What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5095748 about?

The tribunal order states: Jacqueline Pointon must pay Strathburn Rental Trust (Trustees: Jane Elizabeth

How much money was awarded in case 5095748?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5095748?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Mould & damp, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5095748?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11885563-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5095748 about?

The tribunal order states: Jacqueline Pointon must pay Strathburn Rental Trust (Trustees: Jane Elizabeth

How much money was awarded in case 5095748?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5095748?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Mould & damp, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5095748?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11885563-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5095748 — Rent arrears

Order

Jacqueline Pointon must pay Strathburn Rental Trust (Trustees: Jane Elizabeth Spearman And Fiona Margaret Partridge) $7,827.00 immediately, in accordance with the Tribunal order of 24 February 2025.
All tenant claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing of the tenants’ claims on 20 May. Ms Pointon appeared by phone. Ms Spearman and Ms Partridge, the trustees, represented the landlord by audio visual link.
On 24 February 2025 the Tribunal made an order for rent arrears concerning this tenancy by consent. It was agreed that the tenancy ended on 24 February 2025 and the amount outstanding in rent arrears after the bond had been applied is $7,827.00. To date no payments towards the debt have been made.
This decision relates to the cross application filed by Ms Pointon. Her claims are: a. $4,500 compensation for having to find alternative accommodation due to landlord error in commencement date. b. $1,800 storage costs for belongings to protect them from mould. c. $2,000 for replacement of belongings damaged by mould. d. $978 commercial carpet clean cost due to fleas/bed bugs. e. $1,000 compensation for stress related costs.
I discuss each claim separately below bearing in mind the burden of proof which is the balance of probabilities and lies with Ms Pointon as applicant. A considerable amount of evidence was filed in these proceedings. Whilst it has all been considered in the formation of this decision, it is not all referred to for obvious reasons of brevity.

Was the commencement date of the tenancy misrepresented?

Ms Pointon’s submission is that because the landlord changed the commencement date of the tenancy, she had to spend over $10,000 on private accommodation.
The tenancy was advertised to commence on 30 March 2024. After the viewing by email on 11 March Ms Spearman stated that the tenancy would commence on the 23 rd , which was agreed to by Ms Pointon. Ms Spearman subsequently emailed on the 14 th to clarify that the commencement date would actually be the 30 th as she had made a typo in her email, and said she hoped this wouldn’t affect Ms Pointon’s decision to take the tenancy. The tenancy agreement was subsequently signed on 15 March with a commencement date of 30 March.
Ms Pointon said she just went along with it at the time, but it caused severe financial hardship. She says she made arrangements based on the advice of the 23 rd , and the change incurred unexpected expenses which she considers she should recoup. She says it was an extremely stressful time financially and the landlord added to the stress by changing the move in date. She submits they should have taken more care with their communication.
Ms Spearman’s evidence is that the commencement date was advertised as 30 March and no amendment to that was discussed at the viewing. It was a mere typo in her email of the 11 th she says which was clarified three days later and before the tenancy was entered into. At the point of her error, she gave Ms Pointon the option of not commencing the tenancy. She says that at no time was she told by Ms Pointon that they needed accommodation urgently or that the date mistake was a problem for her. Their understanding is also that she was relocating within Tauranga, not from Auckland as alleged in proceedings.
Pursuant to section 78(1)(g) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the Tribunal may make specific orders in a situation where an agreement has been induced by misrepresentation or mistake.
This mistake occurred prior to the parties signing the agreement. It was very quickly rectified, but most importantly occurred prior to the full agreement being reached and signed. At the stage of the error the parties were still in negotiation regarding the tenancy. Accordingly, Ms Pointon could have withdrawn from discussions at the point of clarification.
Further, there is no evidence that Ms Pointon incurred extra costs over the relevant week. There is no evidence she advised of an urgent need to take occupancy and no evidence to substantiate her claim that she made specific arrangements based on a commencement date of the 23 rd .
This claim has not been substantiated in evidence and is as such dismissed.

Was the property pest infested?

Ms Pointon provided an invoice dated 8 April 2024 for $978 for carpet cleaning (flea treatment). She says that there was a flea and bed bug infestation in the property for which she seeks redress. She claims she was spending $35 per week on bug sprays and now has an anxiety around carpet.
Ms Partridge submits that Ms Pointon did not raise any concern regarding pests during the tenancy. When they received her claim, which came well into proceedings, they sought an inspection from [a pest removal company]. The property was inspected on 28 February 2025 and no evidence of any pest infestation was found. Their invoice noted as follows:
They note that they have never had a complaint from previous tenants regarding pests in the five years they have been tenanting the property and the body corporate for the building does not allow pets.
They also claim that the invoice is fraudulent for the following reasons: a. They could find no evidence of the business being registered or advertised, nor mentioned on the internet. b. The phone number on the invoice for the alleged company is actually for a company Ms Pointon is a shareholder of. c. The bank account number on the invoice for the alleged company is one that was previously provided for Ms Pointon’s partner. d. No GST number was included. e. The cost was exceptionally high given the small size of the apartment.
I do not consider that the claim has been established in evidence. Ms Pointon did not raise the issue before she allegedly entered into a very high cost to remediate which is unusual. She also provided no substantiating evidence other than the invoice.
Ms Pointon’s response to the validity challenge to the invoice is that it was provided by a migrant student which is why the name is not available on the internet. This does not address the proven connection between her and the phone number and account details of the alleged company.
In careful assessment of the evidence, I do not find it established to the required standard that the invoice is credible.
This claim is dismissed.

Was the property incompliant with the HHS?

It is agreed that when the tenancy agreement was signed the landlord omitted to include the required Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) statement. This is in breach of section 13A(1CA) of the RTA.
This was not realised by either party at the time.
After the landlord filed their claim with the Tribunal and the day after she had vacated the property, Ms Pointon requested the HHS documentation from the landlord.
When the landlord realised they had omitted to earlier provide it they did so (on 30 January 2025), and had the home HHS assessed. The assessment dated 6 May 2025 states that the property was compliant at that time. 1
It is also accepted that during the tenancy the property did not comply with the HHS heating standard within the required 120 days. This has since been rectified.
Jacqueline Pointon evidence is that the property was damp and mouldy to the extent it was uninhabitable. As a result, she says she lost belongings and her and her family suffered adverse health conditions. She provided two photos of mould in the bathroom but says there was much more. She says the 1 A heat pump was installed post-tenancy considerable extra cleaning contributed to her partner suffering a [serious health issue] during the tenancy.
She also says that on occasion she would have to go to a hotel to get away from the mould. Further, that they were so embarrassed when visitors came over, they would turn the lights off. She says she had to rent a larger storage unit to move some of her belongings into to protect them.
Ms Pointon says she would never have entered into the tenancy if she was aware of the actual state of it and its incompliance with the HHS. She recalls residing in this property as extremely distressing but says she did not raise concerns with her landlords as she thought they were aware of the issue and she did not want to make trouble.
The landlord gives the following evidence: a. The property is in an apartment complex built in approximately 2007. b. Ms Spearman resided in the property for 18 months prior to the Trust’s purchase of the property and found it warm and dry. c. They have provided references from a number of previous tenants attesting to the warm and dry conditions with no issues of mould. d. No concern was raised during the tenancy by Ms Pointon until she was well into rent arrears and the landlord had applied to the Tribunal to end the tenancy. e. Ms Spearman had messaged Ms Pointon several times during the tenancy asking if everything was alright and had been assured it was. f. They had provided a free-standing heater with the tenancy and had offered a second.
The landlords accept their errors, explaining they had mistakenly thought that the property had to be HHS compliant by 1 July 2026. They are now aware they were wrong, have rectified the situation and apologise for their error. They are clear however that the omissions did not affect the warm and dry conditions of the property.
It is accepted that Ms Pointon did not raise these issues during the tenancy. Tenants have an obligation pursuant to section 40(1)(d) of the RTA to raise maintenance concerns with their landlord.
There is also an obligation imposed on both parties to a tenancy agreement 2 to mitigate any loss they suffer or are suffering as a result of the other’s party’s breach of the tenancy agreement or RTA. Ms Pointon did not do this as she did not request the landlord investigate and/or rectify the issue. 2 Pursuant to section 49 of the RTA
The evidence supporting the contention that the property had insufficient ventilation and as a result was damp and mouldy has not been substantiated. The two photos of mould are minor and taken from the bathroom which is a naturally wet environment. There is a compliant extractor fan in the bathroom. I accept the HHS report which states that the ventilation in the property meets HHS requirements.
There was an ingoing inspection and an inspection in November although Ms Pointon had given evidence that there were no inspections during the tenancy. There is no documentary or photographic evidence of the ingoing inspection, but Ms Spearman says she did not see any mould at that time. There is no evidence of mould in the November inspection photos.
No evidence of mould on belongings nor of the disposal of belongings has been provided. The claims lack credibility. If a situation is so serious that a tenant has to stay elsewhere on occasion or turn lights off for visitors, it is nonsensical that they would not advise their landlord.
Accordingly, I do not find it established in evidence that the property was inherently damp. The landlord did breach the RTA by failing to include the HHS statement in the tenancy agreement and by failing to meet the HHS heating standard. However, it has not been established in evidence that these failures contributed to any emotional or financial loss of Ms Pointon’s.
Liability for compensation is only available for foreseeable losses flowing directly from a breach of a tenancy agreement or RTA. Compensation is designed to place, so far as money can do it, the injured party in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach. Loss has not been established in evidence to have occurred as a result of the agreed breaches. Further, the duty to mitigate has not been met.
Even if I am wrong in this, I do not consider it in the interests of justice 3 for Ms Pointon to benefit from a mistake made by the landlord that has not materially affected her. She did nothing to address any concern issue during the tenancy, and it is disingenuous of her to subsequently raise a claim in an attempt to offset her considerable arrears.
Accordingly, this claim must be dismissed. Was the tenant’s quiet enjoyment breached?
Jacqueline Pointon claims that her quiet enjoyment of the property was detrimentally affected by five or six false fire alarms over her tenure. She says these were excessive and disrupted their sleep. 3 See section 85 RTA
Ms Partridge notes that the concern was not raised with them during the tenancy. She established in evidence that they advised Ms Pointon of one fire alarm test in September, 4 and she responded with no concern and stated that they were enjoying the peaceful and relaxed lifestyle.
She includes statements from the Body Corp Manager and the Building Manager from the Body Corporate Committee noting that during this tenancy period there were fewer false alarms than usual (the usual being between two and five annually) and that Ms Pointon did not comply with the Building Code regulations as she did not evacuate the building during both false alarms and scheduled test alarms.
I do not find it proven in evidence that there were excessive false fire alarms during the period of this tenancy. There is simply no evidence provided to substantiate the claim and the landlords have provided evidence clearly in contradiction.
Accordingly, the claim is dismissed.

Should compensation for stress be awarded?

Ms Pointon claims compensation for extreme stress she says her, and her partner suffered during this tenancy. She attributes it primarily to the state of the property and the mistakes made by the landlord. In particular she claims her partner had a [serious health issue] during the tenancy which she says was contributed to by the nature of the tenancy.
Ms Spearman says they never heard from Ms Pointon that she was distressed during the tenancy or due to the tenancy. All comments 5 were positive, until they applied to the Tribunal.
Ms Spearman has provided a statement from a [medical specialist] who reviewed Ms Pointon’ partner’s alleged health records and concluded that it would be “extremely unlikely” that the property conditions could have contributed so quickly (just over one month into the tenancy) to his [serious health issue].
Again, I find this claim not proven in evidence and as such it is dismissed.
In summary, none of Ms Pointon’s claims made in an effort to offset her rent arrears have been substantiated in evidence. She had ample time and opportunity to establish her claims and has not done so. In general, I find the claims exaggerated and lacking in credibility. 4 Six months into the tenancy 5 Substantiated by email evidence

Should suppression orders be made?

Ms Pointon seeks suppression orders be made in her favour.
Pursuant to section 115B of the RTA there is a statutory expectation that decisions of the Tenancy Tribunal are published on the internet as soon as practicable, unless there is good reason not to publish them. This is because the usual premise is that judicial proceedings are open and accessible, unless the circumstances are exceptional. 6
In 2020 Parliament introduced changes to the RTA to provide an ability for the Tribunal to order name suppression, which is now possible pursuant to section 95A of the RTA. This provision was introduced to address an identified barrier to people accessing the Tenancy Tribunal, which is often the case for tenants.
Section 95A states the limited circumstances in which suppression orders can be made, as follows:
Section 95A therefore does the following in summary: a.Creates a statutory expectation that the successful party will have available name suppression if they apply for it, unless the Tribunal considers that party’s name should be published; and b.Creates a statutory discretion for the Tribunal to order name suppression to any party (such as the unsuccessful party), after taking into consideration the parties and public interest.
The discretion afforded to the Tribunal to consider whether suppression should be granted requires the Tribunal to evaluate the facts of the individual case, against the relevant law that applies – both statute and case law.
The Court of Appeal and the High Court, both of which the Tribunal is bound to follow, are clear that the starting point is the principal of open justice and it is 6 See Read v Police HC Tauranga CRI-2011-470-3, 29 September 2011 at [20]. only in very special circumstances that suppression orders should be made. 7 The High Court has stated that the question is whether the facts in the case are sufficient to displace that presumption of open reporting, so as to support name suppression. 8
In G v Attorney General, 9 Hansen J described name suppression in civil cases as rare, and reviewed the New Zealand and English Authorities supporting that approach. Reference was made to Taylor v Attorney General [1975] 2 NZLR 675 where the Court of Appeal made it clear that the public interest in the transparent administration of justice is not easily displaced, and applies with equal force to the civil and criminal proceedings.
Given Ms Pointon in this case has not been the successful party, section 95A(4) RTA applies. That provision allows her to request that her name and identifying details are suppressed. However, in order to grant name suppression, the Tribunal must “have regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest”. Applying those considerations requires a balancing exercise of two potentially competing considerations, because the interest of the parties may not be in concert with the interests of the public.
The landlords are of the view that given Ms Pointon’s disingenuous behaviour in these proceedings, her name should not be suppressed. They also say that since she ran for the local Council last year her whereabouts and actions were public knowledge.
Ms Pointon’s claim for suppression is based on the following submissions: a. She is currently engaged in [redacted] and does not want the parties involved in those to be aware of this dispute. b. She does not wish [redacted] to be aware of her whereabouts. c. She does not want the public to be aware of her business.
Ms Pointon was provided with time after the hearing to establish in evidence that she was involved in [redacted], she did not do so.
Having assessed the situation very carefully, I find that there is a significant public interest in publication of the tenant’s name. Ms Pointon has failed in all her claims which she quite admittedly submitted in an effort to reduce her established rent arrears which are high. It would be in the public interest to be aware of a tenant’s rent history as that is particularly a legitimate interest for potential future landlords. 7 Victim X v Television New Zealand Ltd 73 NZLR 220 8 Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2000] 3 NZLR 546, Paragraph 43 9 G v Attorney General (High court, Dunedin, CP 57/96, 15 April 1999
I have also found that Ms Pointon has provided false evidence and exaggerated claims. It is also in the public interest to be aware of such activities. She has provided no evidence that there is any safety risk to her arising from publication. A general wish for privacy is not a valid reason for suppression orders.
Taking into consideration the parties’ interest, alongside that of the public interest, I find the public interest considerations outweigh the tenant considerations therefore supporting the principle of open reporting. Accordingly, I decline the application for tenant name suppression.
I do however make suppression orders in relation to any mention of [redacted] or health conditions referenced in this decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5095748 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5095748 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the commencement date of the tenancy misrepresented?

Was the property pest infested?

Was the property incompliant with the HHS?

Should compensation for stress be awarded?

Should suppression orders be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the commencement date of the tenancy misrepresented?

Was the property pest infested?

Was the property incompliant with the HHS?

Should compensation for stress be awarded?

Should suppression orders be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions