What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5129209 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 5129209?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5129209?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5129209?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12303041-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5129209 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 5129209?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5129209?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5129209?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12303041-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5129209 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
All claims are dismissed

Reasons

[Property Manager] appeared for the landlord. The tenants both appeared and were accompanied by a support person. The male tenant states that during the tenancy they had fallen down the internal stairs and suffered a concussion, which impacted his cognitive functioning. During the hearing, the support person sought to address the Tribunal on behalf of both tenants. The request was declined. The support person had not been identified as a witness, nor had there been a request in advance of the hearing for a representative. While it was clear that the male tenant had a cognitive impairment, the other tenant did not. The support person remained in the hearing and assisted both tenants with their case. Issue – claim.
The tenancy commenced on 17 October 2020 and ended on 09 January 2025 following notice given by the tenant. On 30 January 2025, the tenant filed a claim that the landlord had failed to provide the property in a reasonable state of repair and to meet all health and safety regulations.
The tenant claims are that: i. The windows leaked when it rained heavily, ii. Water entered through the ceiling to one of the downstairs rooms and damaged their personal property, iii. The landlord had failed to maintain the insulation. iv. Damage to the bathroom wall resulted in the room being damp, v. The internal stairs were dangerous, vi. The external stairs had no railing.
The tenant is seeking compensation of $10,000.00 for property damaged by the leaking, and $65,000.00 for loss of amenity, roughly equivalent to a 50% rent refund for the period of the tenancy.
The Bond Centre has advised that the bond was released to the tenant on 25 February 2025. Law
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act), the landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.
Section 45(1) (bb) requires the landlord to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards Regulations 2019 (HHS), which set out the minimum requirements for heating, insulation, ventilation, drainage, and draught stopping for residential rental properties.
The HHS standards for insulation and smoke alarms have applied to all rental properties since 01 July 2019.
The remaining HHS requirements covering heating, ventilation, drainage, moisture ingress, and draught stopping for this tenancy took effect on 01 July 2025.
Under section 45(1)(c) of the Act, a landlord must comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety, such as those contained in the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR).
In Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV 2009 085-001431, 24 February 2010 the Court stated: “I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair the defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”.
The onus of proving these claims rest with the tenant. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The tenant must establish more likely than not that the landlord has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Act.
Whether the landlord has failed to meet their obligations will involve an objective assessment of the evidence. Tenant’s evidence Leaking upstairs and downstairs basement
The property was constructed in the 1970’s and has two levels. On the first level are three bedrooms, bathroom, toilet, lounge, dining room, and kitchen. On the ground level there is a garage and two other rooms, one carpeted. These rooms are commonly used for storage.
The tenant states that around 31 May 2021 they reported a leak in the downstairs ceiling. They could not recall the exact location and no photographs were taken. The tenant emailed the landlord. A couple of days later a contractor attended the property to investigate but found no fault. The tenant states the leak occurred intermittently, during rain from a particular direction, and that the contractor had visited on a fine day. The tenant states that they continued to notify the landlord of leaking, although they had no documentary records.
On 22 November 2022, the tenant reported a more serious leak to the ceiling downstairs causing a part of the ceiling along the wall above shelving to collapse. The tenant also stated that water entered a nearby light fitting, which then burnt out.
The tenant states they advised the landlord, and a contractor attended shortly afterward. Again, as the weather was fine, the contractor struggled to find the source of the leak. The tenant states that the contractor inspected the light but advised there was no issue.
The tenant has produced photographs, a short video of the leak, and a photograph of the light fitting, all of which they state were sent to the landlord around 22 November 2022.
The tenant claims that the leak damaged a computer hard drive and a box of valuable trading cards stored downstairs. The tenant did not have household insurance. The tenant states that at the time they advised the landlord that “stuff” had been damaged but had not specified exactly what until after the end of the tenancy. The tenant produced a statement from a card dealer valuing the cards at $4000 - $5000. The statement records that the appraisal is based on the cards “as described by the tenant.” It does not appear that the dealer inspected the actual cards. A photograph produced shows a partially open cardboard box with some contents visible. The tenant states that although the dealer did not see the damaged cards, they had seen them previously, though this is not recorded in the statement.
On 14 December 2022, the tenant reported a leak in the lounge ceiling. The tenant has produced a photograph of a hole they state is in the ceiling although no water is visible. The tenant notified the landlord and a couple of days afterward a contractor visited to investigate. The source of the leak was identified and repaired. The tenant states that the leak occurred again on 06 January 2023, and they advised the landlord who sent a contractor on 09 January 2023.
The tenant states that on or about 15 December 2024 they discovered leaks in the lounge bay windows. The tenant has produced photographs showing water leaking from around the window frame onto the sill and seating area. The tenant notified the landlord and again a contractor visited and repaired the leak.
The tenant accepts that the landlord had responded appropriately when notified but that the leaking was never fully resolved, usually coinciding with heavy rain from a particular direction over the winter months. Internal and exterior stairs
The property has shallow concrete stairs leading from the driveway to the front door. The tenant has produced a photograph of the stairs, which are original to the property. There is no apparent defect. However, the stairs do not have a handrail. The tenant states the absence of a handrail make them non-compliant.
The property also has internal stairs leading to the basement. The photographs produced by the tenant show a wooden handrail attached to the wall by three brackets. The tenant states that the brackets are loose, making the rail wobbly. The male tenant states that a combination of the wobbly handrail and the unusual step height contributed to a fall on or about 12 August 2024 which resulted in them suffering concussion for which they receive treatment.
The tenant states that during the tenancy there had been four property managers, with [Property Manager] only becoming involved after the end of the tenancy. They state that they first raised an issue concerning the internal stairs orally during an inspection around January 2024, but it was not addressed. As with the external stairs the tenant argues that the internal stairs must also be non- compliant with the building code. Landlord’s evidence
The landlord has produced a summary of the tenant’s reports, corresponding work orders, and invoices. In total seven reports were made by the tenant: basement leak (31 May 2021), leak in bay window (30 May 2022), leak in basement (21/11/2022), leak in lounge ceiling (14 December 2022), leak in upstairs bathroom (09 January 2023), leak through basement light (05 March 2024), and leak in lounge ceiling (06 December 2024). On each occasion the contractor attended within 1 – 3 days. The invoices provide details of the repairs and explanations by the contractors.
The roof is reported to be in a reasonable condition. Leaks to the upstairs were attributed to lose flashings or roofing nails, a missing lap ridge, and internal guttering, which was discovered to be prone to blocking in certain weather conditions. All matters were resolved.
Concerning the leaking in the basement through the ceiling and the light fitting, the contractors found no obvious link to the roof issues. On both occasions they concluded that the water likely originated from the bathroom above, caused by flooding by the occupants. On that basis, the landlord denies liability for damage to the items stored in the basement. They note that they were only told about damage to the cards and computer after the end of the tenancy.
Concerning the external concrete staircase and the internal staircase to the basement, the landlord engaged a licenced builder to conduct an inspection on 30 January 2025, and prepare a report. The builder states that the external staircase is structurally sound, complies with the regulations applicable at the time it was built (1980’s), and does not pose any safety concerns.
Regarding the internal staircase the builder reported: “The internal staircase is in good condition with uniform step heights. The railing is securely attached, and although the blots are exposed due to the concrete wall’s density, they do not affect the railings stability or function. This setup is typical of homes built in the 1980s and does not pose any safety concerns.” Other claims
Regarding the alleged issues with the insulation in the bay window. The landlord has produced photographs of the storage area under the window seat. No insulation can be seen. The tenant claims that the insulation is behind the back of the seat. The landlord noted that the seat is built-in and questioned why the tenant was looking behind the seat which forms a part of the wall. No evidence was produced by the tenant concerning the wall in the bathroom. The landlord produced a photograph of a vertical crack in the wall, which the builder inspected and reported as likely caused by movement and cosmetic only. Analysis and decision
I prefer the landlord’s evidence, supported by a chronology, invoices, and explanations, which I find more reliable. I am not satisfied that any leaking has been the result of the landlord’s failure to properly maintain the property. Each time the tenant has raised an issue the landlord has responded appropriately. I accept the contractor’s evidence that the water entering the basement likely came from the bathroom above. Because the landlord has not breached their obligations, they are not liable for damage caused to the tenant’s property. Even if liability had been established, the evidence of loss is insufficient. The card dealer’s statement is based only on the tenant’s description, and the dealer did not inspect the cards in their damaged state. A prudent tenant storing valuable possessions should have contents insurance.
Although the tenant claims that the external and internal stairs are non-compliant, they are unable to point to evidence to support that conclusion. I accept the evidence of the builder that both are in good condition and are compliant. I accept the landlord’s submission that the insulation behind the built-in seat in the bay window is not exposed. The tenant was unable to provide any evidence concerning the crack on the bathroom wall, and I accept the builders evidence that it was cosmetic.
Accordingly, all claims are dismissed. Name suppression.
Both parties eek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been wholly successful and is granted name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
While I am satisfied that the facts and reasoning of this decision are in the public interest, I am not satisfied that this interest necessarily extends to the name of the tenant. Although no medical evidence has been produced confirming the male tenants head injury, I have witnessed the male tenant give evidence.
Upon careful consideration, I am however satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and exercise the discretion in subsection 95A (4). The Tribunal also orders suppression of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5129209 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5129209 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions