What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5214321 about?

The tribunal order states: All applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5214321?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5214321?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5214321?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11898513-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5214321 about?

The tribunal order states: All applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5214321?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5214321?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5214321?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11898513-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

103 Musson Drive, Waiheke Island, RD 1, Auckland 1971, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5214321 — Mould & damp

Order

All applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The hearing held on 3 April 2025 was to determine whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction. Following that hearing the Tribunal declared that the agreement between the parties is a periodic tenancy over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction.
The substantive hearing was held on 14 and 15 May 2025.
The tenant applied for a work order, a claim relating to the Healthy Homes standards, compensation and exemplary damages. In addition, the tenant sought further orders which will be discussed below.
The landlord applied for termination, compensation and exemplary damages. Background
The tenancy began on 26 February 2022.
The landlord drafted a document titled Imperial Estate term contract. The first contract was dated 21 February 2022, but that version does not appear to have been signed. It recorded that the contract was for seven days and may be renewed by agreement for up to 30 days.
A further contract dated 7 March 2022 was drafted and signed by the parties on the same day. That contract had the same terms as the earlier contract except that it was for 16 days and may be renewed by agreement for up to 30 days.
While the contract states Imperial Estate is a commercial property, and it was a commercial contract the relevant clauses for this decision are: a) The weekly payment of $600.00 is due every Monday to cover the following 7 days; b) Services included; Sky TV, power, gas, water and grounds; c) If either party chooses to terminate the contract, one weeks’ notice is required.
This was a situation where the parties appeared on very good terms and mostly had good relations and agreed on matters up until November 2024 when relations deteriorated considerably. The applications filed by the parties in the Tribunal were extensive and in my view were out of proportion with the situation. Termination
On 10 February 2025 the landlord served the tenant with a 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy pursuant to section 51(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The notice specified the date the tenant was to vacate the premises 1 on 25 May 2025.
At the conclusion of the hearing, it was confirmed that the notice was valid, and the tenant would need to comply with that notice. Tenant application
The tenant applied for various work orders.
As the tenancy was due to end ten days after the substantive hearing a work order was not required. The tenant’s application for a work order is dismissed.
The tenant applied for a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards. 1 Section 51(3)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
At the hearing the tenant referred to unsafe drinking water but that is not part of the Healthy Homes standards which concern heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping.
As there is no evidence of any breach of the Healthy Homes standards the tenant’s claim is dismissed.
The tenant applied for compensation for work carried out by his company ([The tenant/s] Pro) on the premises. In the submissions filed by the tenant it states that they invested a significant amount of funds into the maintenance and upkeep of the property and refrained from submitting these expenses due to concern that doing so may result in a rent increase or request to vacate.
At the hearing the tenant sought reimbursement for work carried out during the tenancy. The invoices submitted are from his company and while third parties were sometimes used to carry out some of the work those invoices were not submitted. The tenant explained that the reason for this was that some third parties had asked not to be involved in the Tribunal proceedings. Also, it seems that the tenant has in those circumstances added GST to the third-party invoices.
Section 45(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that the landlord shall – compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where – (i)The state of disrepair has arisen otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant and is likely to cause injury to persons or property or is otherwise serious and urgent; and (ii)The tenant has given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so;
The tenant referred to a claim for changing locks in 2021. That work was carried out before the tenancy commenced so cannot come within section 45(1)(d) because at that time the tenant was a contractor rather than a tenant. No evidence was produced for the work on the locks carried out after the tenancy commenced in March 2022 and in January 2024. That claim is dismissed.
There was a claim in respect of repairs to louvre windows. On the evidence it appears that this issue was a contractual one between the parties rather than a situation where the tenant had carried out repairs due to failure by the landlord to do so. That claim is dismissed.
The tenant referred to replacing a p trap to the value of $250.00. The evidence produced by the tenant is a message to the landlord with a picture of the waste pipe. The landlord replied, “All good, it looks like an easy replacement. Will be in touch in the next few days.”
The tenant did not refer to any evidence showing that the repair was likely to cause injury or was otherwise serious or urgent. That claim is dismissed.
The tenant claimed for replacement of gas bottles. He advised that he received a staff discount for the bottles, but no invoices were submitted.
The tenant produced communication relating to replacing the gas bottles from November 2022 and March 2023. In the 2022 communication the landlord asked for the tenant to send the invoice. In the March 2023 communication, the tenant advised that they have paid for the gas bottle and there was no suggestion of seeking reimbursement.
Given the evidence produced by the tenant I am unable to award compensation for the gas bottles where there was agreement that the tenant would pay and where the landlord requested the invoice, but it was not provided either in 2022 or for this hearing. The tenant’s claim for compensation for the gas bottles is dismissed.
The tenant’s invoice refers to general garden work around the premises. I could not locate any evidence to support the landlord being liable for this cost pursuant to section 45(1)(d). That claim is dismissed.
The tenant applied for exemplary damages against the landlord. Section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that a party may apply for exemplary damages against the other party on the grounds that that other party has committed an unlawful act. Section 109(2)(b) provides that a landlord or tenant may not apply later than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act.
The exemplary damages sought by the tenant in relation to the tenancy agreement relate to an unlawful act 12 months prior to the application filed in February 2025 as the tenancy commenced in 2022. Those claims are dismissed.
The tenant claimed exemplary damages for an unlawful act pursuant to section 23(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which states that a landlord shall not require the payment of any rent more than two weeks in advance. The tenant says that the landlord asked for the tenant to pay four weeks rent in advance.
The communication records produced show that on 1 October 2024 the landlord asked the tenant if they could pay the month’s rent (4 weeks) and they would give the fifth week rent free. This request appears to be because the landlord was experiencing cash flow issues. The landlord said that at the time they were trying to avoid a mortgagee sale which would have meant that both the landlord and the tenant would need to vacate the premises.
The tenant did not pay the four weeks rent sought.
At the hearing the landlord said that they did not know the law at the time and thought that the arrangement between the parties was a commercial arrangement.
While the landlord requested payment of rent 4 weeks in advance the payment was not made. Also, the landlord had no intent to commit an unlawful act and section 109(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that the Tribunal must be satisfied that the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally. It is my view that the landlord did not commit the unlawful act intentionally and therefore no exemplary damages are awarded. The claim is dismissed.
The tenant also referred to rent increases in October 2022 and December 2023. The tenant produced bank records showing that the increase was accepted and paid by the tenant. These increases were more than 14 months before the tenant applied to the Tribunal. There was also no evidence produced by the tenant to show that the increase was not agreed to.
The tenant claimed in respect of the landlord not providing rent receipts or rent summaries. Section 29(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that receipts are not required where payments are made paid by automatic payment from a bank account. In relation to the rent summary requested the landlord should have provided a rent summary when requested but at the time the landlord believed that they were operating under a commercial lease. I am not satisfied that this failure to provide a rent summary has had a significant impact on the tenants.
The tenant claimed that the earlier notices to terminate were retaliatory. There was communication between the parties in January 2024 where the landlord proposed 90 days’ notice to vacate which was accepted by the tenants. The tenants did not vacate and in November 2024 there was another proposal from the landlord that either the rent is increased, or the tenants are given 90 days’ notice to vacate.
The tenant claims that these notices were retaliatory. I am not satisfied that the notices were retaliatory but even if they were section 54(3) provides that the tenant’s application would need to be made within 28 working days after receiving the termination notice for the Tribunal to declare the notice to be of no effect. The application was not filed within 28 working days after receiving the notice to terminate so the tenant’s claim is dismissed.
In the application filed the tenant sought various orders, some of which the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make. This includes the order sought to require the landlords to provide the tenants with a written reference. That order cannot be made, and the claim is dismissed. Landlord application
The landlord applied for termination, compensation and exemplary damages.
The termination was sought on the basis that the tenant had been served with a notice to terminate the tenancy on 10 February 2025. The document served on the tenant stated that the landlord was required to give 90 days’ notice and that the last day will be Sunday 25 May 2025.
The notice was given pursuant to section 51(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which became law on 30 January 2025 pursuant to section 26(1) of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024. The law prior to 30 January 2025 required that the landlord provide a reason to terminate the tenancy.
At the hearing I advised the parties that the notice complied with section 51(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and therefore the tenancy should terminate on 25 May 2025.
The tenant had submitted that there were no grounds to terminate the tenancy but as stated above no grounds or reason are required when the notice is pursuant to section 51(1) of the Act.
The landlord claims compensation for power, gas and water on the basis that the costs were included when it was the parties understanding that this was an Air BNB type arrangement, rather than a residential tenancy. The landlord states that the rate paid by the tenants is far lower than comparative accommodation options on Waiheke Island.
As stated above, the terms of the contract at the start of the tenancy included Sky TV, power, gas, water and grounds in the weekly rate. Those terms were not changed during the tenancy. As they were agreed terms in the beginning they continue to apply unless there is a further agreement between the parties.
The landlord’s claim to charge for power, gas and water is dismissed.
The landlord claims for costs to carry out repair due to damage. The landlord did not refer to any particular damage needing repair. At the time of the substantive hearing the tenant remained living in the premises. If necessary, the landlord may file a further application after the tenancy ends for any damage caused during the tenancy. The landlord’s claim for compensation due to repairs is dismissed.
The landlord applied for compensation due to loss of income. There is no evidence to support such a claim and it is dismissed.
Under the exemplary damages heading the landlord sought compensation for the tenant falsely accusing the landlord of derogatory behaviour. This seems to be in relation to the application for damage due to defamation. Such a claim is not within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal and is therefore dismissed.
As neither party has wholly or substantially succeeded with their claims I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason the parties’ names are not suppressed even though such an order was sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5214321 — Mould & damp at 103 Musson Drive, Waiheke Island, RD 1, Auckland 1971,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5214321 — Mould & damp at 103 Musson Drive, Waiheke Island, RD 1, Auckland 1971,

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