What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4943273 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4943273?

Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4943273?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4943273?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11022418-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4943273 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4943273?

Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4943273?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4943273?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11022418-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

22 Whytehead Crescent, St Heliers, Auckland 1071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4943273 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4943273 — net $1,727.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$200.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages: draught stopping	$500.00	draught stopping
Exemplary damages: moisture ingress	$1,000.00	moisture ingress
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,727.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,727.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
claim 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). consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard and the HHS moisture ingress standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: For private rentals, if the tenancy commenced after 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of the tenancy.
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 moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies 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.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See RTA section 45(1A). Breach of draught stopping standard
The draught stopping standard is set out in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, cl 26.
The tenants provided oral evidence and produced photographs that established that the premises in questions has older style aluminium framed windows which are failing to keep moisture and draughts out. Two photographs were produced showing a small gap on the top edge of a window that subsequently increased in time as the window fell down and away from the frame. The gap is not on an opening edge of the window. The tenant stated the gap in the later photograph is approximately 1 mm at the widest point. The photograph shows this narrowing down to nil across a span of approximately 300 mm.
Although this gap could not be described as large, I consider it to be unreasonable given that there should be absolutely no gap at all. This is a different situation to a wooden window frame that is old but still functioning, and through some twisting over time has opened up a gap between two closing surfaces that can be filled with a draught stopping tape. This gap itself illustrates the window to be in a state of disrepair. This is consistent with the tenants’ information that there were numerous gaps in different windows at the premises.
In response the landlord stated that they had been relying on a Healthy Homes Report from 26 July 2021 which stated the property was fully compliant with the HHS. This report dates from some 18 months prior to this tenancy being signed.
I am persuaded that has breached the draught stopping standard and in doing so has committed an unlawful act.
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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The tenants stated that the premises were colder than expected, were very difficult to heat, had excessive amounts of mould which caused the loss of several personal items, which I refer to further, later in this Order. The tenants also say that they made concerted efforts to raise the problems with the property with the landlord, but the landlord appeared disorganised and was unresponsive.
In considering all of the above factors, including the size and nature of the gaps, I consider an award of $500.00 exemplary damages for this breach is appropriate. Breach of moisture ingress standard
The moisture ingress and drainage standards are set out in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, cl 27.
This standard refers to the removal of storm water, surface water, and ground water. The tenants’ complaint includes water ingress through the window seals, but also probably through a broken roof tile as described by the landlord. To some extent this claim bridges a breach of the HHS and a breach of the landlord’s responsibility under the RTA, section 45(1)(b) to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
The tenants provided oral evidence concerning two windows, one in the lounge and one in the main bedroom. Each of the windows was aluminium framed and each allowed in a significant amount of water through the rubber-styled seals, which were failing. The tenants also provided photographs and short videos showing the water coming in. One of the videos showed water pouring in when a hose was directed to the outside of the window. I give little weight to this video, and instead rely on the other videos and photographs that show persistent moderate water ingress under normal rain events.
The tenants also described a soft, rotted internal window frame which they referred to as “an upper sill”. The tenants’ view was that this had been subjected to water ingress through the seals at the top of the window. The landlord believed the water ingress had been through a broken tile. Whichever the cause, when the tenant applied pressure to the upper part of the frame, water dripped through at a moderate rate.
The tenants stated that they raised the moisture ingress problem in the bedroom with the landlord in June 2023 and in November 2023, and the moisture ingress problem in the lounge with the landlord in February 2024. Follow up inquiries were made again between February 2024 and the end of the tenancy on 23 July 2024, but no remedial work was done until a broken roof tile above the bedroom window was fixed on 19 July 2023. The tenants were not aware of this fix and do not consider that it would have remedied the problems they had complained about.
I am persuaded that has breached section 45 of the RTA with respect to moisture ingress around the windows of the premises, and in doing so has committed an unlawful act.
The consequences of this breach are the same as already noted above regarding the breach of the draught stopping standard.
In considering those factors, I have determined that an award of $1,000.00 exemplary damages is appropriate in the circumstances. Compensation for belongings
The tenants are seeking compensation of $200.00 as an estimate for belongings that they say were so badly damaged by mould caused or exacerbated by the HHS breaches that they had to be discarded, and for cleaning products that were required to constantly clean the mould. The tenants are not seeking full replacement cost of their belongings. The personal belongings were a pair of boots, a bag, two guitar cases, and a chest of drawers. Photographs of the belongings were provided, but no invoices.
In the circumstances I am persuaded that the condition of the premises caused higher than usual incidences of mould and this mould ruined the tenants’ belongings. I find this claim proved. The award I make is for compensation for the personal belongings.
Because has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4943273 — net $1,727.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$200.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages: draught stopping	$500.00	draught stopping
Exemplary damages: moisture ingress	$1,000.00	moisture ingress
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,727.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,727.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
claim 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). consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard and the HHS moisture ingress standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: For private rentals, if the tenancy commenced after 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of the tenancy.
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 moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies 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.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See RTA section 45(1A). Breach of draught stopping standard
The draught stopping standard is set out in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, cl 26.
The tenants provided oral evidence and produced photographs that established that the premises in questions has older style aluminium framed windows which are failing to keep moisture and draughts out. Two photographs were produced showing a small gap on the top edge of a window that subsequently increased in time as the window fell down and away from the frame. The gap is not on an opening edge of the window. The tenant stated the gap in the later photograph is approximately 1 mm at the widest point. The photograph shows this narrowing down to nil across a span of approximately 300 mm.
Although this gap could not be described as large, I consider it to be unreasonable given that there should be absolutely no gap at all. This is a different situation to a wooden window frame that is old but still functioning, and through some twisting over time has opened up a gap between two closing surfaces that can be filled with a draught stopping tape. This gap itself illustrates the window to be in a state of disrepair. This is consistent with the tenants’ information that there were numerous gaps in different windows at the premises.
In response the landlord stated that they had been relying on a Healthy Homes Report from 26 July 2021 which stated the property was fully compliant with the HHS. This report dates from some 18 months prior to this tenancy being signed.
I am persuaded that has breached the draught stopping standard and in doing so has committed an unlawful act.
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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The tenants stated that the premises were colder than expected, were very difficult to heat, had excessive amounts of mould which caused the loss of several personal items, which I refer to further, later in this Order. The tenants also say that they made concerted efforts to raise the problems with the property with the landlord, but the landlord appeared disorganised and was unresponsive.
In considering all of the above factors, including the size and nature of the gaps, I consider an award of $500.00 exemplary damages for this breach is appropriate. Breach of moisture ingress standard
The moisture ingress and drainage standards are set out in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, cl 27.
This standard refers to the removal of storm water, surface water, and ground water. The tenants’ complaint includes water ingress through the window seals, but also probably through a broken roof tile as described by the landlord. To some extent this claim bridges a breach of the HHS and a breach of the landlord’s responsibility under the RTA, section 45(1)(b) to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
The tenants provided oral evidence concerning two windows, one in the lounge and one in the main bedroom. Each of the windows was aluminium framed and each allowed in a significant amount of water through the rubber-styled seals, which were failing. The tenants also provided photographs and short videos showing the water coming in. One of the videos showed water pouring in when a hose was directed to the outside of the window. I give little weight to this video, and instead rely on the other videos and photographs that show persistent moderate water ingress under normal rain events.
The tenants also described a soft, rotted internal window frame which they referred to as “an upper sill”. The tenants’ view was that this had been subjected to water ingress through the seals at the top of the window. The landlord believed the water ingress had been through a broken tile. Whichever the cause, when the tenant applied pressure to the upper part of the frame, water dripped through at a moderate rate.
The tenants stated that they raised the moisture ingress problem in the bedroom with the landlord in June 2023 and in November 2023, and the moisture ingress problem in the lounge with the landlord in February 2024. Follow up inquiries were made again between February 2024 and the end of the tenancy on 23 July 2024, but no remedial work was done until a broken roof tile above the bedroom window was fixed on 19 July 2023. The tenants were not aware of this fix and do not consider that it would have remedied the problems they had complained about.
I am persuaded that has breached section 45 of the RTA with respect to moisture ingress around the windows of the premises, and in doing so has committed an unlawful act.
The consequences of this breach are the same as already noted above regarding the breach of the draught stopping standard.
In considering those factors, I have determined that an award of $1,000.00 exemplary damages is appropriate in the circumstances. Compensation for belongings
The tenants are seeking compensation of $200.00 as an estimate for belongings that they say were so badly damaged by mould caused or exacerbated by the HHS breaches that they had to be discarded, and for cleaning products that were required to constantly clean the mould. The tenants are not seeking full replacement cost of their belongings. The personal belongings were a pair of boots, a bag, two guitar cases, and a chest of drawers. Photographs of the belongings were provided, but no invoices.
In the circumstances I am persuaded that the condition of the premises caused higher than usual incidences of mould and this mould ruined the tenants’ belongings. I find this claim proved. The award I make is for compensation for the personal belongings.
Because has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4943273 — Exemplary damages at 22 Whytehead Crescent, St Heliers, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4943273 — Exemplary damages at 22 Whytehead Crescent, St Heliers, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions