What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5148793 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 5148793?

Compensation: failing to provide and…: $2,972.50 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5148793?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5148793?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12328491-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5148793 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 5148793?

Compensation: failing to provide and…: $2,972.50 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5148793?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5148793?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12328491-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 23 Wye Street, Frankton, Hamilton 3204 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5148793 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5148793 — net $2,999.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: failing to provide and maintain	$2,972.50	failing to provide and maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,999.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,999.50

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5148793 — net $2,999.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: failing to provide and maintain	$2,972.50	failing to provide and maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,999.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,999.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $2,999.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

A case conference and two hearings were held in these proceedings.
[The tenant/s] and her support person attended both hearings for the tenant. [The landlord agent’s representative] attended for the landlord’s agent, and [the landlord’s representative] as authorised representative (under a power of attorney), for the landlord. [The landlord] is elderly and no longer able to manage tenancy matters.
The tenant has made an application to the Tribunal relating to a tenancy at this address that ended on 14 March 2025. She claims:- a. the landlord breached its obligations relating to maintenance or the healthy homes standards in relation to – i. Ventilation in the unit; ii. Moisture and black mould; iii. Lack of window locks; iv. Unsafe windows due to being blocked off. b. the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was given for a personal or retaliatory reason.
If a breach or breaches are proven, the tenant applies for compensation. Background
The tenant is related to the landlord by marriage. [The landlord] was married to the tenant’s mother for more than 40 years. The tenant’s application says they separated recently.
The tenant has rented properties from the landlord for about 30 years.
The tenancy at this address started on 26 June 2020 at a rent of $250.00 per week. The tenant says there were problems with mould and ventilation from the start. She says she raised this at the three-monthly inspections with the landlord’s agent.
In July 2024, the tenant and [the landlord] came to an agreement that the tenant no longer needed to pay rent for a while. The parties say different things about the reason for this. During that time, the landlord gave the tenant a notice saying she must move out. The tenant applied to the Tribunal saying that the notice was not given for a valid reason and the parties attended a telephone hearing. A tribunal order records that both parties “decided to withdraw their applications and cooperate together with a view to continuing the tenancy”.
The parties did continue the tenancy and signed a new tenancy agreement starting from 1 November 2024 at a weekly rent of $350.00.
The tenant says the maintenance issues were unresolved at this point. On 31 December 2024, she sent a text to the landlord’s agent saying she was giving 14 days’ notice to fix mould issues.
On 3 January 2025, the tenant received a notice to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that substantial renovations or repair were required. She is concerned the real reason for the notice was because the landlord’s relationship with her mother had recently ended.
The tenant then made this application to the Tribunal.
She found a new place to live and gave her own notice to terminate the tenancy which ended the week before the case conference. What are a landlord’s obligations relating to maintenance and the Healthy Homes

Standards?

A landlord has maintenance and compliance obligations in section 45 RTA to:- a. provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; b. comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016; c. comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) including upgraded insulation requirements within 90 days of any new, or renewed, tenancy that commences on a date between 1 July 2021 and 27 August 2022 or within 120 days if the tenancy commences after 27 August 2022. 1
A landlord must comply with their legal obligations even if a tenant has knowledge of the condition of a property when they move in; s45(3) RTA.
A landlord will not usually be in breach of their maintenance obligations unless they have failed to investigate and repair after being alerted of the need to do so or where they should have reasonably done so. Was the landlord required to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards
The Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) are specific legal regulations for compliant heating in the main living area, ceiling and underfloor insulation, ventilation from windows and bathroom and kitchen extractor fans, draught stopping, an efficient drainage system and a moisture prevention barrier under the house.
This tenancy occurred during the time when the HHS and disclosure statements were being introduced.
The unit was not required to comply with the HHS during this tenancy because the tenancy started in June 2020 which is before the compliance date (the HHS apply to tenancies starting after 1 July 2021).
This means the landlord cannot have breached the HHS regulations. 1 Clause 2 of Schedule 1, Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
However, not having to comply with the HHS does not mean that premises can be poorly maintained.
The landlord provided a HHS compliance report dated 2 December 2020 and some of this is relevant:- a. The landlord was not required to, but did, install a heat pump in October 2021 which complied with the HHS. b. The unit is exempt from the insulation requirements because the ceiling is inaccessible (there is another unit above), and the floor is a concrete slab. An Insulation Certificate dated 13 December 2017 and photographs of the block of units supports the exemptions which are accurately disclosed in the tenancy agreement. c. The report records that the guttering, downpipes and drainage are working and in good condition. d. The report records a working extractor fan in the kitchen and bathroom. A new bathroom fan was installed in 2021. e. There are gaps around the two exterior doors caused by “warped timber and no seals”, causing draughts. Decisions on maintenance issues
The “age and character” of the unit is relevant in considering the obligation of a landlord to provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair. This is specifically stated in section 45(1)(b) RTA.
This is a downstairs unit in a two-storey block built in the late 1960s to early 1970s. The units appear to be constructed from concrete blocks on a concrete slab with single-glazed aluminium window frames and wooden exterior doors.
This unit has one bedroom, a kitchen and lounge, one bathroom and a laundry. At the time of the tenancy, the bathroom and kitchen fittings appear original with simple porcelain toilet and sink, stainless steel kitchen sink, formica bench and small wooden kitchen cupboards. The shower is a stainless steel tray with wall shower linings.
The ingoing property inspection report (dated 26 June 2020) records all rooms except the bathroom as being in “fair and reasonable” condition and notes the carpet, oven, curtains, and cupboards are “old”. The blinds and curtains and the oven are noted as being in “poor condition”.
There is mould noted as present in: a. Kitchen: “the ceiling is discoloured and there is mould on the ceiling above the window and back door”. b. Lounge: “a small bit of mould on the ceiling above the window”. c. Master bedroom: “there is very little mould on the ceiling”. d. Bathroom: the ceiling is “mouldy and discoloured” and in “poor condition”. The walls and doors are noted as “... bits of flaking and chipped paint in places” and “... mould on the inside of the bathroom door.” e. Laundry: there is chipped paint and “some mould on the ceiling above the window”.
The property manager conducted regular inspections about every three months. After the first hearing, I asked for and was supplied with photographs from the ingoing inspection and from one inspection report per year.
My summary of the inspection photographs from 2020 through to 2024 is that they show a basic concrete-block unit in below-average condition from the start of the tenancy.
The tenant says she battled mould throughout the tenancy commenting that the landlord owner at one point gave her four bottles of exit mould. She says she cleaned the bathroom ceiling weekly, if not more often.
My findings from the evidence are:- a. The bathroom/laundry was not provided in a reasonable state of repair at the start of the tenancy even considering that this is an older unit. The shower lining is lifting at the base and mouldy down the joins. The toilet cistern is mouldy and marked on the top and sides. There is embedded mould visible on walls and the ceiling. b. The kitchen blind was very mouldy and not in reasonable repair from the start. c. The rest of the unit was provided in reasonable condition but some areas marginally so. The oven is noted as in “poor” condition although there are no more details. The carpet in the lounge is stained and in the bedroom is in “poor” condition being marked, wrinkled, and coming away from the wall in places. I note that the kitchen ceiling is discoloured but is a “popcorn ceiling” surface (spray on bumpy texture) which can be difficult to maintain. d. The landlord failed to maintain the shower in a reasonable state of repair. It was in sub-standard condition at the start of the tenancy and the 2021 inspection report says the shower lining is “separating”. In the 2024 inspection report this is noted as needing attention. The tenant supplied a photo showing two fixings/screws were installed through the shower lining above where it is separating at about this time, presumably to secure the lining to the wall behind. The parties agree this was done by [the landlord]. I note that inserting fixings through what is intended to be a waterproof surface risks letting water in behind the wall which will cause mould and decay behind the shower. e. The condition of the premises does not markedly change over the tenancy except that wallpaper is noted as lifting in places in the lounge in 2024 and more extensive mould is discovered growing beneath it in one corner. I conclude that although the rest of the unit is “tired” and not in good condition (stained carpet, fading paint), the landlord has not breached its duty to maintain. f. The 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 inspection reports all include the same note about the exterior of the property. This is that attention is required because “the down pipe on the back of the building is leaking in a couple of places”. The agent asks (in the note) if she should arrange a plumber. Presumably this is directed to the landlord when/if he reads the inspection report. She also recommends the building be washed to remove mould and grime and notes flaking paint and putty on the back door. The fact that the same note appears four years in a row suggests a plumber was never arranged nor the other issues addressed. g. Gaps around back and front doors. This issue is not mentioned in inspection reports or other evidence. The landlord was not strictly required to comply with the HHS but to not remedy a gap in the front and back doors is poor. I do not find a failure to maintain but it shows a lack of attention and care for the tenant. h. An issue with two of the stove elements stopping working and a leak developing from the base of the toilet were remedied promptly when raised. i. The landlords’ photos taken after the tenancy had ended and when renovations were underway show some mould visible here and there where the wallpaper has been removed in the lounge. These do not reveal significant mould or damp although I notice there were no photos of the bathroom and laundry areas supplied. j. I dismiss the claim that windows were blocked, or locks did not work. The wooden inserts are acceptable and there is insufficient evidence locks did not work as they should.
The landlord has breached its maintenance obligations by failing to provide the bathroom, and the kitchen blind, in a reasonable state of repair at the start of the tenancy. The landlord failed to properly maintain the shower during the tenancy or to repair a leak from a downpipe.
[The tenant] said that she did not like to make a fuss and felt anxious about raising her concerns during the tenancy. She hoped that the property manager would take active steps to try and improve the standard of the unit and was disappointed when this did not happen. She agreed that she had not sent texts or emails and so therefore did not have a written record of asking for investigation of the mould issues or other repairs.
The problem with not being clear about maintenance concerns is that a landlord may not choose to be proactive. A situation can drag on for longer.
I have decided to award compensation taking into account the approximate amount of rent paid over the tenancy, calculated below. 2
In this context, I award 5% of the total rent paid which is $2,972.50. This recognises the loss of amenity, the time the tenant spent cleaning mould in the bathroom over five years, and discomfort and emotional upset at having these issues unattended to for so long. Termination notice for improper or discriminatory reasons
The tenant says the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was given for an improper or retaliatory reason.
The parties had entered into the new tenancy agreement on 1 November 2024.
On 31 December 2024, the tenant texted the landlord “14 day notice. Mould”.
The next day, a property manager texted back and two days later came to the premises and reviewed the mould with the tenant. That property manager was not at the hearing and has not given evidence.
[The landlord’s representative] explained that he had a conversation with the property manager that day and thought a “14-day notice” was something from the Tenancy Tribunal. He said he decided then that the tenancy would have to be terminated so that full renovation could be done. He explained that the next- door unit had recently been renovated and that there was a lot of work involved.
I accept the landlord’s evidence (including a supporting letter from a tradesperson) and explanation. The unit certainly did need renovating and to an extent that it could not be occupied while this was being done.
It is unfortunate that the new tenancy agreement had not long been signed when this decision was made but I am satisfied the reason for the notice was genuine. 2 I do not know whether rent was increased during the first part of the tenancy.
The tenant was concerned there were personal reasons as well. There was no evidence before me to support that.
This claim is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
The tenant has been partly successful in her application, so I award the filing fee and suppress her name.
I also suppress the landlord names because there is a family relationship between the tenant and the landlord and to identify one may identify the other. I am satisfied the landlord has now attended to maintenance.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5148793 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 3, 23 Wye Street, Frankton, Hamilton 3204

Tenancy Tribunal case 5148793 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 3, 23 Wye Street, Frankton, Hamilton 3204

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions