What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5072228 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 5072228?

Compensation: Building Report: $680.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: loss of amenity, 33 we…: $660.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5072228?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5072228?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11406480-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5072228 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 5072228?

Compensation: Building Report: $680.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: loss of amenity, 33 we…: $660.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5072228?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5072228?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11406480-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

34F Bould Street, Johnsonville, Wellington 6037 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5072228 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5072228 — net $3,367.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of amenity, 33 weeks at	$660.00	loss of amenity, 33 weeks at
Compensation: building report	$680.00	building report
Exemplary damages: underfloor insulation and drainage	$2,000.00	underfloor insulation and drainage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,367.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,367.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $3,367.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy lasted for twelve years. The application was filed after the tenant moved out. The claim is limited by the Statute of Limitations to claims arising during the last six years of the tenancy. The tenant is concerned that the landlord breached its obligation to repair and maintain and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord does not agree to the claims. The questions I have to decide include: • Has there been a breach of maintenance? • Should the tenant get compensation? • Has there been a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards? • Should an order be made for exemplary damages?

Has there been a breach of maintenance?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). In support of his claim he provided a timeline and an independent builder’s report dated 26 March 2024. Under section 45 a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Going back six years, the tenant submitted the landlord has failed to: • Prevent moisture and mould/mildew in the house • Prevent flora (including blackberry, ivy and trees) encroaching from other properties • Resolve the drainage issues under the house • Effectively remove mould inside the house including from the carpet tiles • Tighten the steel rods in the lockwood style house • Locate and remedy a sewerage type odour in a timely manner • Replace the fence.
I can see from the timeline and from the 14 day notices that the landlord knew about these issues. The landlord said all the issues raised were addressed in a timely manner. The house is down a steep drive and has always had issues with water under the house, which the landlord has attempted to resolve with drains and the installation of a ground moisture barrier. The landlord said the tenant was not good at ventilating the house, leading to condensation, and this was the reason for any mould or mildew.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have read all the documents, including the doctors’ letters, and considered the submissions. I find there is no proof the landlord failed to maintain and repair the tenancy premises. In particular I note there is no supporting information in the builder’s report to show the steel rods have to be tightened in this house, which means there is no evidence the house is unsafe and draughty.
There has been an ongoing issue with water pooling under the house. The builder’s report identifies that the windows do not have flashings and sealant has been used to keep water out. It seems most likely to me these are the reason for any damp, mildew and mould in the house historically. With the exception of the bathroom, the moisture testing done for the builder’s report did not show elevated levels. This means the tenant has not proved there was an ongoing issue with moisture inside the house, or that it made him unwell.

Should the tenant get compensation?

The tenant has claimed compensation. I find the tenant has proved there was a loss of amenity because of all the major work carried out in 2024 in response to the builder’s report and the 14 day notices given to the landlord. In that time a major bathroom leak has been repaired, new bathroom fittings were installed, the bathroom floor and flooring were replaced, the carpet was replaced, a chemical has been applied to try and remove the mildew/mould from the walls, trees have been removed, a field drain and sump were installed outside, a new ground moisture barrier was installed under the house, people came to identify the smell, another field drain was scoped because of ongoing water under the house, a new hot water cylinder was installed, the old foil insulation under the floor was removed, and the gaps in the walls were investigated by a licenced building practitioner.
Compensation is allowed in the amount of $20 a week. I have considered that the weekly rent was $96 during that time. Compensation is allowed from the date of the builder’s report because this is the best evidence I have of the issues. The landlord should also pay the cost of the builder’s report because it seems most likely to me the landlord took the tenant’s concerns seriously after the report was completed.

Has there been a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenant clams the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the ventilation standard, the moisture ingress standard and the insulation standard. The compliance date for this property was 1 July 2024.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors and requires kitchen and bathroom extractor fans vented to the outside. I have considered the evidence and I do not find there was a breach of the ventilation 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.
A ground moisture barrier was installed as required. This has recently been replaced. There is no breach here.
There are ongoing drainage issues at the tenancy premises. The landlord has taken many steps to resolve this issue, including installing field drains. A specialist drainage report was carried out in October 2024. The report states that there is a longstanding issue with water under the house. The field drains are only catching shallow water and “[w]ater is making its way under in several other places”. Despite the landlord’s attempts to prevent water pooling under the house there is insufficient drainage. This is a beach of the HHS.
The insulation standard requires underfloor insulation in a reasonable condition. The builder’s report identified that the underfloor insulation was incorrectly installed because the existing foil was not removed. The tenant said this was illegal and unsafe. The landlord submitted that there was no actual ban on the foil insulation and no evidence this had been dangerous for the tenant.
The best evidence I have is from the builder’s report which states that building standard NZS4246-2016 requires the old foil insulation to be removed before any new insulation is installed. The report’s conclusion states that installing the insulation incorrectly “could affect its performance”. The tenant was cold and there were issues with moisture during the tenancy. It seems most likely to me the underfloor insulation was not performing as expected. This is a breach of the HHS.

Should an order be made for exemplary damages?

