What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5210551 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 5210551?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5210551?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5210551?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12923753-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5210551 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 5210551?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5210551?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5210551?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12923753-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5210551 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 12 December 2025.

The landlord Kainga Ora (“KO”) was represented by Ms. Perese.

The tenant was represented by [The tenant’s representative].

I record that the parties both agreed that the tenancy had ended. The tenant said that the end date of the tenancy was 25 May 2025 and the landlord indicated that the end date was 18 November 2025. Background to hearing.

This matter has a long history before the Tribunal. The following is a brief summary of the history of this matter with the Tribunal. Jurisdiction issue claims

A directions conference was held. The Tribunal made the following orders on 3 July 2025. • The matter was scheduled for a face-to-face hearing in the [Event location suppressed]. • The landlord was to file and serve any further submissions and evidence by Friday 18 July 2025. • Any further relevant evidence obtained by the tenant was to be filed and served at least one week before the hearing date. • If either party intended to produce audio or visual evidence, they must file electronic copies in line with the timetabling referred to above.

The Tribunal made the following comments with regards to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to consider some of the tenant’s claims and the claims that would be considered at the subsequent hearing. “4.The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine, in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), any dispute that exists between a landlord and a tenant which relates to any tenancy to with the RTA applies.(S.77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

The determinations and orders that the Tribunal may make are set out at ss77(2) and 78 of the RTA.

As stated at the case conference, there is no jurisdictional basis for the tenant’s claims seeking the following: a. An order that Kāinga Ora urgently relocate the tenant and her children to a new tenancy; b. Alternatively, an order that Kāinga Ora relocate the tenant to emergency housing; c. An order that Kāinga Ora support the tenant’s children in their enrolment with the online learning platform, Te Kura.

The tenant was unable to identify the jurisdictional basis for the Tribunal to make such orders.

However, as the tenant was not on-notice of the jurisdictional issue I raised at the case conference, I will permit the tenant to address me at the hearing if the tenant maintains the Tribunal has a statutory (within the RTA) basis for the claims. The tenant’s claims – where issues of jurisdiction do not arise

The tenant’s remaining claims were discussed and clarified as the following: a. Termination: the tenant seeks termination of the tenancy but only if another suitable tenancy is made available to the tenant. No statutory basis for an order for termination was identified by the tenant. b. Compensation of $100,000 for the following breaches of the RTA: i. Section 45(1)(b): failure to maintain. The tenant says the property had significant mould issues. ii. Section 45(1)(bb): Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). The tenant says the landlord breached all of the HHS:

Heating standard;

Insulation standard;

Ventilation standard;

Moisture ingress and drainage; and

Draught stopping standard. iii. Section 38(1): Quiet enjoyment. The tenant says the landlord has subjected the tenant to systematic discrimination. iv. Section 45(1)(e): Other tenants interference with reasonable peace, comfort or privacy. The tenant says the landlord has not taken reasonable steps following harassment from the tenant’s neighbours [Neighbour 1] and [Neighbour 2], including an assault on the tenant by [Neighbour 1] on 26 May 2025. v. Section 12: Discrimination in respect of the grant, continuance, extension, variation, termination or renewal of a tenancy agreement. The tenant says Kāinga Ora have not taken into account the tenant’s mental health, her son’s disability, or her religious views in relation to their offers of alternative accommodation. c. Reimbursement of the application fee. d. Suppression of the tenant’s names, her children and her representative.

The tenant confirmed they do not seek an order for retaliatory notice under s.54(2). No relevant notice has been issued by the landlord.

The matter was to have been called before the Tribunal on 19 August 2025. The tenant applied for an adjournment. That application which was granted. The adjournment order dated 18 August 2025 was made for reasons of a family bereavement. The tenant’s application to have the matter adjourned as a result of what the tenant said was a failure by KO to comply with a disclosure request was dismissed. The parties were reminded in that order that the matters to be considered at the subsequent hearing were those set out in the order dated 3 July 2025.

The matter was set down to be heard on 9 October 2025. That hearing did not proceed. The Tribunal’s adjournment order included the following statement “As per my directions 3 July 2025, all evidence and submissions have been filed by both parties. The only exception being to allow KO to file a compete and paginated copy of the landlord’s submissions and evidence dated 24 July 2025.

At the commencement of this hearing [The tenant’s representative] sought to have further evidence admitted. The evidence was received by the Tribunal on the date of the hearing. I was not prepared to accept the evidence. Clear directions on the filing of evidence had been provided by the Tribunal to the parties . A thorough and well prepared “Brief of Evidence” on behalf of the tenant had already been filed along with full written submissions. That brief and those submissions were relied upon by the tenant during the course of the hearing.

At the commencement of the hearing, I made it clear to the parties that only the issues referred to in the directions order dated 3 July 2025 would be considered at the hearing. This order reflects that direction. Matters raised by the tenant which do not address the claims referred to in the original direction orders have not been considered.

The tenant raised as a preliminary matter, concerns relating to the failure of KO to release certain documents relating to the tenancy. The tenant said that KO had failed to release documents to them. There is no requirement for the parties to an application before the Tribunal to provide discovery of documents that they hold. The District Court has confirmed in the past that all that is required is that the other party be aware of the general nature of the claim. Issues in relation to requests for information under the Privacy Act 1993 are not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Law

The relevant law applying to this matter is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant (in this case the tenant), establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely than not. This obligation carried by the tenant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke (DC) TT 233/02, in practical terms this means that; “Like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the tribunal to extract evidence.”

The parties provided extensive documentation to the Tribunal. Not all of that evidence is referred to in this decision; however, the parties are assured that all evidence has been considered. Jurisdiction

At the commencement of the hearing I raised the question of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to consider the tenant’s claims for; • An order that KO ungently relocate the tenant and her children to a new tenancy. • Alternatively, an order that KPO relocate the tenant to emergency housing. • An order that KO support the tenant’s children in their enrolment with the online learning platform” Te Kura”.

The previous adjudicator considering this claim had given a preliminary view (with which I concur) that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to make the orders sought by the tenant. The tenant had been advised by the Tribunal that they would be given an opportunity to make submissions in support of those applications at the commencement of the hearing, if they should so wish. When I queried this matter with [The tenant’s representative], he indicated that he would not be pursuing those claims. Failure to Maintain

The premises are a relatively modern 2 level building. The tenancy commenced on 2 August 2023. The tenant lived at the premises with her five children.

The tenant’s evidence was that almost immediately upon moving into the premises serious issues a rose with the families wellbeing. The tenant said that the house suffered from extensive black mould and dampness. The ventilation was faulty and premises were structurally unsafe. The children developed chronic coughs, skin rashes and asthma-like symptoms. The tenant provided photos of the premises which she says shows mould. The tenant says that they repeatedly raised the issue with KO but that no effective remediation was completed.

A contractor attended in November and the mould was removed, but it grew back within weeks, indicating that the underlying dampness issue was not fixed. The tenant said that the mould grew upstairs and downstairs on and around the windows.

The landlord said that the premises was a new build acquired in 2022. The property was in a very good condition when the tenant moved in. While there had been work completed at the property since the tenant moved in, there had been no concerns raised by the tenant about mould until this application was filed with the Tribunal. The landlord’s records show that a plumbing issue was raised on the 8 September 2023. The concerns were with a shower drain becoming blocked and a kitchen pipe under the sink leaking. This was remedied on 19 September 2023, when contractors unblocked the shower pipe and tightened the pipe in the kitchen.

In response to the tenant’s claim that there was a mould issue, the landlord said that they had no records of any jobs directly relating to the investigation of mould or any leaks or concerns that would result in mould.

KO completed inspections yearly and one further inspection by an external contractor who completes a healthy and health and safety inspection. The health and safety inspection was completed in April 2024. Further inspections were unable to be conducted in September 2024 as the tenant declined access .

Following the health and safety inspection completed in April 2024, there was no indication of mould at the property. No concerns were raised by the tenant around mould at that time which would have required KO to investigate further. 25 The landlord refers to the evidence provided by the tenant. The letter from the tenants doctor dated 2 July is not directly related to concerns around mould and the health impact that this may have had on the tenant’s children. The first letters from the Doctor are dated prior to the commencement of the tenancy.

KO says that none of the photos show as discernible mould on blankets, sheets, curtains or other belongings.

Both the terms of the relevant tenancy agreement and s.45 RTA require a landlord to provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair. The landlord's obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. A landlord must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair is brought to their attention. Repairs must be completed within a reasonable time.

I consider that the following evidence is of significance in deciding this matter; o The tenant has been unable to provide any written evidence showing the issue of mould being brought to the attention of the landlord. o The photos provided by the tenant show some mould on a windowsill. The photos of the blankets, sheets, curtains do not provide any discernible evidence of mould. o Correspondence from the tenant’s doctor does not directly connect health issues with the presence of mould. o The health and safety inspection carried out by the independent contractor in April 2024 does not refer to the presence of mould.

The burden of proving the claim is with the tenant. The tribunal must review the evidence provided by the parties, including documentary evidence, to decide whether the evidence shows that the claim is more likely than not to be correct. As previously noted in Kaipo’s case (supra ) “it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the tribunal to extract evidence.”

I do not consider that the tenant has provided sufficient probative evidence to reach that standard required and the claim is dismissed. Did the landlord fail to comply with their obligations under the Healthy Homes

Standards?

The RTA requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”). The HHS provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in relation to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage.

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. KO tenancies were required to comply by 1 July 2024.

The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more “qualifying heaters” with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purposes of the HHS. The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An online calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of capacity is required for any particular premises. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

The insulation standard requires the premises have qualifying insulation in the ceiling cavity, in the floor, if the floor is a suspended floor. To be considered a qualifying insulation, the insulation must meet a minimum R value. That value varies depending on the area that the premises fall within New Zealand. The HHS does provide an exemption to the requirement for insulation in specific circumstances, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or the floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.

The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that can be opened. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have an extractor fan installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

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 occur. The HHS Does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain stormwater, surface water and groundwater, and that includes gutters, down pipes and drains. The standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed sub floor space. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. Heating

The tenant’s evidence in respect of this matter was unclear. The tenant said that there was a heater on the ground floor in the lounge. There was also an electric heater upstairs. The tenant was not sure what type of heater had been installed on the ground floor. They thought it may have been a heat pump but were not sure of the Kw level for the heater. The tenant said that the heaters did not provide sufficient heat and that they were expensive to operate.

The landlord’s evidence was that they had complied with the healthy home standards for heating prior to the deadline. The landlord had installed a heat pump in the living room with a heating capacity of 7.1 kw. The health and safety property inspection completed on 1 August 2023 shows that the heat pump was present before the tenant moved into the premises.

The burden of proving the claim is on the tenant. The tenant has not provided any evidence on which the Tribunal can rely. The tenant’s evidence is insufficient to meet that burden. The claim is dismissed. Insulation.

The tenant’s evidence was that the premises were not fully insulated. The tenant says that there was a hole in a wall downstairs by the staircase, and that no insulation that could be seen through the hole.

The HHS require insulation in the ceiling and underfloor (with some exceptions). There is no obligation on the landlord to insulate walls. No claim is made by the tenant regarding any deficiency in the ceiling and underfloor insulation .The claim is dismissed. Ventilation

The tenant’s evidence was that there was one extractor fan for the bathroom and one extractor fan in the kitchen. The tenant said that the extractor fan in the kitchen worked but was not sure about the extractor fan in the bathroom. They could hear the extractor fan operating but were not sure how efficiently it operated in the bathroom. The tenant said that the ventilation was insufficient to prevent mould.

The landlord’s evidence was that the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom had a diameter of 150mm and as such were HHS compliant. No complaints were received about the operation of the extractor fans from the tenant. Nothing had been raised by the health and safety inspection report to suggest that there was an issue with the extractor fans.

The burden of proving the claim is on the tenant. Insufficient evidence has been provided by the tenant. The claim is dismissed. Moisture ingress and drainage

The tenant says that there was a continuous leak in the upstairs shower. A contractor was called to carry out repairs. The contractor was also to complete repairs for the drain. The contractor said that he would need to return to remove the shower floor.

The landlord said that their records show a plumbing job being raised on 8 September 2023. There were concerns with the shower drain being blocked and a kitchen pipe under the sink was leaking. The contractor attended on 19 September 2023 and unblocked the shower pipe and tightened the pipe in the kitchen. No further issue was raised by the tenant with regards to this matter. I consider that the time taken to attend to the repair by the landlord is reasonable.

The burden of proof in proving the claim is on the tenant. I do not consider that the tenant has provided sufficient evidence to satisfy that burden. The claim is dismissed. Draughts

The tenant’s evidence was that the windows have small holes on each side. It was explained that these were part of the window construction. No issue was raised in the health and safety report. The claim is dismissed. Breach of quiet enjoyment.

Section 38 RTA provides that a tenant is entitled to the quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord. A breach of that section in circumstances which amount to harassment, is an unlawful act.

The tenant said that the landlord has breached this obligation by failing to address the harassment and threats from the tenants neighbours (who are also KO tenants). The tenant explained that her neighbours had picked on both the tenant, her mother and her children. This included verbal abuse of the children. On one occasion the neighbour threw a punch at the tenant’s partner. An altercation ensued. The police were called. The tenant’s partner was arrested but charges were later dropped. The tenant said that she explained the background to KO but that no steps were taken

On 25 May 2025 a further incident took place between the tenant and her neighbours. A fight broke out. The police were called. No charges were laid.

The tenant says that once the landlord was advised of the concerns it became incumbent upon the landlord to take action by way of issuing breach notices or relocating one of the parties. KO’s failure to do so amounts to a loss of quiet enjoyment of the tenants home. The tenant says she has lived in constant fear as distinct from living peacefully.

Section 38 RTA refers to the tenants quiet enjoyment being interrupted by the landlord or any person claiming by, through or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. Section 38(2) RTA provides that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant and the use of the premises by the tenant.

The tenant’s claim against the landlord does not relate to anything that the landlord has done or that any person claiming by through or under the landlord has done. The landlord has not caused or permitted any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant and the use of the premises. For those reasons the claim under section 38 RTA is dismissed.

More appropriate in these circumstances, is a consideration of whether the landlord has breached its obligation under s.45(1)(e) RTA, by failing to take any steps to address the tenant’s ongoing concerns . Section 45(1)(e) RTA requires a landlord to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlords other tenants cause or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant and the use of the premises.

KO accepts that the tenant made contact on 30 May 2025 to report the incident and to request an urgent transfer. On 12 June 2025, a KO Team Leader contacted the tenant to discuss her transfer request. On 25 June 2025, KO contacted the police to obtain confirmation of the events that occurred. The police provided a breakdown of those events.

On 7 July 2025 KO emailed the tenant seeking a meeting on 11 July 2025 to discuss the incident. The tenant responded the same day declining to attend the meeting in person. On 11 July 2025 KO spoke to the tenant by telephone to discuss the incident and her version of events. A discussion was held about the process to deal with disruptive behaviour. They also spoke about the possible transfer to different premises in an area that the tenant might like to move to.

On 17 July 2025 KO confirmed to the tenant that they had concluded their investigation into the incident. As a result of the information received from the police, conversations with the tenant and the neighbour, both the tenant and the neighbour were issued with anti-social behaviour notices under s.55A RTA.

KO say that they investigated the incident and took all reasonable steps to respond to the tenant’s complaint.

Has the tenant proven that it was more likely than not that the landlord has failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants caused an interference with the tenants reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in the use of the premises?

Having received the complaint from the tenant the landlord must be entitled to investigate the complaint before taking any steps. The landlord has conducted an investigation. Section 55A RTA allows the landlord to issue anti-social behaviour notices. Where such notices are issued on three separate occasions within a 90-day period, the landlord may apply to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy. In my view the landlord has acted appropriately and has taken all reasonable steps as is required by S.45(1)(e) RTA. The claim is dismissed. Discrimination.

Section 12 RTA provides that it will be an unlawful act to discriminate against any person in respect of the grant, continuance, extension, variation, termination, or renewal of a tenancy agreement in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993. A claim of discrimination must be based on the prohibited grounds of discrimination set out at section 21(1) of the Human Rights Act. Those grounds include colour, race, ethnic or national origin, disability and family status. Each of the grounds is also a prohibited ground of discrimination if it pertains to a person or to a relative or associate of a person.

The tendency she was subject to indirect discrimination on the grounds of disability and family status . They believe that the tenant was subject to industry indirect discrimination on the ground of disability (her mental health condition, and her sons autistic condition) and her family status (having young children).

The tenant says that KO did not respond to the concerns raised by her in the manner that they may have for other tenants. The tenant raises as an example the failure by KO to urgently attend to concerns about her disability and the children's health or her requests to be transferred to alternative accommodation. The tenant suggests that there was a pattern of their concerns being downplayed by KO.

The tenant says that KO has acted in a discriminatory manner in failing to take into account the tenant’s religious views and her wish to home school her children in the provision of accommodation. The tenant says that her children’s specific needs are such that only premises that are fully fenced and have an area within the house suitable for home schooling would be suitable.

The landlord’s evidence was that; “48.Kāinga Ora has been working with [The tenant/s] since the beginning of her tenancy to find a property that suits her child’s needs.

Prior to moving into the property, Kāinga Ora offered [Tenancy address suppressed] based on her needs at the time, which was a four-bedroom property.

We made it clear to [The tenant/s] that any further modifications to the property would require an Occupational Therapist recommendation. An Occupational Therapist would assess the property against the child’s needs. Once assessed, the Occupational Therapist would recommend what modifications are appropriate to meet [The tenant/s] child’s needs or if a transfer is required.

We advised [The tenant/s] before moving into the property of the need for an Occupational Therapist report, otherwise the properties offered would be based on her current housing need. At the time the property was offered, we had only received a letter from [The tenant/s] GP requesting to allow [The tenant/s] mother to stay in New Zealand to help care for her child.

On 01 August 2023, [The tenant/s] accepted [Tenancy address suppressed] after viewing the property and the tenant started on 02 August 2023.

After moving into the property, Kāinga Ora advised [The tenant/s] again that any modifications to the property required an Occupational Therapist report. As no response or reports were received, Kāinga Ora commissioned their own Occupational Therapist to visit and assess the property.

The Occupational Therapist visited the property on 15 February 2024 and a copy of their report is attached to this submission.

The recommendation from the Occupational Therapist was to build a fence around the front of the property. However, due to the composition of the duplex as well as [The tenant/s] request to move after talking with the Occupational Therapist, the decision was made to find an alternative property for [The tenant/s].

The Occupational Therapist report advised that [The tenant/s] required a property with a high fence with a secure backyard to prevent her child from escaping and her child required their own room. With the layout of the property Kāinga Ora decided that a fence around the front was not a long term solution and to relocate [The tenant/s] and her family to a more suitable home”. Based on the report, Kāinga Ora offered four properties to the tenant for consideration:

In summary, Kāinga Ora have offered [The tenant/s] multiple suitable properties based on her and her children’s needs outlined in the Occupational Therapist report.

Kāinga Ora have done our best to accommodate and offer properties that meet [The tenant/s] families assessed needs. As a social housing landlord, we must consider the high demand for housing and the limited properties available for not only [The tenant/s], but other families on the housing waitlist.

Based on the numerous offers made to [The tenant/s] to date, Kāinga Ora do not accept that we have discriminated against [The tenant/s] when offering these properties and strongly refute this claim.

The tenant has specific needs relating to her health and the health of her children. The tenant considers that KO has a particular responsibility to put in place special arrangements to cater for those needs. She sees that KO has failed to provide those arrangements. KO has no such special obligation to the tenant, either under the RTA or her tenancy agreement. KO is a landlord. It is not a wraparound social services provider. It is required to comply with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and the RTA. It has no statutory obligation to go further, even for tenants who have complex needs.

The tenant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to indicate that the landlord has acted in a discriminatory manner. KO’s evidence was that they had done their best to address the particular needs of the tenant although they do not consider that they are under any obligation to provide premises with an extra room suitable for the tenant’s home-schooling needs. In this matter, I prefer the evidence of the landlord and the claim is dismissed.

As the tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter, no order for reimbursement of the filing fee is made. The tenant seeks costs. No order for costs is made (see s.102(2)(b) RTA).

The tenant seeks name suppression. I am minded to grant the order given the medical issues raised during the course of the hearing. There is no public interest in the identity of the tenant, nor her representative. Suppression of the tenant’s and her representative’s names and details is ordered.

Reasons