What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4640829?

The tribunal order states: There are no suppression orders.

How much money was awarded in case 4640829?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4640829?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4640829?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12216327-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4640829?

The tribunal order states: There are no suppression orders.

How much money was awarded in case 4640829?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4640829?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4640829?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12216327-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 4, 4 Wakelin Street, Carterton, Carterton 5713 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4640829 — Mould & damp

Order

There are no suppression orders.
The tenants’ claims for compensation and exemplary damages are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlord accompanied by her partner, Stuart McCoshim, who spoke on her behalf.
On 11 August 2023 I heard an application by the landlord for termination of the tenancy. On 24 August 2023 a decision was issued dismissing that application.
On 10 August 2023 the tenant had cross-applied for exemplary damages and $18,000 arising from alleged breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards. It was also set down to be heard on 11 August 2023. I adjourned that application to enable the parties to call evidence from the writers of two Healthy Homes Reports that had been provided. There was a difference of opinion in the reports and so it was proper that the Tribunal heard from both report writers. This was set out in paragraph 3 of a minute dated 11 August 2023 recording the adjournment of the tenants’ application.
The parties were then notified that the tenant’s claims would be heard on 6 October 2023. Before the hearing the landlord had a witness summons issued 1 Reissued on 5 August 2025 because of publication error. to Scott Trow, Operations Manager of Energy Workshop Ltd, the company responsible for the landlord’s Healthy Homes Report based on an inspection of 17 November 2022. Mr Trow attended the hearing and spoke to this report (the Energy Workshop report).
The tenant attended the hearing, but no arrangements had been made for anyone from Williams Property Solutions 1, who had prepared a Healthy Homes Report on 21 July 2023 for the tenant (the Williams report).
At the previous hearing on 11 August the tenant had been assisted by Mike McIvor, but the tenant said that Mr McIvor was not well. The tenant himself was also not well because of treatment he was undergoing and had to leave the hearing briefly. I expressed reservations about continuing the hearing but the tenant said he wanted to proceed. At that point he did say that the hearing should not proceed because he did not have his expert witness present, but I was satisfied that the parties had had sufficient time to arrange witnesses. This was signalled at the hearing on 11 August and in the notice of adjournment issued the same day. No application was or had been made for an adjournment of the 6 October date and so the hearing proceeded. Background
As noted in the decision dated 24 August 2023, the tenancy commenced on 28 November 2022, at which time it was being managed by an agent. Because the tenant’s partner Ms Lendrum uses a wheelchair, her occupational therapist and staff from ACC have also been involved in the tenancy. The premises were deemed suitable for her, and the landlords were happy to work with the various stakeholders to enable the tenancy to proceed.
On 27 February 2023 the agent advised the landlord that she would no longer manage the property and so the landlord took over management.
Throughout the tenancy there have been difficulties with access to the property. The landlords have arranged to visit or have tradespeople attend, only to be met with obstacles. Examples of this were discussed at the previous hearing and in the decision dismissing the landlord’s claim.
The tenants must understand that if the proper notice has been given under the Act, they must not prevent access to the property. This is set out in Section 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). Failure to allow the landlord to enter the premises when entitled to is an unlawful act under the Act, and up to $1500 may be ordered against the tenant in exemplary damages if the landlord applies. Now that covid-isolation requirements have been lifted, being unwell would only rarely be a reasonable excuse. The landlord or tradespeople should still be able to enter the property to conduct their business provided the proper notice requirements have been complied with. The tenants are reminded that they must allow access to the property within the terms of section 48. Healthy Homes Standards and Maintenance
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The obligations under section 45 include: -provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair -comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 -comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
With his original application, the tenant provided to the Tribunal a one-page summary of the Williams Report. On or about 4 October the tenant was asked to provide a full copy of the report to the Tribunal for the hearing on 6 October. That did not occur, and the tenant did not have a copy of it with him at the hearing, but the landlord had obtained a copy.
According to the Summary of Report on page one the property is not compliant with: Drainage and guttering Insulation Ventilation Draughts
According to the landlord’s report from Energy Workshop, as at 17 November 2022 the property was not compliant in two areas: the gutters needed cleaning and draught-stopping for the front and rear external doors was required. The landlord said this was attended to.
Because this is the tenant’s application, the onus is on him to establish the claims he has made. The standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”, which means in order to make a finding of fact, I find it is “more likely than not” to have occurred. Insulation
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
The landlord’s report says that the insulation is compliant. The tenant’s report says that the insulation did not cover the entire ceiling.
At the hearing Mr Trow said that the accessible parts of the ceiling were compliant. He said it is a “dropped ceiling” where a lower ceiling has been installed below a high stud. It has been secured around the perimeter of the building and not attached to walls. That makes it unsafe for installation of insulation in all areas.
The writer of the Williams report was not available to respond to that. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I therefore accept that it is not reasonably practicable to insulate the entire ceiling. The tenant’s claim in relation to insulation is dismissed. Ventilation
The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The Williams report records that the ventilation in the kitchen pumps into the wall.
The Energy Workshop report records that the status of the kitchen and bathroom ventilation was unknown because at the time the inspection was conducted, the power was not on. Therefore they could not test the extraction fans.
In the landlord’s submission, Mr McCoshim said that the report found the property to be compliant except for the gutters and the draughtstopping as outlined above. That is not accurate because there were aspects of the ventilation standard that had not been confirmed as compliant. It is not immediately apparent from the report that this was the case. Although the state of the ventilation for these two items is recorded as “unknown”, there is nothing to indicate that the report is either incomplete or non-compliant.
That said, the landlords should have satisfied themselves that the property complied with all aspects of the Healthy Homes Standards. It was reasonable to rely on the assessment of an expert assessor, but at the time of the report, it was unknown whether the ventilation standard had been met.
The landlord said that the rangehood was installed before 2019 and vented to the loft area, which met the Building Code requirements at the commencement of the lease. He said it had been fully operational but had been partly disconnected from the wall. The tenant had claimed there had been a fire in the kitchen wall and he had called the fire brigade. The Fire Chief at the Carterton station subsequently advised that they had attended the property but there had been no fire.
The landlord said that as soon as the tenant notified the landlord of the potential issue with the rangehood, the landlord made arrangements with an electrician to inspect the damaged unit and make it compliant, but the tenant refused access to allow this work to be completed. Following the Tribunal hearing of 11 August, the tenant allowed access and the rangehood has now been repaired and is now vented to the outside.
The Healthy Homes Standards are not the same as the Building Code. Under regulation 3 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations, extractor fan means an extractor fan that vents extracted air to the outdoors. Those regulations apply to any tenancy commenced on or after 1 July 2021 which means that the landlord had to comply within 90 days of the commencement of the tenancy.
This tenancy began on 28 November 2022 and so compliance was required no later than 28 February 2023.
The landlord has therefore not complied with the healthy homes standards for a period of almost 6 months from 28 February to 11 August, which is a breach of the responsibility under section 45(1)(bb). Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I note that at the time the property was rented out, it was being managed by a property manager. The company was Hamill Realty Ltd, whose address was the address for service for the Landlord. The tenancy agreement was signed by the property Manager, who also signed the declaration that on or after the commencement of the tenancy, Hamill Realty, acting as agent for Rowanne Bowden would comply with the healthy homes standards. Under ventilation, it is recorded that the bathroom and kitchen vent to the outside and that each of the rooms including the kitchen and bathroom meet requirements.
I have taken into account the fact that the landlord believed she was compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards, and that it was the property manager who signed the tenancy agreement compliance certificate and should have ensured that the property was compliant. A landlord should be able to rely on the property manager to attend to such matters and draw any issues to their attention. I also note that for at least one month the tenant refusal to allow the landlord access to the premises to attend to the fan.
In these circumstances I have decided not to order exemplary damages against the landlord. She is reminded to read any future healthy homes reports carefully before she is satisfied that the property is compliant. Draught-stopping standard
The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The Williams report records that the house is not compliant with the draught- stopping standard because the sleepout window needs draught stopping and the vinyl is not glued to the floor, allowing drafts in both the bathroom and lounge.
Mr Trow said that there was no reason to consider draughts from the floor at the time of the Energy Workshop report because it was covered with vinyl.
I accept the landlord’s argument that the sleepout is a shed that does not need to comply because it is not part of the dwelling.
The landlord argues that there is no requirement that the vinyl is glued down. Mr McCoshim said that at the commencement of the lease the vinyl floor coverings fitted tightly to the skirting boards and kitchen joinery, The binder bars fitted where the vinyl met carpeted areas. He said that unfortunately, the vinyl floor coverings in both areas, but especially in the bathroom have been damaged as a result of Ms Lendrum’s electric powered wheelchair. He said that the skewing motion when the chair changes direction has pulled and lifted the vinyl. The problem was identified in February 2023 and in March ACC has agreed to undertake repairs, including laying new harder wearing vinyl in the bathroom. Quotes were obtained and work organised but did not proceed. The circumstances of this are outlined in the Tribunal’s order made on 23 August 2023.
I accept that vinyl floor coverings would ordinarily be sufficient to stop-draughts. The efficacy of this as a draught-stopper has been compromised by the unintentional actions of the tenant’s wheelchair. The landlord has attempted to work with ACC to accommodate this repair.
Without hearing further from the Williams report writer, I am not sure that there has been a breach of the draught stopping standard. Even if I am wrong about that, I do not find that the landlord is responsible for this or that they have committed an unlawful act.
This claim is dismissed. Moisture ingress and drainage
Robert Selwyn Lendrum claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Robert Selwyn Lendrum considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
According to page 2 of the 35-page Williams report, the downpipes do not discharge into a stormwater reticulation system. On page 5 it is recorded that not all the roof areas have gutters and downpipes catching the roof water and again that the downpipes do not discharge into a stormwater reticulation. It is also recorded that there is evidence of pooling around the site. There are small photos about 2cm x 2cm of some walls and guttering. The rest of the section on Drainage and Guttering is setting out the Standard under the Healthy Homes Standards Regulations.
Mr Trow’s evidence was that at the time of the Energy Workshop Report the property was compliant apart from the gutters needing cleaning. There are additions to the property that were not there at the time of their inspection.
Mr McCoshim said that the guttering was cleaned in order to make the property compliant. He referred to an invoice although it did not appear to uploaded to the Tribunal file.
As for the other aspects of the Williams Report, Mr McCoshim said that the premises that are the subject of the tenancy are the dwelling only and the entire roof area is compliant. The small shed/hobby room referred to in the Williams Report as a “sleepout” does not form part of the dwelling and is not consented and not suitable for habitation.
Mr McCoshim further said that the downpipes do not need to discharge into a stormwater reticulation system, only to an appropriate outfall (either the town stormwater or a to a suitable soak pit).
Mr McCoshim said that there might be some minor surplus water coming from the shed roof, but that most of the water ponding in the property is all around an external Highlander shower unit provided by ACC and the ramps that provide access to the unit. He said that the guttering and downpipes from the dwelling are all sealed and piped to a soak pit and he does not accept that any ponding is associated with the guttering or downpipes associated with the dwelling. The landlord provided photographs of the Highlander unit showing a down pipe draining directly on to the ground and a broken drainage pipe from the unit. The photos also show the access ramps and covers which have been installed by ACC for the tenant
According to the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, a tenancy building must have a drainage system that efficiently drains storm water, surface water, and ground water to an appropriate outfall (See Regulation 27).
A tenancy building means the premises, which is defined in section 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as any part of the premises and any land and appurtenances, other than facilities (which includes land or buildings intended for storage space or parking, toilet and washing facilities, lawns gardens and outhouses).
Accordingly, I agree with the landlord that the shed and the Highlander unit are not subject to the moisture ingress and drainage standard. The shed/hobby room may be classified as storage space or an outhouse. The Highlander unit is a toilet or washing facility or an outhouse.
Moreover, the Highlander unit has been placed on the property by ACC on behalf of the tenant and with the landlord’s consent. It is not reasonable to impose on the landlord further responsibilities for an item that they are not responsible for.
I accept that the guttering was cleaned and that the tenant has not established a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards for moisture and ingress. Other maintenance
At the start of the hearing I asked the tenant to elaborate on the issues the items that required maintenance. He said that the house is leaking, it is freezing cold, there is water in the lounge, the drains are flowing down and the carport needs to be removed.
The landlord said that when he attended the property it was obvious that the walls were dry apart from an area that had clearly been dampened on purpose.
The onus is not on the landlord to prove that no maintenance is required. The tenant was unable to outline each item, produce evidence to elaborate on it in the form of photographs or other witness statements, describe specifically when the issue arose, when he notified the landlord of this, confirm that the landlord had failed to inspect and/or repair. This is confounded by the tenant has not always allowing access to the property. Even if he has had reasonable excuse, it makes it difficult for the landlord to attend to matters. The tenant has not established any claim for a failure to maintain the property. The claims are dismissed. Other comments
Should the tenant experience issue with the property, he may wish to seek advice about how he may properly exercise his rights under section 45.
I also add that if any further claim is made in relation to maintenance, it may be necessary to hear from ACC as to their role and responsibilities in the arrangements.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4640829 — Mould & damp at Room 4, 4 Wakelin Street, Carterton, Carterton 5713

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4640829 — Mould & damp at Room 4, 4 Wakelin Street, Carterton, Carterton 5713

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions