopping cases

Photographic and video evidence was decisive in 39% of draught stopping case briefs, the highest rate of any standard in the dataset. Draughts are inherently invisible without specialist equipment, but gaps are photographable. Tenants who photograph gaps in doors, windows, and frames at the start of a tenancy have effective evidence. Landlords who photograph the same things at entry inspection have their defence.

The adjudicator in case 5421689 illustrated the point from the landlord's winning side:

I am not persuaded by the evidence of the tenant that it is more likely than not that there are any gaps. The tenant provided no objective evidence, other than his complaints to the landlord, to dispute the evidence of the tradesperson.

The tenant complained but could not prove it. The landlord had a tradesperson's evidence. The claim failed.

The party who photographed gaps first and most thoroughly typically wins draught stopping cases. That is a direct and actionable finding.

What prevents adverse outcomes in draught stopping cases

Written communication records appeared in 59% of draught stopping cases examined for prevention. Documentation of seal condition at tenancy start appeared in 48%, the third most common prevention theme across all prevention lessons in the draught stopping dataset, and higher than for any other standard. Physical inspection of all gaps and seals before each tenancy appeared in 30%.

Draught stopping has the highest landlord win rate on primary claims of any standard in the dataset, 6 wins from 14 determined primary cases, out of 21 cases in total where draught stopping was the primary standard (one further case, 5375881, has conflicting extraction data and is excluded pending review). That relative defensibility reflects two things: the evidential difficulty of proving draughts, and the willingness of adjudicators to weigh the severity of the breach against the outcome. A technically non-compliant 2mm window gap produced a $500 nominal award with no exemplary damages in case 5291707. A visually obvious gap under an external door produced exemplary damages.

That discretion does not exist in heating or ventilation cases. In draught stopping, the degree of non-compliance can affect the outcome. That is the argument available to a property manager with good documentation and a minor physical breach. It is not available to one without documentation at all.

Section 9: The Documentation Imperative

The single most preventable failure

A qualitative analysis of 348 case summaries identified the lessons adjudicators most commonly drew for landlords and property managers. Documentation and record-keeping appeared in 62% of all case summaries, more than any other theme, and more than twice as often as the next most common lesson.

This finding matters because documentation is not a technical problem. It does not require tradespeople, equipment, or capital expenditure. It requires a system and the discipline to follow it. Yet it is the failure that appears most often, across the widest range of cases, regardless of property type, location, or the standard in dispute.

Poor documentation is the most common route to an adverse outcome. Good documentation is the most reliable protection against one.

Pre-tenancy checks

Pre-tenancy checks appeared in 69 case summaries, 20% of all property manager lesson themes, as something landlords should have done differently. It is the fifth most common preventable failure identified across the dataset.

A system that is non-compliant at the start of a tenancy is a liability from day one. It also means the compliance statement provided at commencement is inaccurate by definition, compounding the documentary risk with the physical one. Where an independent check of all Healthy Homes Standards is conducted before a new tenancy begins, problems can be identified and addressed before a tenant moves in and before the compliance clock starts running.

What good documentation looks like in practice

The dataset points clearly to three categories of documentation that determined outcomes most often.

The first is the HHS compliance statement. Where a statement was never provided, landlords lost in 54% of cases. Where a statement was provided but was inaccurate, landlords lost in 78% of cases. Where a statement was provided accurately at the start of the tenancy, landlords won in 16 of 27 cases. That is the only documentation category in the dataset where the outcome tilted consistently in the landlord's favour.

An accurate compliance statement, provided at the right time, is one of the few things in this dataset that actively improves a landlord's position. An inaccurate one does the opposite.

The second category is communication records, a documented trail covering maintenance requests, landlord responses, contractor instructions, and follow-up communications between the parties. A record of this kind existed in 227 of the 348 cases. Separately, looking specifically at the 18 cases where landlords succeeded on a primary HHS claim, that landlord had produced their own communication records in 13 of those cases, 72% of successful defences. No other documentation category appeared as consistently in winning cases.

Communication records carry this weight because they establish a timeline. They show when the landlord was notified, what they did, and how quickly they acted. Where that timeline is favourable, showing prompt notification, documented response, and evidence of action, it actively mitigates both the outcome and the size of any financial penalty. Where no records exist, adjudicators fill the gap with the inference most consistent with the other evidence. That inference rarely favours the landlord.

The third category is photographic evidence. Photographs of system condition appeared in 98 cases where both parties produced evidence and in 108 cases where only the tenant produced photographs. That asymmetry matters. Where a tenant has photographic evidence of a non-compliant or poorly maintained system and the landlord has none, the evidentiary balance shifts. Several adjudicators noted this explicitly.

The own-report trap

The most counterintuitive finding in the dataset concerns the HHS assessment report itself.

A landlord who commissions an independent HHS assessment, receives a report identifying a deficiency, and then does not address it has, in the Tribunal's view, demonstrated knowledge of the problem. That documented knowledge then becomes the basis for an intentional breach finding.

This pattern appeared as the basis for intentional breach in 19% of all intentional breach cases. It was also cited as an established precedent principle in 19% of all case summaries reviewed. It is the most frequently occurring intentional breach mechanism in the dataset.

An HHS assessment is not a compliance certificate. It is a diagnostic report. If it identifies problems that are not remediated, it becomes evidence against the person who commissioned it. Case 5300300 involved a ventilation failure where the landlord's own assessment report was central to the intentional breach finding. Case 5324239 involved a heating failure with the same pattern.

An assessment only protects the person who acts on it.

Assessment age

A current assessment and an old one are not equivalent in the Tribunal's view.

When the age of an HHS assessment was raised as an issue, which occurred in 74 cases, landlords lost in 61% of those cases. In cases where assessment age was not raised, the adverse outcome rate was 36%. Raising assessment age nearly doubled the likelihood of an adverse finding.

An aoassessment conducted more than two years before the hearing was cited as an unreliable basis for compliance in 47 case summaries, 13% of all qualitative cases reviewed. The pattern appeared across heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping and moisture claims, in Auckland and across other regions. An assessment conducted two or more years before the hearing was regularly treated as insufficient evidence of current compliance, particularly where physical conditions had changed or where a tenant had raised concerns in the intervening period.

Why documentation matters more than physical condition

The physical condition of a property and the documentary record of that condition are treated as separate questions at the Tribunal. A property that meets the Standards but cannot demonstrate that it does is in a weaker position than the physical facts would suggest. A property with a minor deficiency that has been documented, notified promptly, and addressed with records to prove it is in a stronger position than the deficiency alone would suggest.

The two most common reasons landlords succeeded at the Tribunal were insufficient evidence from the tenant (43% of successful defences) and an independent assessment proving compliance (33%). Together those two factors account for 76% of all successful landlord defences in the dataset. Neither is primarily about the physical condition of the property. Both are about what can be demonstrated.

The adjudicator cannot inspect the property at the time of the hearing. They can only assess the evidence placed before them. Documentation is not a secondary concern. It is the primary contest.

Section 10: How Intentional Breach Is Found

What intentional breach actually means

The term intentional breach carries an implication that most landlords and property managers find reassuring, that it requires proof of deliberate wrongdoing. The Tribunal data suggests this reassurance is misplaced.

An intentional breach finding does not require proof that a landlord set out to harm a tenant or to break the law. It requires the Tribunal to be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord knew about the problem, or ought to have known, and failed to act. The standard is knowledge and inaction.

That distinction matters in two directions. A landlord who is well-informed about their property but slow to respond is at greater risk of an intentional breach finding than a landlord who genuinely did not know about a problem and acted promptly when notified. And a professional property manager who claims not to have known about a compliance obligation is held to a higher standard of expected knowledge than a private landlord making the same claim.

Adjudicators found intentional breach in 27% of all cases in the dataset and in 35% of primary HHS cases. In the qualitative review of 348 case summaries, intentional breach reasoning appeared in 40% of all cases examined. Adjudicators are finding intent, as the Tribunal defines it, far more often than the landlords and property managers in these cases appear to have expected.

The six routes to an intentional breach finding

The qualitative analysis identified the reasoning adjudicators used most often when finding intentional breach. Six patterns dominate.

The first is the own-report trap, covered in Section 9. Where a landlord had commissioned an HHS assessment, the assessment had identified a deficiency, and no remedial action followed, the assessment report itself was treated as proof of knowledge. This appeared as the basis for intentional breach in 36 cases, 19% of all intentional breach cases examined.

The second is repeated warnings ignored. Where a tenant had raised a maintenance concern in writing on multiple occasions and the landlord had not responded adequately, adjudicators treated the pattern of notification and inaction as evidence of intent. This appeared in 32 cases, 17% of intentional breach cases. A single slow response is a risk. A documented pattern of slow responses is close to conclusive.

The third is long duration of non-compliance. Where a deficiency had existed for a significant period, measured in months rather than weeks, adjudicators drew the inference that the landlord had accepted the non-compliant condition. This appeared in 24 cases, 13% of intentional breach cases. Duration also affected the size of financial awards directly. The longer a known problem goes unresolved, the more it costs.

The fourth is the professional standard. Property managers at agencies were held to a higher standard than private landlords in 23 intentional breach cases, 12% of all intentional breach findings. The reasoning is consistent across those decisions: a professional property manager is expected to know the legal obligations that apply to the properties they manage. In several cases adjudicators noted that professional status was an aggravating factor in the size of the exemplary damages award. In 13 of those cases adjudicators found the property manager personally responsible, not just the landlord whose property was managed. As one adjudicator recorded:

Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, [the landlord] and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional.

The fifth is notification from the tenant. Where a tenant had formally notified the landlord of a deficiency in writing, whether by text, email, or through a property management platform, that notification was treated as establishing knowledge. This applied wherever no adequate response followed. This appeared in 20 cases, 11% of intentional breach cases. The notification did not need to be a formal legal notice. An email describing a problem was sufficient in multiple cases.

The sixth is knowledge of compliance deadlines. In some cases, evidence established that the landlord or property manager was aware of the Healthy Homes compliance timeline. Where they had not taken steps to verify or achieve compliance by the relevant deadline, that awareness was treated as intentional. This appeared in 12 cases. The "ought to know" standard applied in a further 7 cases where landlords claimed ignorance of their compliance obligations. Professional managers fared particularly badly on this argument: a commercial property management operation is expected to know the law that governs its business.

What intentional breach costs

Where adjudicators found intentional breach, exemplary damages awards were higher and more frequently combined with compensation. The combination of agency involvement, intentional breach finding, and exemplary damages award appeared in 27 cases in the dataset.

The cases that produced the largest awards in the dataset almost all involved an intentional breach finding. Case 5335515 involved multiple standards and an intentional breach finding. Case 5185493 involved multiple standards with the same combination. Case 5495689 followed the same pattern. In each of these cases the financial outcome for the landlord was substantially worse than the median for the dataset, not because the physical failings were more serious, but because the documented pattern of knowledge and inaction elevated the Tribunal's response.

Financial constraints are not a defence

Financial constraints, the argument that a landlord could not afford to address a deficiency, were raised as a defence in multiple cases. They were rejected in every single one.

The Tribunal's position, recorded across numerous decisions, is that the cost of compliance is not a basis for non-compliance. In several cases raising cost as the reason for non-compliance was treated as an aggravating factor. One adjudicator stated it plainly:

If a landlord cannot afford to bring a rental property up to a reasonable condition then they should not be renting out the property.

Section 11: What Saves Landlords

The defences that work

The dataset contains 18 cases where landlords succeeded on a primary Healthy Homes claim. That is a small number relative to the 72 cases where landlords lost on primary claims, but it is sufficient to identify a consistent pattern.

The first factor was insufficient evidence from the tenant. This was decisive in 43% of all cases where landlords succeeded. The Tribunal determines cases on the balance of probabilities, meaning the party whose evidence is more persuasive on the key questions prevails. Where a tenant alleged a deficiency but could not produce evidence sufficient to establish it, such as an independent assessment, photographs, or expert opinion, the claim frequently failed regardless of whether the deficiency existed in fact.

The second was an independent assessment proving compliance. This was decisive in 33% of all cases where landlords succeeded. Where a landlord could produce a current, independent HHS assessment confirming the property met the relevant standard at or near the time of the dispute, adjudicators consistently treated that as strong evidence of compliance. Together these two factors accounted for 76% of all successful landlord defences in the dataset.

The third factor was prompt response. Where a landlord received notification of a concern and could demonstrate they had responded quickly, engaged a contractor, and resolved the issue with documented evidence, this actively mitigated both the likelihood of an adverse finding and the size of any financial penalty. Prompt response appeared as a mitigating factor in 18 case summaries and contributed to reduced damages in 51 cases.

Two further defences succeeded often enough to note. In 16 cases the landlord succeeded because the tenancy had commenced before the relevant Healthy Homes Standard applied, meaning the compliance deadline for that specific tenancy type had not yet been reached at the time of the alleged breach. This is a narrow but legitimate defence requiring precise knowledge of which deadline applied and when the tenancy began. This defence is no longer available for any new tenancy. Every phased compliance deadline passed by 1 July 2025, so any tenancy beginning from that date onward is already subject to full compliance from day one.

In 11 cases the landlord succeeded in part because the tenant had not notified them of the problem before filing at the Tribunal. Where a deficiency existed but the landlord had not been told about it, they had no opportunity to respond. Adjudicators were less willing to find intentional breach in these circumstances, and in some cases dismissed the claim. A tenant who goes straight to the Tribunal without first raising the issue does not automatically win. The absence of notification removes the basis for a "knew and did not act" finding.

What winning landlords had in common

Looking specifically at the 18 cases where landlords succeeded on primary HHS claims, communication records were present in 13, 72%. Landlords who won almost always had a written record of what was communicated, when, and what action followed.

Photographic evidence was present in some form in the majority of winning cases. Contractor invoices and service records were present or partial in 9 of the 18 winning cases and absent in only 5. Partial records, showing that a contractor had attended and that work had been carried out, were sufficient in several cases to shift the evidentiary balance.

The defences that do not work

The tenant behaviour defence, the argument that a tenant's own actions caused or contributed to the deficiency, was raised in 121 cases, 35% of the full dataset. It was accepted in full in only 30 of those cases and partially accepted in 22. It was rejected outright in 65 cases, a 54% outright rejection rate.

The defence succeeded most often in moisture and mould cases where the tenant's behaviour could be demonstrated to have caused or worsened the condition. It succeeded least often in cases involving fixed systems such as heating, insulation, and extractor fans, where the physical compliance of the system was the primary question.

Financial constraints were rejected in every case where they were raised. They do not appear in the dataset as a partial success or as a mitigating factor.

The compliance deadline defence succeeded in 7 cases. It is a legitimate defence where the facts support it, but a narrow one. Where landlords raised it without being able to demonstrate both the specific deadline and the tenancy commencement date, it was not accepted.

The prompt response dividend

Adjudicators criticised response time in 30% of all cases. Where they did, landlords lost in 66% of those cases and an intentional breach finding followed in 47%.

Prompt response appeared as a mitigating factor in 51 cases, reducing either the likelihood of an adverse finding, the size of the financial award, or both. In 18 case summaries it was identified as the primary reason damages were reduced or the finding was less severe than the facts might otherwise have supported.

The question adjudicators asked was not only whether the landlord eventually addressed the issue, but whether their response was consistent with treating the obligation seriously. Response within a short number of days, with documented evidence of that response, is treated materially differently from response that takes weeks or longer.

The independent assessment as the primary protection

The single clearest practical takeaway from this section is the role of the independent HHS assessment. It appeared as the decisive factor in 33% of all successful landlord defences. Combined with insufficient tenant evidence, the two factors account for 76% of all successful outcomes.

The qualification established in Section 9 applies here. An independent assessment protects a landlord who acts on its findings and keeps it current. An assessment that is old, or that identified deficiencies that were not addressed, does not provide the same protection. In those circumstances it can operate in the opposite direction.

A current assessment, combined with documented communication records and evidence of prompt response to any concerns raised, represents the strongest documented defence profile in the dataset. No case in the dataset produced all three of these factors and resulted in an adverse finding against the landlord.

Conclusion

What this dataset establishes

The 348 decisions examined in this report cover five months of Tenancy Tribunal activity. They are a record of what has already happened, in hearings that are on the public record, decided by adjudicators applying consistent reasoning across a defined period.

Three things emerge from that record with enough consistency to be stated plainly.

Landlords who cannot demonstrate compliance through documentation lose far more often than the physical condition of their properties would suggest they should. A 73% adverse outcome rate on primary claims, a 61% exemplary damages rate across all cases, and a 100% loss rate on primary ventilation and heating claims are not figures that suggest good intentions and reasonable effort are sufficient. They suggest an environment where what can be demonstrated matters more than what is believed to be true.

The risks are concentrated in predictable places. Inaccurate compliance statements. Stale assessments. Missing communication records. Slow response after notification. These are administrative and operational failures that appear across the dataset with enough regularity to reflect a pattern rather than isolated incidents. The landlords and property managers who avoided adverse outcomes in this dataset almost all shared one characteristic: documentation that established a credible, timely record of compliance and response.

Professional property managers face a higher standard than the legislation alone might suggest. The Tribunal's consistent treatment of professional status as an aggravating factor in intentional breach findings means that the same facts produce worse outcomes for an agency-managed property than for a privately managed one. That is an argument for professional management systems that are genuinely fit for the standard being applied, not for avoiding professional management.

What comes next

This report will be updated twice yearly. The H2 2026 edition will cover June to December 2026 and will be published in early 2027. Future editions will include trend comparisons against this baseline.

MiHT Home Energy System Care provides maintenance and care services for heat pumps, ventilation systems, and solar panels across Auckland. MiHT does not install or sell systems. For enquiries about MiHT's services for property managers and landlords, visit miht.co.nz.

Methodology Note

How this research was conducted

The decisions analysed in this report were sourced from the New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal's publicly available decision database. The search criteria applied were the presence of one or more references to the Healthy Homes Standards within the decision document. All decisions matching that criterion and published within the period January 2026 to May 2026 were included. No decisions matching the criteria were excluded.

Each decision document was processed to extract structured data across more than 60 variables. Variables covered included the standard alleged to have been breached, the primary applicant, the Tribunal location, the outcome, the financial awards made, the documentation status of the HHS compliance statement, the presence or absence of communication records and contractor invoices, photographic evidence, whether response time was criticised, whether an intentional breach finding was recorded, whether an unlawful act finding was recorded, and the age of any HHS assessment referenced in the decision.

Where a variable was not present or not determinable from the decision document, it was coded as absent and excluded from percentage calculations for that variable. Percentages throughout this report are calculated against the relevant base, which is stated in each case.

A separate qualitative analysis was conducted across 348 case summaries to identify recurring themes in adjudicator reasoning, landlord defence strategies, and the physical systems most commonly at issue. Themes were coded and counted. Where a theme appeared in a case summary it was counted once for that case regardless of how many times it appeared within the summary.

All five standards were subject to a further case-brief review of individual case briefs, examining what tenants specifically raised as complaints. Total cases touched by each standard, whether as the primary issue or a contributing factor, are: heating (97), ventilation (118), moisture and drainage (135), insulation (106), and draught stopping (128). Percentages in the case-brief review sections are calculated against these totals. The case-brief review data reflects what tenants raised in hearings involving each standard, not findings of non-compliance in every case. The figures indicate where scrutiny is concentrated, which is where property managers need documentation ready.

Some decisions involved multiple applicants heard within the same proceeding. All quantitative findings in this report are calculated at the decision level unless otherwise stated.

The case reference numbers cited in this report are drawn from the Tribunal's own numbering system and refer to publicly available decisions. Readers wishing to review individual decisions can access the Tribunal's public database directly.

Limitations

This dataset covers a defined five-month period. Findings reflect enforcement patterns within that period and should not be assumed to represent long-term averages or future enforcement trends. The H2 2026 edition of this report will provide the first comparative data against this baseline.

The dataset captures only cases that proceeded to a decision. Cases that were settled before a hearing, withdrawn, or resolved through mediation are not represented. The findings therefore reflect the subset of disputes that reached adjudication, which may differ in character from the broader population of HHS-related disputes.

The qualitative analysis reflects themes identified through systematic review of case summaries. The identification of themes involves interpretive judgement. Where a finding from the qualitative analysis is cited in this report it is accompanied by the case count on which it is based, allowing readers to assess its weight independently.

Win and loss rates cited in this report are calculated at the case level, not at the standard level. Where a case involved multiple Healthy Homes standards, the outcome reflects the overall case result. Standard-specific win and loss rates, other than primary claim outcome figures broken down by standard, should not be inferred from the case-brief review data.

Healthy Homes Enforcement Report H1 2026 Commissioned by MiHT Home Energy Care miht.co.nz Published June 2026

‍