When Renters United released its latest survey report, much of the discussion focused on rents, tenant rights and affordability.
The report is ideological, with recommendations that raise fair questions about whether owning a rental property would remain worthwhile. Yet buried within it was something tenant advocates and professional property managers should agree on: the Healthy Homes system is not working as intended. Minimum standards for rental properties were necessary, and improvements have been made. Renters United deserves credit for highlighting ongoing issues. At Property Brokers, we have worked hard to educate landlords and drive compliance across an older housing portfolio. We set our own deadlines and are proud of the result. Of the major companies listed in the report, Property Brokers performed the best.
The goal of having a healthy compliant rental stock was right. The delivery, however, has become a bureaucratic nightmare.
At Property Brokers, we terminated the management of 168 properties because owners refused to meet Healthy Homes standards. We were not willing to be associated with non-compliant properties, particularly given the reputational and financial risk faced by property management companies through the Tenancy Tribunal.
But after years of implementation, it's time to ask a simple question: Are we achieving better health outcomes, or are we simply generating more paperwork?
One of the most concerning findings in the Renters United report is that 42.7% of renters who were told their homes were compliant still reported mould, dampness or draughts. If nearly half of supposedly compliant homes still experience the issues Healthy Homes was designed to solve, we should be asking why. Some issues may relate to tenant behaviour and ventilation. But step inside an old villa in Dunedin or Wellington in winter and you will often find a cold, damp property. The problem is not necessarily the standards themselves. It is how compliance is measured.
Today, almost anyone can complete a Healthy Homes assessment. No specific qualification is required, no national accreditation system exists, and no independent certification is mandatory.
Landlords can effectively mark their own homework and sign a compliance statement.
Even Renters United, building inspectors and housing advocates have criticised this loophole. Imagine if vehicle owners could issue their own Warrant of Fitness. Nobody would trust the result. Yet that is essentially the system we have created for rental housing.
The process also generates a huge amount of paperwork. Lengthy reports, compliance statements, measurements, calculations and documentation consume hours of administration while giving limited certainty that a property will perform better in winter.
What's more, there is no simple national certification system, no public register and no clear, regulated expiry process that gives tenants and landlords confidence that an assessment remains current. To be clear, this is not an argument against warm, healthy housing.
New Zealand research has consistently shown that warmer, drier homes deliver significant health benefits, including fewer respiratory illnesses, reduced hospital admissions and improved wellbeing.
If those benefits are real, then our focus should be on outcomes, not paperwork.
This winter, schools and workplaces again reported significant illness and absenteeism. If Healthy Homes has now been implemented across the rental sector, policymakers should be asking: how are we measuring whether the system is delivering the promised health improvements? Rather than continuing down the current path, New Zealand should look at a more practical solution.
An Energy Performance Certification (EPC) model would provide a simpler, more transparent measure of housing performance. Homes could be independently assessed by accredited professionals, given a standardised rating, recorded on a national database and re-certified every five years. This already happens in the UK and Europe, where an EPC must be displayed when a property is advertised for sale or rent.
Tenants would know exactly what they are renting, landlords would have clarity, and property managers would spend less time buried in paperwork.
Healthy Homes was a good idea. But if a property can technically pass compliance and still be cold, damp and mouldy, then we've confused compliance with outcomes.
New Zealand does not need more reports. It needs better homes. It is time the system reflected that.
