Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5221960 — Property damage at 26 Kauri Street, Eastbourne, Lower Hutt 5013
Decided 23 Oct 2025 · Published 23 Oct 2025 · Application 5221960
- Property damage
- Exemplary damages
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Lower Hutt
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
C Boys
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $2,795.53
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $2,795.53
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abatement of rent | $1,268.57 | Abatement of rent | |
| Compensation for damaged items | $999.96 | Compensation for damaged items | |
| Exemplary damages | $500.00 | Exemplary damages | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $27.00 | Filing fee reimbursement |
Order
was re-issued on 20 August to correct an error in paragraph [1], however, the order did not load due to a user error, my apologies to the parties for any confusion. C Boys 23 October 2025.
ORDER
- Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Cameron Macgregor And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $2,795.53.00 immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] rented the house at Kauri Street Eastbourne. The house is an older 3-bedroom house but had been recently renovated and appears in tidy condition. As I understand it, the layout of the house is that the main part of the house sits beneath a pitched decramastic type tile roof, the master bedroom and part of the dining room is set in a rectangular extension running from the back of the house to form an L shape, and the kitchen, toilet, and utility room sit in a lean to type extension which sits on the inside corner formed by the L beneath a flat pitched roof. The lease began on 31 March 2023 and was renewed in March 2024. Relatively early on in the lease there were issues with water ingress caused by a leaking roof over the kitchen area. This was replaced however Ms Lee and Mr O’Rourke say that water ingress and mould issues continued in other parts of the House. They say that the issues have been such that they have had personal items, including children’s bedding damaged by mould, and have been unable to use one of the bedrooms.
- Ms Lee and Mr O’Rourke bring this application for failures to maintain and for breaches of the healthy home legislation. The issues
- On 20 April 2023, Mr O’Rourke emailed the property manager to advise that they had discovered black furry mould in the toilet growing beneath the paint. On 24 April 2023 follow-up email described mould growing on the kitchen ceiling and water puddling on the floor and door frame in the same area. The landlord responded to other queries but did not respond about the leaks until 4 May 2023 when questions were asked about the source of the water. Mr O’Rourke responded that he did not believe it was a pipe as brown water droplets formed on the ceiling when it rained, and asked for someone to come around and urgently investigate the issue.
- On 5 May 2023 contractor discovered a hole in the roofing where the main pitched roof joined the flat roof area, and made an attempt to repair.
- On 10 May 2023, Mr O’Rourke reported that the roof was still leaking and was coming through the wall in different places from previously. On 12 May 2023 property manager advised that a roofer would attend. On 18 May 2023, Mr O’Rourke followed up. On 23 May 2023, the property manager advised that she had been on leave from maternity leave, and that a quote for repair of the roof had been approved. However, I note that the quote referred to was not issued by the contractor until 29 June 2023. The advice was that the roof over the lean- to area required replacement. There were some delays which relate to the ordering of materials and appears that the roof was replaced in July 2023.
- Due to the length of time leaks have been ongoing the framing and the toilet area had become saturated in the gib wall linings had deteriorated. All as I understand it the linings were stripped, and Jaes services came in with fan heaters to dry the saturated timber.
- On 23 August 2023, Mr O’Rourke and Ms Lee issued a 14 day notice to remedy the bullet and utility room walls which were left unlined. During the hearing they reported that extensive mould had grown within the framing. Later that same day the property manager responded that the work had been delayed due to the owner being on holiday for not being able to arise the work it was advised that the contract would be in touch.
- Following this appears that further issues with dampness continued. Property inspection and 27 was 2024, mould on ceilings was pointed out in the hall.
- On 6 October 2024 Mr O’Rourke and Ms Lee emailed the property manager to advise of mould which was affecting all three bedrooms, the front of the lounge, and the hallway. The worst is in the front bedroom. The mould affected pillows belonging to the couple’s children, shoes, a pushchair, wall linings, a bedframe, and a lamp amongst other things. It was reported that the heating had been used, the rooms were ventilated, chemical dehumidifier gels were used, and attempts to clean mouldy areas had not prevented mould from coming back. The property manager responded following day that a contractor would be attending.
- A contractor attended and reported that a ventilator and commercial cleaning would be appropriate. It was reported that contractor had said that the age of the house and the fact that it was built close to the ground was what was leading to the moisture issues. On 5 December 2025 another contractor attended advising that an HRV or similar system to increase airflow and house would remedy the issues for which a quote was provided. The owner declined to pay for the installation of such a system.
- On 13 January 2025 Ms Lee and Mr O’Rourke reported the gaps in the windows and the bedrooms. In the master bedroom a morticed window frame corner joint has separated, allowing the window pane to drop and leaving a visible gap which I estimate to be approximately 5 mm wide at the top of the window. This allows water and drafts to enter into the room. Photos show that mullions in another window in the master bedroom have separated which are also allowing panes to drop although with smaller visible gaps. In the front bedroom wind driven rain is entering and gaps in the window frames, in areas where it appears that glazing party has deteriorated. Photos showing water pulling on windowsills and paint flaking away showing long-standing water damage beneath have been provided.
- Following this claim to compensation made against the landlord, and Mr O’Rourke and Ms Lee declined an offer to renew the lease. The lease finished early on 3 March 2025. Mr O’Rourke and Mrs Lee have claimed: a. Rent compensation for being unable to use the front bedroom for 21 weeks and 1 day (the period between 6 October 2024 on 3 March 2025) due to the mould issue making the front bedroom unusable. $1268.57 is claimed, based on the difference between the median rent for a two bedroom house in the Eastbourne area; $650/week, and the rental of $710. b. $120 for three mould damage pillows. c. $500 for five pairs of men’s and women’s shoes which had been stored in the front bedroom wardrobe and were damaged by mould and disposed of. d. $600 for a pram which had been stored in the front bedroom. e. $55 for a pure of flip-flops which were affected by mould while in the wardrobe of the front bedroom. f. $37 for a lamp which was affected by mould while in the front bedroom. g. $200 for a duffel bag which was stored in the main bedroom wardrobe.
- The landlord argued that the issues are condensation related, and have arisen due to a lack of ventilation. The age of the house is cited.
- Considering the evidence of the whole I note that Mr O’Rourke and Ms Lee did attempt to ventilate and heat the tenancy, and took reasonable steps to address the issue. However, the mould issues remained, clearly not caused by a one-off phenomena. I was a note the issues with the windows in the main bedroom in front bedroom. Viewing the photos of these issues it is apparent that these related to long-standing deterioration of the window frames. The separation of mortised joint in the corner of the main bedroom window frame and the dropping and separation of the mullions in the front bedroom window is an issue that arise over many years. The condition of the mullion frame, which has visible rot at the joints between mullions and the main window frame, and the condition of the paint on the sills indicate that water ingress has been an issue with this window for a number of years. Failure to maintain
- Ms Lee and Mr O’Rourke claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. A breach of any contract which leads to damage to another’s property may also lead to an award of compensation for the value of the damaged property.
- The allegations of failure to maintain relates to: a. the water leak in the toilet area and the length of time taken to reroof this area and repair the damage; b. gaps between the glass in the frames in the main room bedroom; c. leaks in the front bedroom windows; d. dampness leading to mould, particularly in the front bedroom.
- I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
- While I appreciate the age of the premises a key issue for amenity in any home is to be dry and warm. While I accept that the landlord may not have had any indication of the issues relating to the moisture and mould prior to the tenancy, the leak in the toilet area and the issues with the windows in the bedrooms appear to me to have been ongoing for some time. Moreover, Ms Lee and Mr O’Rourke had diligently kept the property manager advised of any issues.
- While steps were taken to find and assess the source of the moisture the suggestions of installing an HRV system were not taken up, and the issues with the windows which were clearly visible and should have been noted in any pre- tenancy inspection, appear not to have been addressed at all. At the close of hearing I left the matter open to allow the landlord to provide the pre-tenancy healthy home report. However, no report was received. Rather copies of information from a plumber/roofer about drainage and downpipes dated after the tenancy, and electrician’s and insulation installers pre-tenancy invoices and reports relating to compliance, were supplied. While the plumber/roofer’s report addresses one possible source of moisture, the best evidence available to me relating to moisture ingress other tenants descriptions, and the photos showing the condition of the windows. They show that there was an issue, and while the source of moisture was unknown it was still a real problem which have been brought to the attention of the landlord. When a landlord is aware of, or should have been aware of, an issue, has advice as to practical steps which can be taken to address the issue, but fails to do so they are liable for any resulting loss or damage. Loss of amenity/abatement of rent
- Considering the claim for an abatement of rent, I note that: a. The claim is for a loss of amenity, that is to say that Ms Lee and Mr O’Rourke say they were unable to use the front bedroom due to the dampness and mould for 21 weeks and one day. Prior to 6 October 2024, Ms Lee had been using the front bedroom as an office, and her evidence was that this was to be used as a bedroom for their son. However, after the mould issues were found Ms Lee and Mr O’Rourke decided that they did not wish to expose either themselves or their children to the health risks of spending time in a damp mouldy room. I find that this was a reasonable position to take. b. The property manager argued that the rents at the property was originally below the mean for a three-bedroom house in the area. However, the claim is for the difference between the rent paid for the premises, and the mean average for a two bedroom property. That the rent is below market means implements of their differences smaller. c. The evidence of the value of this loss of amenity which comes from information provided by tenancy services is reliable, and shows that the $60 a week claimed is reasonable.
- I find that there was a loss of amenity due to being unable to use the room. I award the compensation of $1268.57 sought by Ms Lee and Mr O’Rourke. Damage to property
- Turning first to the claim for damage to property, Photos show significant mould damage to the claimed items. Many had been purchased immediately before the start of the tenancy when Ms Lee and Mr O’Rourke moved to New Zealand so were approximately 1 year old when the damage was discovered. I am satisfied that the mould shown in the photos justifies the replacement of these items. As the items were not new depreciation applies. This is calculated below based on Tribunal guidelines. ItemPriceAgeExpected Life Award 3x pillows., 1 year, 3 years, $80 $1201 year3 years$80 5x pairs of men’s and women’s work shoes. $5001-2 years1-5 years$300 pram$600 1 year3-4 years$450 flip-flops$551 year1-3 years$36.66 lamp $371 year10 years$33.30 duffel bag$200 1.5 years3-5 years$125 Total$999.96
- I have considered whether exemplary damages should also be awarded for these breaches. I conclude that had I not found that compensation was payable such an award would have been appropriate. However, I note that the landlord did attempt to address issues, albeit inadequately, and that the source of the moisture praise proved difficult to find. Healthy homes breaches
- [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping and moisture ingress standards.
- As a private rental with a tenancy which commenced after 28 August 2022 the tenancy was required to comply within 120 days of the start of the tenancy.
- Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
- The tenancy agreement is an older form which contains reference to compliance with ceiling insulation under floor installation and wall insulation. There is no reference to the other standards including draught stopping and water ingress. Considering each of these I note that: a. the roof leak above the toilet and utility room meant that at the date the tenancy began it was not compliant with the water ingress standard; b. the roofer/plumber’s statement indicates that the downpipes and gutters are compliant; c. the gaps in windowpanes, particularly the slump pain in the master bedroom, were larger than the gaps allowable by the standard for draught stopping.
- I find Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Cameron Macgregor And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] committed an unlawful act.
- 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
- Considering those factors, I note: a. The healthy homes compliance was indicated by self-report in the lease, however, no evidence that a healthy homes assessment had been conducted has been provided. b. It appears that some of the issues relate to the landlord not wishing to spend money to address issues, or from a failure to properly inspect the property. c. While the roof leak was responded to reasonably quickly, and any delays appear to have come from the ability to obtain trades and materials, there were genuine delays which had an effect on Mr O’Rourke and Miss Lee. They put up with a mouldy or unlined toilet for some months while the roof was being repaired, the framing was being dried and treated for mould. They lived in a cold, drafty, damp tenancy due to the issues with the windowpanes. d. It was in the interests of Ms Lee and Mr O’Rourke to have a dry warm compliant tenancy. e. The public interest is served when the health system is not stressed by tenants and their children being unwell due to deficiencies in rental properties.
- Taking these facts into account, and noting that: a. the issues were at a lower level compared to other tenancies seen by the Tribunal;, b. this landlord does not appear to have been involved in similar cases in the past; c. I have made award for loss of amenity above I award $500 exemplary damages
- Because [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s01, s1, s109(3), s2024, s23, s26, s3, s34, s4, s45, s45(1), s45(1A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5221960 about?
The tribunal order states: Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Cameron Macgregor And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]
How much money was awarded in case 5221960?
Abatement Of Rent: $1,268.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $999.96 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5221960?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5221960?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12606265-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.
For landlords & property managers
Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.
Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.