What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5220014 about?

The tribunal order states: The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Julia and Garry Talijancich must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5220014?

The reconciled net award was $527.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5220014?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5220014?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12957765-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5220014 about?

The tribunal order states: The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Julia and Garry Talijancich must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5220014?

The reconciled net award was $527.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5220014?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5220014?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12957765-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

65 The Cliffs, Britannia Heights, Nelson 7010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5220014 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5220014 — net $527.00 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$527.00

Both parties attended the hearings. Georgina Lupton from the Rent Shop represented the landlord.

The tenant sought orders for compensation and exemplary damages.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Background

A prior tenant application (5127110 submitted on 23 January 2025) sought a release from the fixed-term and compensation of $769.58 for issues with the property. A release was subsequently mutually agreed, and the tenancy ended 20 February 2025. In that application the tenant noted, “The relationship with Rent Shop has deteriorated to such an extent causing distress and occupying an unreasonable amount of time and is beyond repair.” She also stated her view that the premises were overpriced and another tenant would not be found. The “amount and prolonged nature of the maintenance issues” were cited as creating a challenging living environment”.

The tenancy weekly rent for was reduced from $950.00 as proposed to $900.00 by negotiation after the tenant raised some issues. The tenant claims Healthy Homes Statement

The Healthy Homes Statement provided by the Rent Shop claimed the premises was HHS compliant.

The detailed report (by LCR) relied upon from was from June 2023. That report identified a number of fixes required to be compliant.

A section of that report is copied below.

The draughtproofing required in the report included the laundry door, master bedroom door, front door and bedroom. The internal hallway door required a draught excluder as the garage door was allowing a permanent draught into the premises.

The agent chased up the landlord in July 2024 about the status of the ground vapour barrier (the owner stated it had been laid using their own resources).

No other evidence by way of communication, invoices or other evidence confirms remediation of the other issues from 2023 although the tenant raised blue tape installed in some windows that had a possible intended application in draughtproofing those areas, suggesting further attention by the landlord.

Ms Lupton responded in her submission that the property complies with Healthy Homes Standards in relation to draught proofing and no breaches have been identified. What was silent in that response was how full compliance on all failures was achieved since the related failure or breach was first raised in the LCR report.

The tenant submitted that: “When I requested the full Healthy Homes Assessment Report on Tuesday 17 December, the Healthy Homes Statement from the property manager, is completely different to the version I received when I moved in. The new one was updated with details of insulation now but with the same date.” I am wondering why we have different versions and if the second one was updated and changed only when I started to ask for the Healthy Home Assessment Report.”

On 17 December 2025 the tenant asked the agent to “provide me with the full Healthy Homes Assessment completed by LCR”.

The response when received the next day came from the general manager at that time, Michelle Ouellette. It stated:

An email response from the tenant noted her “serious concern that this house I am renting is not fully healthy home compliant. I understand, from seeking advice again from Tenancy Services, that the Healthy Homes Statement is completed by someone in your organisation and is not representative of the full report submitted in this case by LCR for the property.”

It further noted, “I am wanting to read the full report for my own peace of mind / health and if, as you suggest in your email below, it is fully compliant, I will be able to alleviate that concern for myself.”

Ms Ouellette followed up with a further email:

Was the tenant entitled to the full HHS Report?

Section 13A(1A) requires landlords to include a statement in the tenancy agreement about the property’s current level of compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards.

Under section 45, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request. Tenants are entitled to request and receive all documents or records relating to HHS compliance—this includes the full HHS assessment report, not just a summary or one-page statement.

Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord clearly failed to provide the HHS Report as rightfully requested. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

In this instance, the unlawful act had a real impact on the tenant who made it clear why she wanted it. The report itself once provided confirms valid reasons to question the accuracy of the initial Rent Shop Statement.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I consider it is appropriate to award exemplary damages. I must consider the obfuscation of the landlord was intentional. I do not accept that an experienced property management company such as the Rent Shop, and an experienced senior manager of it, can rely on claimed advice from Tenancy Services that there is no compulsion, when the statutory requirement is clearly stated.

Any lack of remediation evidenced since the report (with the exception of the ground barrier arranged by the owners with the agent unaware until queried, and some attempts at draughtproofing that are disputed by the tenant as to effectiveness) could have been addressed or tenant concerns allayed by the provision of the report and advice of subsequent remediation.

I award $500.00 exemplary damages. This is 2/3rds of the maximum amount that may be awarded for such an unlawful act, reflecting the seriousness of the failure. This amount does factor the late-stage tenancy request from the tenant for the report, a curious delay given the cited HHS issues in the application (as well as an absence of this issue in the first tenant application).

Some tenant scepticism regarding the later compliance statement regarding insulation, sourced over six months after the tenancy ended, is understandable in the circumstances. Failure to maintain s 45

It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.

Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects. A landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.

The tenant claims that the landlord failed to remedy several repair issues within a reasonable timeframe. She claimed for a rental that was “priced and pitched as an executive rental, the property is sub-par with significant numbers of issues that require maintenance. The Rent Shop have been very unresponsive, and issues take a lot of reminding and follow up to get the most basic of action. The state of the home, the security and safety issues are causing myself and my daughter significant stress and lack of sleep.”

I consider each issue in turn. Bathroom plug/power socket

The tenant claimed a problem with the power socket was advised via email on 30 July 2024 and that while notified on 14 August 2024 that a contractor would be in touch it was not fixed until 2 October 2024. The bathroom plug was the subject of a work order for an electrician to attend. Ensuite shower head

Also on 30 July 2024, the tenant advised the landlord of a problem with the shower. On 16 August the landlord notified the tenant the contractor would be in touch, and they attended shortly afterwards on 19 August. The tenant claims the contractor advised her the hose required replacing. Nothing eventuated and the tenant chased up on 13 October and eventually replaced it herself on 15 November. Power in main bedroom does not charge phone

There was a failure to charge a phone from one plug. This was not proven as a landlord maintenance issue. Tap washers

The tenant claimed she advised the agent on 5 September 2024 that the two taps were leaking. This was followed up on 30 September and again on 13 October.

A contractor attended 14 October 2024 and replaced one washer and the kitchen tap. The landlord believed this resolved the matter but the tenant claims the kitchen tap was still leaking. Toilet Seat and leaking cistern

The tenant claims she advised the agent on 30 September 2024 of the problem. She followed up on 2 October 2024 and was advised a work order had been sent.

After a tradesperson visit the tenant reminded the agent the seat remained an issue and while the agent considered the cistern fixed, the tenant emailed on 14 October stating it was still a problem.)

On 18 Oct 2024 the tenant emailed again to get an ETA from Dabney Plumbers

The tenant claims the toilet stopped working in November and a breach notice was served 24 December 2024. A new toilet was installed on 14 January 2025. Towel rail

The tenant claims she advised the agent on 7 October 2024 that the rail had come off the wall. She followed up on 13 October 2024 to remind the agent the electrics were considered unsafe. A work order was raised on 22 November 2024 but the tenant arranged a repair herself prior, advising the agent on 5 December 2024 of this. Washing line

The tenant claims she advised the agent on 13 October 2024 that the washing line needed repair. The agent advised on 18 October 2024 that a work order was raised and the problem was resolved on 24 October 2024. External doors – not locking or closing properly

The tenant claims she advised the agent on 30 September 2024. By 13 October the doors could be closed but locks were not. On 18 October 2024 the agent confirmed a work order and by 24 October 2024 the locks had been fixed or replaced. Kitchen window

The tenant claims she advised the agent on 7 October 2024 that the kitchen window slider would not lock, being a safety concern. On 18 October the agent confirmed it was with their contractor for action. It was fixed by 24 October. Dining room and laundry door external door

The tenant advised the agent on 30 September the dining room and laundry door external door would not open or shut. This was resolved by 16 October 2024. Lounge lights

The tenant had some concerns about the lounge lights (flicking) and on 5 September she texted and asked for an electrical safety certificate. This was followed up on 13 September and the agent responded 30 September, their contractor attended on 3 October 2024 but the tenant believes the advice from the contractor was that the lightbulbs should be replaced as they were the wrong type. This was raised in an email to the agent on 14 October 2024 but never resolved to the tenant’s satisfaction. The tenant wanted to see electrical certification as she had concerns regarding the electrical supply at the premises. An electrical compliance/safety certificate was never supplied.

There were a number of electrical related issues raised by the tenant. While the tenant claimed safety concerns due to some, the evidence does not support such elevated concerns and I do not find the landlord to have failed such that any compensation should be ordered here. Tree pruning

The tenant believed overgrown shrubs/trees, a dead tree in particular, was contributing to a rodent problem. This was notified to the agent on 25 November 2025 and the agent advised the next day that the owner had been notified. It remained “as is” until the tenancy ended.

There is insufficient evidence of any need to prune the trees, nor that rodents were using any tree as access. Rodents

The aforementioned rodent problem was advised via email on 9 December 2024 by the tenant. She logged the same in the agent’s online system, TAPI, as urgent.

The tenant provided written statements from two others who reported ceiling noise from what they believe were rodents while staying at the premises.

These requests were not responded to and on 13 December 2024 the tenant emailed again, noting no response to date. She stated the agent disagreed and “suggested the noise was from noisy pipes”. The agent responded the landlord’s handyman had looked for sign of rodent activity that same day and found nothing related.

The tenant claims she engaged a pest control company on 22 December 2024 and the report confirmed rodent activity. On 7 January 2025 the report was sent to the agent, according to the tenant. The origin of this report was disputed as the agent claims the cost was incurred by the landlord. The invoice provided was to the tenant in her name. Regardless, the agent advised that same day the report had been sent to the owner.

The report included the following: Tenant Concern: Noises suspected to be caused by rodents between the two levels of the property. Inspection Summary: We conducted a rodent inspection of the property based on concerns raised by the tenant regarding noises between the two levels. Below are the key findings. Underneath Sinks: We inspected all sink areas and did not find any rodent droppings or other signs of activity. Staircase Area: We found some rat droppings underneath the staircase. Please refer to the attached photo for reference (Unable to determine if droppings are from previous rodent issues at the property or more current) Garage Area: Meshing was observed around the roofline, which appears to be installed to prevent rodent access. A large rodent bait station was located at the southeast corner of the patio area but was found empty. Laundry Cupboard: Rodent bait was found in the laundry cupboard, indicating previous rodent activity in the property. Property Environment: The property is very bushy, providing an ideal habitat for rodents. Additionally, several trees are in contact with the gutters, giving rodents easy access to the roof. Recommendations: Rodent preventative baiting is recommended to prevent further issues. Re-establish Baiting: Set up additional rodent bait stations outside the house, under the staircase, and in the office ceiling. For the office ceiling, we recommend removing one of the downlights, placing bait inside, and then reattaching the light. This will likely require several more bait stations to be set up. Tree Maintenance: Trim any trees that are touching the gutters to prevent easy access to the roof for rodents. Additional Notes: The property’s location in a bushy area makes it a perfect habitat for rodents, and it’s not uncommon to encounter such issues in this part of Nelson. We regularly carry out rodent control work in this area, so we are familiar with the local conditions.

The owner approved a pest controller to attend and on 17 January 2025 numerous bait stations were installed and monitored. No tree maintenance was carried out.

Of all maintenance issues raised, the rodent one was the most distressing issue for the tenant. She wrote in one submission: “There was ongoing disbelief regarding substantial rodent activity in the first-floor sub floor. My property manager and the General Manager have dismissed my concerns as “noisy pipes.” It was only after I paid for an independent assessment that I received confirmation of rodent activity from Jae’s Pest Control, and subsequently had a contractor finally install 50 bait stations on 17th January 2025. The assessment proves that there is rodent activity and given my fear of rats and the impact on my own and my daughters wellbeing, it was only due to taking this into my own hands that it was attended to.”

The tenancy commenced 24 July 2024 but the rodent issue was not raised until December 2024. Prior to then the tenant was actively raising and pursuing other issues. For example, on 13 October 2024 an email from the tenant to the agent raises as outstanding issues the toilet seat), towel rail), shower), leaking taps, deck boards, Lounge lights, door locks, kitchen window slide, dishwasher, and washing line. It is silent on any rodent issue.

The pest controller report does not indicate a significant rodent problem and the time lapse from commencement of the tenancy to the reporting of what was a described as a sensitive and significant issue for the tenant appears to indicate any issue arose during the tenancy rather than pre-existed; the historic bait traps notwithstanding. Dishwasher

First raised on 7 October 2024, an error message and “whirring noise” were reported by the tenant. This was followed up on 13 October 2024 as the tenant considered it still unusable. On 22 November 2024 the issue was logged in TAPI.

On 5 December 2024 the contractor (handyman) attended. On 13 December 2024 the tenant claimed the contractor had said there was a bent propellor in the bottom drawer, stating this in TAPI. The landlord declined the job in TAPI, stating the issue was due to broken glass. The issue remains unresolved as far as the tenant is concerned. Master bedroom deck

The tenant advised the landlord on 13 October 2024 that deck boards were lifting, noting it as an ongoing issue since the start of the tenancy.

A call to the agent on 16 December 2024 was made to remind them of the issue.

On 24 December 2024 the issue was logged in TAPI and a job was raised on 9 January 2025 with the board replaced on 15 January. Balustrade (internal and external)

The tenant logged an internal and external balustrade as unsafe on 24 December 2024. On 9 January 2025 a job request was raised and a contractor assigned for the internal one. Front door

This was verbally raised with an onsite contractor and repaired. The tenant claims it was a temporary repair and later lodged the issue in TAPI on 15 January 2025. Electricity issue

On 15 December 2024 the tenant made a call to the urgent number of the agency due to some appliances not working. An electrician was assigned that day. Kitchen floor

On 24 December, a further issue was raised in TAPI regarding a split in part of the kitchen wooden floor. Other issues

The tenant also raised additional failures but said these were not advised to the landlord. This list was: •House has many draughts •The house has moisture •Blinds broken (were broken on arrival) •Master bedroom lock does not work •Kitchen Pantry – door scrapes, was like this when I moved in, is getting worse •Door handrails loose (laundry and garage) •Wallpaper damage •Family bathroom moisture- This was the case when I moved in (I never received an ingoing inspection report? •Daughter’s room window – seal needs replacing/repairing •Master ensuite cabinet handles inferior and need replacement (was the case from move-in) •Water damage in stairwell

Given these were not raised until this application I have not considered these individually. I have considered them as a factor in the impact on the tenant because of the failure of the landlord to provide the HHS information in a timely manner when so requested.

Should compensation be awarded?

The tenant sought $14,400.00 compensation.

In Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993 (upheld in the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust, CIV-2018-009-002094 [2020] NZDC 17667) sets out the factors that the Tribunal should take into account when making a damages award, being: a. The nature of the breach b. The duration of the breach c. The effect of the breach.

With regard to the overall matters raised, and any application here of s 85 RTA, in Nixon v Geal-Otter DC North Shore TT 216/94, 6 December 1995, Judge Thorburn made the following comments on the approach that s 85 requires the Tribunal, and the District Court on appeal, to take in residential tenancy disputes: There must be an approach that reflects a broad intuitive sense of propriety in the circumstances of each case and recognises the overall impression and sense of fairness and equity. The broadness of this approach imports a recognition of earthy commonsense to resolution which could be marginalised if the Tribunal and courts slavishly applied technically correct legal niceties.

Essentially, the two parties appear to have differing views of what was expected of each other. Both have provided evidence in support of their respective stance. The record of communication is well presented. What is less obvious is clear evidence of some maintenance requested, and the underlying problem or cause such that any failure to attend to it by the landlord was a failure that should attract some compensation.

I consider the landlord may have been more proactive or complete regarding some issues, anticipated or as raised. I am not convinced however that any failure or extended delay in any specific repair was the main cause of any significant tenant impacts as claimed. There were numerous contractor callouts during the tenancy. There were differences between the parties recounting of any expected outcome or follow-up to some of these. The extensive list of issues raised by the tenant includes examples where I consider a reasonable response occurred. Others had delays in remediation caused by seasonal challenges for issue logged on the cusp of the Christmas break. Others have not been proven to be landlord failures such that any specific failure (or an accumulation of any minor failures) should attract specific orders.

I am mindful of the positive resolution of the previous tenant application, withdrawn 23 January 2025, releasing the tenant from the fixed-term tenancy. It is not certain the Tribunal would have reached that same conclusion if that application had advanced to a hearing.

I have also considered the tenant had the prior opportunity to view and assess the premises as it was in July 2024. There was negotiation regarding weekly rent as a result of the inspection, prior to the tenant accepting the tenancy. A number of building performance issues pertaining to any HHS failures may have been expected to present and be raised earlier in the tenancy by an articulate and capable tenant such as was the case in this tenancy.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”

I have carefully reviewed the detailed submissions and evidence of communication. Ms Morris was capable at expressing issues as they arose. She expectation of what agent service level and the home she may get for her rent reflected her view that she was paying for an executive property. As she wrote, “The reason for the initial rent discount discussion with Lupton was because it showed such wear and tear and I didn’t feel it was worth the asking price”. A discount was subsequently agreed between the parties and that reflects, in my mind, a meeting of the minds regarding rent and the premises as reasonably apparent at that time. The “value” of the negotiated reduced rent during the tenancy was $1,500.00.

The lack of timely provision by the landlord of information to the tenant regarding the HHS has been recognised by the award of exemplary damages. I have not made any further compensation award for related failures to maintain as they were either not raised with the landlord, or there is a lack of evidence to merit specific compensation. Filing fee

The tenant has been sufficiently successful so as to merit the return of her filing fee. Delay in order

The patience of the parties, given the seasonal holiday delay resulting in this order taking longer than usual, is appreciated.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5220014 — net $527.00 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$527.00