What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5082411 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 5082411?

Failure To Maintain: $480.00 awarded to tenant; Failure To Provide HHS Report: $260.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Quiet Enjoyment: $220.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5082411?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5082411?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11424849-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5082411 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 5082411?

Failure To Maintain: $480.00 awarded to tenant; Failure To Provide HHS Report: $260.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Quiet Enjoyment: $220.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5082411?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5082411?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11424849-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5082411 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5082411 — net $987.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Failure to maintain	$480.00	Failure to maintain
Failure to provide HHS report	$260.00	Failure to provide HHS report
Quiet enjoyment	$220.00	Quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$987.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$987.00

Both parties attended the hearing. The Rent Shop was represented by Michelle Ouellette and Julie Clarke. The tenant had a support person present.

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under sections 38 and 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). She also claimed the landlord failed to provide a copy of the Healthy Homes

An applicant must prove their case to the civil standard; the balance of probabilities. This means she must prove to the Tribunal that what she is claiming more likely than not occurred.

In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Background

This tenancy commenced 19 January 2024 as a one-year fixed-term. It has now rolled over, and continues, as a periodic tenancy. The initial property manager left on or around 5 April 2024 and was replaced by Julie Clarke, the current agent.

The prior tenancy ended just before Christmas 2023.

Upon move-in two issues were identified by the tenant and raised with the then agent. A copy of the ingoing condition report was also requested by her but not received. The two issues were a leaking bath tap and a TV reception problem due to the antenna. This request required a chase up by the tenant on 8 February 2025 but the two issues were then resolved within two weeks after that.

The agents changed in April as previously noted. On 23 May 2025 the new agent sent an inspection notice to the tenant via email at 3:40pm, advising an inspection would be conducted the next day at “any time during normal business hours”. A detailed list of recommended pre-inspection tasks to be completed was attached.

The tenant responded advising about the inadequate notice (no less than 48 hours’ notice is required for such a notice). The agent moved the inspection date to 6 June 2025. This inspection appears to have taken place on 14 June 2025.

Before that inspection, on 4 June 2025 a tree fell over the premises accessway. The tenant notified the landlord that day and the tree was removed on 8 June 2025. There was a delay of two days in the agent instigating the work order. The agent explained this as a workload issue as well her belief of a limited impact on the tenant as her car could still be parked offroad and the house accessed by foot.

The tenant was not present for that June inspection but she maintains her partner was and she claimed he showed the mould issues to the agent. The subsequent report is silent on mould but does note an interaction with another adult and that moisture on the windows was apparent. The report also notes the vegetation surrounding the house may need cutting back (no follow up on that took place).

The tenant was becoming increasingly frustrated due to her claimed adverse condition of the premises. She sent the landlord an email on 2 September 2025 outlining the issues. This was followed up some four hours later with a second email, this time attaching photos of the problems ang highlighting health concerns. The tenant requested again the ingoing inspection report, reported draughts, requested pest control for rodent issues, the removal of pre-tenancy garden waste that remained, a status update of an expected kitchen benchtop/unit replacement, and issues with drainage and the HHS.

On 6 September 2024 the tenant was provided with a report by the landlord purporting to be the entry report. It became apparent there was no ingoing inspection report and the agent doctored the previous exit report to generate an entry report for the tenant. This attempt edited some heading text but left confusing reference in the body of the report regarding tenant tasks. As read, there would appear to be a number of tasks that were the responsibility of this tenant but they were intended for the exiting tenant. The tenant reported also receiving a version with the prior tenant name, stating this was a possible breach of privacy. With hindsight, the agent should have advised the tenant upfront of the situation as well as the limitations of the provided report. It was likely better than no report but a caveat with context should have been included. The agent also wrote at that time she would call the tenant regarding the other matters. There was a lack of agent recollection about any subsequent call.

On 17 September 2024, with limited or no action on the issues raised, the tenant raised a 14-day notice to remedy on the landlord. She also contacted MBIE Tenancy Compliance and Investigation Team, providing the notice and photos. That team has directly engaged with the landlord (remotely). It is uncertain what, if any, further action may follow.

A number of the issues in the 17 September are addressed. Some draughts are blocked, pest control is arranged and the green waste (identified for removal at the end of the previous tenancy) was finally removed. The kitchen bench/unit replacement was not proven by the tenant as a commitment from the landlord that could be ordered. The evidence supports a possible desire or consideration to about this but actual replacement does not appear to have been more than a consideration.

The landlord arranged for moisture testing to be conducted. The property manager uses a handyman for such tasks and he contacted the tenant and attended the premises on or around 25 September. Unfortunately, the report was only verbal, with a general statement stating the premises was dry. The basis for that conclusion was not reported, especially the locations tested. The conclusion was of minimal use, given later evidence. A second test in January this year did not identify a problem. Given seasonal weather variations and the external source of dampness this test result is not a total surprise. Regardless, it is not conclusive evidence that there was no historical problem as claimed by the tenant.

A routine report was conducted 10 October 2024.

On 11 October 2025, a Healthy Home inspection was conducted and a report prepared. The original tenancy agreement made HHS compliance statements that at the time may have been correct although the inspection dates cited predated this tenancy by some time. Regardless of any compliance at that date, there is a requirement to ensure ongoing HHS compliance. The HHS report was a useful, third-party assessment of the premises and it is referred to later.

The owner lives oversees and was described by the agent as very receptive to the maintenance of the premises as required. His approach was to leave the management to the agents. Any failures as recorded in this order appear to be with the agency rather than owner.

Did the landlord failure to maintain?

It is well settled that the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.

Further 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, including the Healthy Homes requirements as required. Mould

In Xiao and Zhao v Dong [2021 NZTT North Shore 4219619 at [26], the Adjudicator found that “generally, landlords will only be responsible for mould that arises in the course of a tenancy, if there were some defects with the tenancy, that the landlord would be responsible for. Some level of mould is a reality in residential dwellings, even dwellings that are well build, warm, ventilated and without defects”, deciding that the mould was not the responsibility of the landlord because “the tenants have no identified any pre- existing problem with mould at the start of the tenancy”, “no evidence before the Tribunal that there is any defect with the structure of the building” and that “the problem with the mould may have arisen as a consequence of how the tenants were living in the dwelling”.

In this instance, it appears more likely than not that the South-west corner of the house, where the main bedroom was, had an ongoing structural flaw that was, at least in part, a contributor to an ongoing mould issue in that room. The tenant raised the issue with the landlord.

The exit photos of the last tenancy show that area with what appears to be mould. The HHS inspection refers to mould in that same area.

The dampness I that area was more than likely an issue throughout the tenancy, particularly during or after rain. The most likely cause of any mould or moisture in that area of the premises was the external failure of the gutter and drainage. This was later confirmed and the owner is now in the process of replacing the roof. In the contractor report recommending that it also noted rotten timber in the roof, “around the hip and ridge intersection on the eastern side...” (Gutter Sucker invoice dated 16 December 2024).

Did the premises comply with the HHS?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard and moisture ingress and drainage 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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that residential premises must have efficient drainage, guttering and downpipes for the removal of stormwater, surface water and ground water.

As claimed by the tenant, and confirmed by a later HHS report, the premises did not meet the required standard. It is obvious from other areas of HHS compliance that prior effort had been made to ensure adequate insulation and ground floor moisture barriers were in place. While draughts were not identified back in 2021, as stated in the tenancy agreement compliance statement at commencement, the HHS report clearly shows some areas of unreasonable draughts in October 2024, despite some prior installation of draught-proofing product. The landlord was confused on the timing and activities of draught proofing as the HHS report contains photos of some windows that appear to have had some gaps attended to but others left, usually along the bottom. The result as shown may well have exacerbated the remaining gaps as the partial proofing will have prevented further closing of such windows.

The initial contractor feedback regarding the guttering and drainage issue was that it required fall adjustment of the guttering. It later became apparent that the issue was a downstream blockage and the rainwater was not draining from the southwest guttering downpipe; overflowing the guttering at times. This is consistent with the tenant recounting the sound of overflow dripping from the guttering during rain disrupting her sleep. This blockage was eventually attended to by a plumber. The damage to the roof as noted earlier appears consistent with the problem being of some duration.

I find the landlord failed to draught proof all areas of draught. The extent of any impact on the tenant and occupants is uncertain but it is reasonable to assume some adverse impact on the internal environment.

Did the landlord deny the tenant the Healthy Homes Report?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.

The tenant requested the HHS Report after it was completed 11 October 2024. The agent denied the tenant this request. The actual report was only provided to the tenant at the hearing. Given the history of tenant complaints, including potential health impacts, the refusal here had a significant impact.

Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. As no application for exemplary damages was made, I make no order of exemplary damages but note that I consider the landlord here did commit an unlawful act. The agent stated she was unaware of such an obligation.

However, if I was to consider an application for exemplary damages I may have drawn an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten or been unaware. A professional property manager such as the Rent Shop should have adequate training and systems in place to ensure its agents are aware of their lawful requirements such as here.

Beyond the unlawful aspect, the sharing of the report may have allowed more prompt and mutual resolution, preventing the escalation of this dispute to the Tribunal.

The tenant lodged her application to the Tribunal on 2 December 2024.

This was a clear failure of the landlord and any redress is considered in the Compensation section below. Quiet enjoyment

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

This tenancy featured a number of issues that were not resolved or addressed in a timely manner by the landlord. In isolation, each might not be a huge impact but they show a recurring need for the tenant to chase up legitimate issues after reporting. Tardy responses, as well as inaccurate or unshared reports compounded the problems.

I do consider the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment has been unreasonably impacted due to the prolonged nature of issue notification and and resolution, requiring unnecessary follow-up effort. Later, an approach by the tenant to the MBIE Compliance team was made. I consider the ongoing need to chase the agent(s) and take external steps to seek resolution, will have taken a toll on the tenant and interfered with her quiet enjoyment beyond what might be expected. Compensation

Section 77(2)(n) RTA allows the Tribunal to grant general damages where a landlord or a tenant has breached a provision of the RTA. These damages can include an amount for distress and pain and suffering.

The tenant sought $3,059.95 compensation; comprising extra electricity costs incurred of $1,832.00, water costs of $367.96, a medical cost of $60.00, and general compensation of $800.00.

In Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993 (upheld in the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust, CIV-2018-009-002094 [2020] NZDC 17667) sets out the factors that the Tribunal should take into account when making a damages award, being: a. The nature of the breach b. The duration of the breach c. The effect of the breach.

The nature of some of the breaches may on the face of it appear technical or arbitrary, others of limited impact, but the sum of delays or failures had a detrimental impact on the tenant and the occupants over an extended period. I consider there was a neglected maintenance issue in one corner of the house that adversely impacted that area. It appears to also have caused some structural damage that the owner must repair. The grounds have extensive vegetation around the premises and that will have had both a positive and negative impact on this tenancy. The agent position that the problems were primarily due to the vegetation is not supported evidentially.

While one compensation claim is based on extra electricity costs there is no evidence to support that, although a higher than reasonably expected electricity cost is not unrealistic given the failure to maintain and the likely reliance on extra appliances. The tenant refers to her reliance on a dehumidifier in the 2 September email, writing at that time, “The mold is becoming a major issue I have the dehumidifier going 24/7 and windows open and this isn't helping”. That may have been the case but the evidence does not support the more significant impacts as claimed.

There is no evidence of water loss from pipe leaks and I decline to make any compensation order for that. I consider it more than likely that the wet areas referred to be a result of the topography.

The medical cost claimed by the tenant has no clear causation to any landlord maintenance failure. The tenant acknowledged her, and some of her children’s, history of asthma. I make no award for medical costs.

It is a well-accepted principle when awarding damages that, so far as money can do it, the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement.

The tenant sought $800.00 general compensation, in addition to $1,832.00 for electricity costs.

Having consideration of the proven landlord failures, maintenance delayed or not commenced, and the likely impacts on the tenant I have determined an award of compensation of $960.00 is appropriate. This is established by awarding $480.00 for proven failures to maintain, $260.00 for the landlord’s failure to provide the HHS report) and $220.00 for general compensation. Filing fee

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The tenant requested suppression in her application. As she has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5082411 — net $987.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Failure to maintain	$480.00	Failure to maintain
Failure to provide HHS report	$260.00	Failure to provide HHS report
Quiet enjoyment	$220.00	Quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$987.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$987.00