Breaching any of the HHS obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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) RTA.
I find the landlord acted intentionally. It seems most likely to me the inefficient drainage and the water under the house were longstanding issues and expert help should have been requested earlier. The landlord’s installers should also have known to remove the foil before retrofitting insulation. The effect for the tenant was that he was blamed for not ventilating properly, and not taken seriously until he had the builder’s report done. It is in tenants’ interests that the houses they pay rent for are healthy homes compliant and there is pubic interest in landlords paying exemplary damages to encourage compliance. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $2000 which seems fair for this tenancy. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because the tenant is the most successful party. The landlord’s name is published because there is public interest when landlords are required to pay exemplary damages.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5072228 — net $3,367.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of amenity, 33 weeks at	$660.00	loss of amenity, 33 weeks at
Compensation: building report	$680.00	building report
Exemplary damages: underfloor insulation and drainage	$2,000.00	underfloor insulation and drainage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,367.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,367.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $3,367.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy lasted for twelve years. The application was filed after the tenant moved out. The claim is limited by the Statute of Limitations to claims arising during the last six years of the tenancy. The tenant is concerned that the landlord breached its obligation to repair and maintain and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord does not agree to the claims. The questions I have to decide include: • Has there been a breach of maintenance? • Should the tenant get compensation? • Has there been a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards? • Should an order be made for exemplary damages?

Has there been a breach of maintenance?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). In support of his claim he provided a timeline and an independent builder’s report dated 26 March 2024. Under section 45 a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Going back six years, the tenant submitted the landlord has failed to: • Prevent moisture and mould/mildew in the house • Prevent flora (including blackberry, ivy and trees) encroaching from other properties • Resolve the drainage issues under the house • Effectively remove mould inside the house including from the carpet tiles • Tighten the steel rods in the lockwood style house • Locate and remedy a sewerage type odour in a timely manner • Replace the fence.
I can see from the timeline and from the 14 day notices that the landlord knew about these issues. The landlord said all the issues raised were addressed in a timely manner. The house is down a steep drive and has always had issues with water under the house, which the landlord has attempted to resolve with drains and the installation of a ground moisture barrier. The landlord said the tenant was not good at ventilating the house, leading to condensation, and this was the reason for any mould or mildew.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have read all the documents, including the doctors’ letters, and considered the submissions. I find there is no proof the landlord failed to maintain and repair the tenancy premises. In particular I note there is no supporting information in the builder’s report to show the steel rods have to be tightened in this house, which means there is no evidence the house is unsafe and draughty.
There has been an ongoing issue with water pooling under the house. The builder’s report identifies that the windows do not have flashings and sealant has been used to keep water out. It seems most likely to me these are the reason for any damp, mildew and mould in the house historically. With the exception of the bathroom, the moisture testing done for the builder’s report did not show elevated levels. This means the tenant has not proved there was an ongoing issue with moisture inside the house, or that it made him unwell.

Should the tenant get compensation?

The tenant has claimed compensation. I find the tenant has proved there was a loss of amenity because of all the major work carried out in 2024 in response to the builder’s report and the 14 day notices given to the landlord. In that time a major bathroom leak has been repaired, new bathroom fittings were installed, the bathroom floor and flooring were replaced, the carpet was replaced, a chemical has been applied to try and remove the mildew/mould from the walls, trees have been removed, a field drain and sump were installed outside, a new ground moisture barrier was installed under the house, people came to identify the smell, another field drain was scoped because of ongoing water under the house, a new hot water cylinder was installed, the old foil insulation under the floor was removed, and the gaps in the walls were investigated by a licenced building practitioner.
Compensation is allowed in the amount of $20 a week. I have considered that the weekly rent was $96 during that time. Compensation is allowed from the date of the builder’s report because this is the best evidence I have of the issues. The landlord should also pay the cost of the builder’s report because it seems most likely to me the landlord took the tenant’s concerns seriously after the report was completed.

Has there been a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenant clams the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the ventilation standard, the moisture ingress standard and the insulation standard. The compliance date for this property was 1 July 2024.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors and requires kitchen and bathroom extractor fans vented to the outside. I have considered the evidence and I do not find there was a breach of the ventilation 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.
A ground moisture barrier was installed as required. This has recently been replaced. There is no breach here.
There are ongoing drainage issues at the tenancy premises. The landlord has taken many steps to resolve this issue, including installing field drains. A specialist drainage report was carried out in October 2024. The report states that there is a longstanding issue with water under the house. The field drains are only catching shallow water and “[w]ater is making its way under in several other places”. Despite the landlord’s attempts to prevent water pooling under the house there is insufficient drainage. This is a beach of the HHS.
The insulation standard requires underfloor insulation in a reasonable condition. The builder’s report identified that the underfloor insulation was incorrectly installed because the existing foil was not removed. The tenant said this was illegal and unsafe. The landlord submitted that there was no actual ban on the foil insulation and no evidence this had been dangerous for the tenant.
The best evidence I have is from the builder’s report which states that building standard NZS4246-2016 requires the old foil insulation to be removed before any new insulation is installed. The report’s conclusion states that installing the insulation incorrectly “could affect its performance”. The tenant was cold and there were issues with moisture during the tenancy. It seems most likely to me the underfloor insulation was not performing as expected. This is a breach of the HHS.

Should an order be made for exemplary damages?

Breaching any of the HHS obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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) RTA.
I find the landlord acted intentionally. It seems most likely to me the inefficient drainage and the water under the house were longstanding issues and expert help should have been requested earlier. The landlord’s installers should also have known to remove the foil before retrofitting insulation. The effect for the tenant was that he was blamed for not ventilating properly, and not taken seriously until he had the builder’s report done. It is in tenants’ interests that the houses they pay rent for are healthy homes compliant and there is pubic interest in landlords paying exemplary damages to encourage compliance. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $2000 which seems fair for this tenancy. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because the tenant is the most successful party. The landlord’s name is published because there is public interest when landlords are required to pay exemplary damages.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5072228 — Exemplary damages at 34F Bould Street, Johnsonville, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5072228 — Exemplary damages at 34F Bould Street, Johnsonville, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Has there been a breach of maintenance?

Should the tenant get compensation?

Has there been a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Should an order be made for exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Has there been a breach of maintenance?

Should the tenant get compensation?

Has there been a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Should an order be made for exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions