What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4931874 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] are to pay K R J Management Limited As Agent For Ashlee Walsh

How much money was awarded in case 4931874?

Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $46.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $248.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4931874?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4931874?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11360092-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4931874 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] are to pay K R J Management Limited As Agent For Ashlee Walsh

How much money was awarded in case 4931874?

Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $46.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $248.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4931874?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4931874?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11360092-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4931874 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4931874 — Cleanliness | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4931874 — net $554.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$80.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$248.28	Water rates
Lawns and garden work	$46.00	Lawns and garden work
Carpet cleaning	$180.00	Carpet cleaning
Net award	$554.28
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$554.28

Claims and awards for application 4931874 — net $554.28 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates

Amount: $248.28
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Lawns and garden work

Amount: $46.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and garden work

Carpet cleaning

Amount: $180.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet cleaning

Net award

Landlord $554.28

Bond

Landlord $2,080.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $554.28

Dismissed claims

Filing Fee — Filing fee and name suppression
Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Lawns And Garden Work Rent arrears Water Rates Filing Fee

Order

[The tenant/s] are to pay K R J Management Limited As Agent For Ashlee Walsh $554.28 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: K R J Management Limited As Agent For Ashlee Walsh: $554.28 [The tenant/s]: $1,525.72
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Karl Jackson appeared for the landlord and was supported by Mr Isaac Woo. [Tenant 1] attended for the tenants. The Tribunal was assisted by [the interpreter], interpreter. The hearing was adjourned part-heard, and a further hearing was conducted by telephone, with Mr Jackson and [tenant 1] attending this hearing, along with [the interpreter].
This tenancy began on 28 January 2023 and came to an end on 14 September 2024.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation, payment from the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. This is application number 4931874. The compensation claim comprises costs for lawnmowing, cleaning of the stove/oven, carpet cleaning/repairs and repairs to the laundry floor following damage. The landlord has since accepted that exemplary damages may not be appropriate for this application, and so withdraws this claim. At the hearing, the landlord also claimed preparation time for the Tribunal process, noting this cost was to be charged to the owner.
The tenants have filed a cross application (number 5055054), seeking the return of their bond and compensation. They claim that the premises is mouldy and does not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The two applications are considered below. Landlord application: 4931874

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord seeks $80.00 in rent, which the tenants accept. Water rates of $248.28 are also sought, and the tenants agree to pay this sum. These amounts are recorded above.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The tenants accept the lawnmowing cost of $46.00, which is noted above.
The landlord also seeks $201.25 for cleaning of the stove/oven, and carpet cleaning/repair costs of $387.00. These claims are considered below. Stove and oven cleaning
The tenant’s obligation is to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. “Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 1 . This is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 2 Furthermore, it does not equate to being commercially clean 3 , spotless 4 , or hotel/motel standard of cleanliness. 5 Therefore, a landlord may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant 6 and cannot claim excessive time to clean and tidy the premises. 7
The landlord has provided photographs and an invoice. The tenants’ oral and photographic evidence is also noted. Overall, I find the stove and oven were cleaned to a reasonable standard at the end of the tenancy. Accepting that the landlord may wish to do additional cleaning, this is not a cost the tenants can be required to meet. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Carpet
The carpet cleaning costs comprise $180.00 for carpet cleaning and $180.00 plus GST for patching of the carpet. The tenants accept responsibility for the cost of stain removal, but not for the full carpet clean or patching of the carpet.
The landlord’s photographic evidence of carpet staining in the master bedroom is accepted. I also note the tenants’ own efforts to remove the stain. They state they applied a carpet cleaning product, which had started to work, but required further time for effective stain removal. The landlord notes the tenants used a 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 2 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV-2008-085-1441, 17 Dec 2008. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 4 Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [2016] NZTT Auckland 3149 at 6. 5 Richards v Scally TT Christchurch TT 2043/98, 21 July 1998 6 Richards v Scally (above) 7 Falwasser v Armstrong [2011] NZTT Whakatane 523. carpet cleaning product for spot cleaning of the carpet. They explained they have a three day turn over and the tenants cannot expect the new tenants to continue cleaning the carpet with that product.
In terms of this claim, I agree with the landlord that the tenants cannot expect the new tenants to continue to apply the carpet cleaning product to remove the stain. I also consider it reasonable for the tenants to pay the carpet cleaning cost in full, although the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to support the carpet patching as claimed. Accordingly, the tenants are to compensate the landlord for the carpet cleaning cost of $180.00, which is awarded above. Laundry floor: general principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to the laundry floor, being the insurance excess of $2,000.00.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage, the landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA.
The landlord is insured for tenant damage and, according to the evidence provided, the insurance excess is $2,000.00. The rent for this premises is $560.00 per week.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) of the RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

Are the tenants responsible for the floor damage?

The landlord claims the tenants caused damage to the laundry floor, requiring the vinyl to be uplifted and replaced. The landlord considers there was water damage from the tenants washing machine being incorrectly connected, and water leaking onto the floor. The builder’s invoice has been provided, along with other documentary evidence. The invoice dated 20 September 2024 from [builder] is for a total of $2,119.45. The tenants deny responsibility, and reject the claim that their washing machine was leaking. Both parties have produced extensive evidence, including photographs, emails, written statements, and oral evidence.
Overall, having considered the evidence and submissions, I find the landlord has been unable to establish that the tenants are responsible for damage to the laundry floor. This is because there is evidence that the bubbling and other damage to the floor was likely due to other factors, including the way the vinyl was laid, noting the landlord accepts that it was incorrectly laid. I note there is evidence of bubbling of the vinyl in other areas of the premises. There is a second invoice from [builder] for work to replace the vinyl in the bathroom, and the tenants have provided evidence that there was bubbling of the vinyl in this area too.
I am also not persuaded by the landlord’s evidence that the tenants’ washing machine was leaking. There has been no photographic evidence of water on the floor. The landlord accepted at the hearing that there was no water found on the floor, only evidence of the swelling.
Whether the washing machine pipe was incorrectly connected is also speculative, as the tenants state this could have come loose when the washing machine was pulled out by the landlord to be checked. The tenants have provided direct oral evidence at the hearing, which I accept, that they regularly use the washing machine and did not notice it leaking during the tenancy. They state that had they noticed it, they would have brought it to the landlord’s attention.
I do not accept the landlord’s submission that the presence of a washing machine (an appliance that releases water) in the area of the floor damage, indicates this is the likely cause of the damage. Particularly in view of the other factors pointing to equally plausible alternative explanations. The tenants have provided an opinion from a tradesperson that the vinyl was incorrectly installed, hence the bubbling. The landlord accepted at the hearing that there were problems with the installation of the vinyl.
Therefore, having found this claim has not been established to the required standard, it is dismissed. Other costs
While acknowledging the time and effort involved, the landlord’s request for the cost of preparation for the Tribunal hearing/process is dismissed, since this is not a cost that can be claimed against a tenant. Tenants’ application: 5055054
As noted above, the tenants seek a return of their bond, and compensation, claiming the premises is mouldy and does not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). They have provided photographic evidence of mould and have provided oral evidence at the hearing. They state there is mould in the bedrooms, despite their efforts to ventilate the house. They feel the house ought to have a better ventilation system. The landlord states the house is compliant with the HHS and has produced evidence in support, including a Healthy Homes Standards Compliance Report.
The landlord’s obligations are set out under section 45 of the RTA. This includes the requirement that the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. 8 The landlord is also required to comply with the healthy homes standards, and any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations 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 of the RTA.
In relation to the issue of mould, as noted by the Tribunal in Semmens v Wadman, 9 mould is commonly present throughout all residential dwellings in New Zealand to some degree. Adjudicator Woodhouse explained that simply having mould in the premises would not be sufficient to establish a breach on the part of the landlord for which compensation can be ordered: Rather, what a tenant must establish, is that there are defects with the premises which have caused mould to develop, or to be at a more extensive level than would otherwise be reasonably expected in a dwelling that meets the required building standards.
Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find the tenants’ claim has not been established. In reaching this conclusion, I rely on the landlord’s HHS report. This report is dated 27 April 2021 and shows the home complies with the HHS standards. Specifically, it meets the ventilation and drainage standards. The report notes there are openable windows, and the 8 Section 45(1)(b) 9 [2022] NZTT Manukau 310605 premises has compliant ceiling and underfloor insulation, and a ground vapour barrier. At the second hearing, the tenants accepted the difficulty of challenging the findings in the landlord’s HHS report, but point out they provided their evidence based on their experience, which is acknowledged.
In terms of the claim concerning mould, while noting their photographic evidence, I find the tenants have not established that there were defects in the premises that have caused mould to develop. I also note the landlord’s submissions concerning the features of the premises, noting this is a late 1960’s/1970’s home, which has single glazed windows. The landlord also reports there have been no issues with leaks at the premises.
Accordingly, for the reasons noted above, the claim concerning mould and compliance with the HHS is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
As each party has had some success with their application, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenants seek name suppression, the landlord does not. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, and noting the tenants have had some success, orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4931874 — net $554.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$80.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$248.28	Water rates
Lawns and garden work	$46.00	Lawns and garden work
Carpet cleaning	$180.00	Carpet cleaning
Net award	$554.28
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$554.28

Claims and awards for application 4931874 — net $554.28 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates

Amount: $248.28
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Lawns and garden work

Amount: $46.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and garden work

Carpet cleaning

Amount: $180.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet cleaning

Net award

Landlord $554.28

Bond

Landlord $2,080.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $554.28

Dismissed claims

Filing Fee — Filing fee and name suppression
Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Lawns And Garden Work Rent arrears Water Rates Filing Fee

Order

[The tenant/s] are to pay K R J Management Limited As Agent For Ashlee Walsh $554.28 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: K R J Management Limited As Agent For Ashlee Walsh: $554.28 [The tenant/s]: $1,525.72
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Karl Jackson appeared for the landlord and was supported by Mr Isaac Woo. [Tenant 1] attended for the tenants. The Tribunal was assisted by [the interpreter], interpreter. The hearing was adjourned part-heard, and a further hearing was conducted by telephone, with Mr Jackson and [tenant 1] attending this hearing, along with [the interpreter].
This tenancy began on 28 January 2023 and came to an end on 14 September 2024.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation, payment from the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. This is application number 4931874. The compensation claim comprises costs for lawnmowing, cleaning of the stove/oven, carpet cleaning/repairs and repairs to the laundry floor following damage. The landlord has since accepted that exemplary damages may not be appropriate for this application, and so withdraws this claim. At the hearing, the landlord also claimed preparation time for the Tribunal process, noting this cost was to be charged to the owner.
The tenants have filed a cross application (number 5055054), seeking the return of their bond and compensation. They claim that the premises is mouldy and does not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The two applications are considered below. Landlord application: 4931874

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord seeks $80.00 in rent, which the tenants accept. Water rates of $248.28 are also sought, and the tenants agree to pay this sum. These amounts are recorded above.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The tenants accept the lawnmowing cost of $46.00, which is noted above.
The landlord also seeks $201.25 for cleaning of the stove/oven, and carpet cleaning/repair costs of $387.00. These claims are considered below. Stove and oven cleaning
The tenant’s obligation is to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. “Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 1 . This is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 2 Furthermore, it does not equate to being commercially clean 3 , spotless 4 , or hotel/motel standard of cleanliness. 5 Therefore, a landlord may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant 6 and cannot claim excessive time to clean and tidy the premises. 7
The landlord has provided photographs and an invoice. The tenants’ oral and photographic evidence is also noted. Overall, I find the stove and oven were cleaned to a reasonable standard at the end of the tenancy. Accepting that the landlord may wish to do additional cleaning, this is not a cost the tenants can be required to meet. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Carpet
The carpet cleaning costs comprise $180.00 for carpet cleaning and $180.00 plus GST for patching of the carpet. The tenants accept responsibility for the cost of stain removal, but not for the full carpet clean or patching of the carpet.
The landlord’s photographic evidence of carpet staining in the master bedroom is accepted. I also note the tenants’ own efforts to remove the stain. They state they applied a carpet cleaning product, which had started to work, but required further time for effective stain removal. The landlord notes the tenants used a 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 2 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV-2008-085-1441, 17 Dec 2008. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 4 Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [2016] NZTT Auckland 3149 at 6. 5 Richards v Scally TT Christchurch TT 2043/98, 21 July 1998 6 Richards v Scally (above) 7 Falwasser v Armstrong [2011] NZTT Whakatane 523. carpet cleaning product for spot cleaning of the carpet. They explained they have a three day turn over and the tenants cannot expect the new tenants to continue cleaning the carpet with that product.
In terms of this claim, I agree with the landlord that the tenants cannot expect the new tenants to continue to apply the carpet cleaning product to remove the stain. I also consider it reasonable for the tenants to pay the carpet cleaning cost in full, although the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to support the carpet patching as claimed. Accordingly, the tenants are to compensate the landlord for the carpet cleaning cost of $180.00, which is awarded above. Laundry floor: general principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to the laundry floor, being the insurance excess of $2,000.00.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage, the landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA.
The landlord is insured for tenant damage and, according to the evidence provided, the insurance excess is $2,000.00. The rent for this premises is $560.00 per week.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) of the RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

Are the tenants responsible for the floor damage?

The landlord claims the tenants caused damage to the laundry floor, requiring the vinyl to be uplifted and replaced. The landlord considers there was water damage from the tenants washing machine being incorrectly connected, and water leaking onto the floor. The builder’s invoice has been provided, along with other documentary evidence. The invoice dated 20 September 2024 from [builder] is for a total of $2,119.45. The tenants deny responsibility, and reject the claim that their washing machine was leaking. Both parties have produced extensive evidence, including photographs, emails, written statements, and oral evidence.
Overall, having considered the evidence and submissions, I find the landlord has been unable to establish that the tenants are responsible for damage to the laundry floor. This is because there is evidence that the bubbling and other damage to the floor was likely due to other factors, including the way the vinyl was laid, noting the landlord accepts that it was incorrectly laid. I note there is evidence of bubbling of the vinyl in other areas of the premises. There is a second invoice from [builder] for work to replace the vinyl in the bathroom, and the tenants have provided evidence that there was bubbling of the vinyl in this area too.
I am also not persuaded by the landlord’s evidence that the tenants’ washing machine was leaking. There has been no photographic evidence of water on the floor. The landlord accepted at the hearing that there was no water found on the floor, only evidence of the swelling.
Whether the washing machine pipe was incorrectly connected is also speculative, as the tenants state this could have come loose when the washing machine was pulled out by the landlord to be checked. The tenants have provided direct oral evidence at the hearing, which I accept, that they regularly use the washing machine and did not notice it leaking during the tenancy. They state that had they noticed it, they would have brought it to the landlord’s attention.
I do not accept the landlord’s submission that the presence of a washing machine (an appliance that releases water) in the area of the floor damage, indicates this is the likely cause of the damage. Particularly in view of the other factors pointing to equally plausible alternative explanations. The tenants have provided an opinion from a tradesperson that the vinyl was incorrectly installed, hence the bubbling. The landlord accepted at the hearing that there were problems with the installation of the vinyl.
Therefore, having found this claim has not been established to the required standard, it is dismissed. Other costs
While acknowledging the time and effort involved, the landlord’s request for the cost of preparation for the Tribunal hearing/process is dismissed, since this is not a cost that can be claimed against a tenant. Tenants’ application: 5055054
As noted above, the tenants seek a return of their bond, and compensation, claiming the premises is mouldy and does not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). They have provided photographic evidence of mould and have provided oral evidence at the hearing. They state there is mould in the bedrooms, despite their efforts to ventilate the house. They feel the house ought to have a better ventilation system. The landlord states the house is compliant with the HHS and has produced evidence in support, including a Healthy Homes Standards Compliance Report.
The landlord’s obligations are set out under section 45 of the RTA. This includes the requirement that the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. 8 The landlord is also required to comply with the healthy homes standards, and any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations 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 of the RTA.
In relation to the issue of mould, as noted by the Tribunal in Semmens v Wadman, 9 mould is commonly present throughout all residential dwellings in New Zealand to some degree. Adjudicator Woodhouse explained that simply having mould in the premises would not be sufficient to establish a breach on the part of the landlord for which compensation can be ordered: Rather, what a tenant must establish, is that there are defects with the premises which have caused mould to develop, or to be at a more extensive level than would otherwise be reasonably expected in a dwelling that meets the required building standards.
Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find the tenants’ claim has not been established. In reaching this conclusion, I rely on the landlord’s HHS report. This report is dated 27 April 2021 and shows the home complies with the HHS standards. Specifically, it meets the ventilation and drainage standards. The report notes there are openable windows, and the 8 Section 45(1)(b) 9 [2022] NZTT Manukau 310605 premises has compliant ceiling and underfloor insulation, and a ground vapour barrier. At the second hearing, the tenants accepted the difficulty of challenging the findings in the landlord’s HHS report, but point out they provided their evidence based on their experience, which is acknowledged.
In terms of the claim concerning mould, while noting their photographic evidence, I find the tenants have not established that there were defects in the premises that have caused mould to develop. I also note the landlord’s submissions concerning the features of the premises, noting this is a late 1960’s/1970’s home, which has single glazed windows. The landlord also reports there have been no issues with leaks at the premises.
Accordingly, for the reasons noted above, the claim concerning mould and compliance with the HHS is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
As each party has had some success with their application, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenants seek name suppression, the landlord does not. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, and noting the tenants have had some success, orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4931874 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4931874 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the floor damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the floor damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions