What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5240153?

The tribunal order states: The Worx Property Management Limited (as Agent for Gaylands Developments

How much money was awarded in case 5240153?

Compensation: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5240153?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5240153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13028696-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5240153?

The tribunal order states: The Worx Property Management Limited (as Agent for Gaylands Developments

How much money was awarded in case 5240153?

Compensation: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5240153?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5240153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13028696-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Gaylands Place, Opaheke, Papakura 2113 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5240153 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5240153 — net $3,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for breach of duty to maintain	$3,500.00	Compensation for breach of duty to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,527.00
Bond	$2,680.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,527.00

Order

The Worx Property Management Limited (as Agent for Gaylands Developments Ltd) and Gaylands Developments Ltd are jointly liable to and must pay Val Raymerly Tangitamaiti Peraua $3,527.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,680.00 (5137057-001) to Val Raymerly Tangitamaiti Peraua immediately.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing on 27 January 2026. The landlord did not attend.
A case conference was held on 11 September 2025. The parties were requested to provide certain documents. The landlord, for example, was asked to provide all inspection reports and photographs and all documents relating to the property’s compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord was required to file any counterclaim within two weeks. The landlord has not filed any documents or cross-application.
The landlord requested, and was granted, an adjournment of the hearing on 17 December 2025. The landlord said they had closed their business for the holidays. The landlord said it would be unfair not to grant an adjournment given they had been ready for the hearing on 4 December 2025 (which the Tribunal had rescheduled of its own motion).
On the morning of the hearing on 27 January 2026, the landlord applied for an adjournment due to sickness. No supporting evidence was provided, and the hearing proceeded with the tenant. Background
The tenant’s application (filed on 17 April 2025) relates to a tenancy agreement for a periodic tenancy from 31 October 2022 at a weekly rent of $670.00. A bond of $2,680.00 was paid.
The tenancy agreement was accompanied by a Healthy Homes Statement. This referred to an extractor fan in the kitchen. The heating capacity of the main living room was not stated. There was ceiling insulation.
The tenant did not read the Healthy Homes Statement properly until about a year into the tenancy. She then realised the house had been under a 12-month exemption for demolition or substantial rebuilding work.
The tenant said she noticed during winter that the house was cold and damp. Her son had to use his asthma inhaler more frequently. Her daughter was constantly getting sick during their time at the premises. The tenant had to run the heat pump all day and could not afford to constantly take her children to the doctor: ...I had to rely on home remedies and staying warm by covering ourselves with blankets all-day it was more warmer [sic] outside than inside the home...
The Huakina Development Trust conducted a home visit on 21 February 2025, produced a report and took photographs. The healthy homes report, which is undated, stated: There is a pronounced odor [sic] of mold [sic] and dampness present in and around the property. It appears that the bathroom is subject to considerable condensation accumulation on the walls and windows. It is advisable to consider the installation of a more effective ventilation system, such as an extractor fan, to mitigate this issue, as this is mandatory under the healthy homes standard. This can also be seen in how the curtains have been affected. The presence of numerous trees surrounding the property significantly obstructs the entry of natural light, despite efforts to ventilate the home (opening windows and doors to “air out”). Val has indicated that there are signs of privet growth and that a service was scheduled to remove it before its flowering; however, this task has not yet been completed. Val's son has been having some trouble with his asthma lately, and it seems like his respiratory issues have become a bit more pronounced since they moved in. We hope that this matter will be addressed urgently. Furthermore, the gutters require attention, as the overhanging leaves from the trees are now accumulating on the roof – drainage is another mandatory healthy home standard. As previously indicated, it is essential to address certain interventions without delay. In our capacity as advocates for this whanau, we prioritize their health and well-being with the utmost seriousness. The subsequent actions will involve either initiating proceedings through the tenancy tribunal or exploring alternative options that may enhance the safety of the whanau residing in the property.
The photographs provided support these concerns. They show mouldy curtains in the lounge (the tenant said they were mouldy in every room) mould on some of the wooden ceilings and walls, trees overhanging the premises, and plant- growth in the gutters.
The tenant took steps to leave the premises when she became pregnant and found accommodation with a community housing provider. The tenancy ended on 31 March 2025. Relevant Law
The tenancy agreement relied on the exclusion contained in regulation 31 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
Regulation 31 provides that the Healthy Homes Standards do not apply where the landlord has applied for consent to demolish or substantially rebuild the premises within 12 months of commencement of the tenancy and, at the start of the tenancy the application is either pending, or if the consent has been granted, it remains in force.
Landlords must provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. Landlords must also comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. Failure to comply with these requirements is an “unlawful act” for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
A landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms pursuant to the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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. Analysis
I accept the tenant’s evidence that she was living in a cold and damp home, especially in winter. The photographs suggest the landlord’s failure to maintain and trim back overhanging trees contributed to the problem, perhaps significantly. The trees were probably blocking out sunlight for large parts of the day. The property was suffering from some mould, although apart from the curtains it does not look to have been very extensive or severe. That could also be because the mould does not show up very clearly on the wooden panelling. The gutters had not been maintained which was the landlord’s responsibility.
The Huakina Development Trust’s photographs show missing smoke alarms, and it may be that they were missing throughout the tenancy. The tenancy agreement does not refer to smoke alarms. However, I cannot identify a requirement in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to record information about smoke alarms in the tenancy agreement.
There was no extractor fan in the bathroom in breach of the Healthy Homes Standards.
I find that the landlord breached their obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable condition, resulting in dampness and mould. There was also a breach of the ventilation standard given the lack of an extractor fan in the bathroom and there may have been a breach of the requirements around smoke alarms
Assessing compensation is a question of fact and there is limited evidence. The premises were cold, and the tenant could not afford to have the heat pump on all the time. Her children were getting sick due to the conditions. There is a note from the tenant’s GP dated 8 June 2025, commenting that her son had suffered from daily exacerbation of asthma due to poor housing conditions. He was now well due to improved conditions.
The lack of sunlight due to overhanging trees probably contributed to the problems and could have been remedied by the landlord relatively easily. The landlord could not rely on the exclusion in regulation 31 for more than 12 months. Despite being requested to do so, the landlord has not provided any evidence to show the exemption applied at the start of the tenancy. The tenant confirmed that, to her knowledge, no steps were taken during the tenancy to commence any building works.
I award compensation of $3,500.00 to compensate the tenant for living in a damp home. It is unclear to what extent the landlord knew of the problems and failed to act. There is an email from the tenant dated 21 October 2024 which mentioned that the property would get “very cold and damp during wintertime”. This is the only mention of a moisture problem in the communications provided. I decline to award exemplary damages to the extent they should be treated as having been claimed (they were not explicitly requested in the application form). Bond and Owner’s Liability
I also direct that the bond is refunded to the tenant. The landlord has not filed a counterclaim as directed.
The owner was joined to the application on 11 September 2025. The landlord property manager contracted expressly as agent for the owner. The owner, as party to the tenancy agreement, is liable for the breaches of the landlord’s obligations. I also hold the property manager liable, in the absence of evidence that they had no active role in the management of the tenancy or with ensuring compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards. Filing Fee
The tenant’s application has been successful. I award the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5240153 — net $3,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for breach of duty to maintain	$3,500.00	Compensation for breach of duty to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,527.00
Bond	$2,680.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,527.00

Order

The Worx Property Management Limited (as Agent for Gaylands Developments Ltd) and Gaylands Developments Ltd are jointly liable to and must pay Val Raymerly Tangitamaiti Peraua $3,527.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,680.00 (5137057-001) to Val Raymerly Tangitamaiti Peraua immediately.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing on 27 January 2026. The landlord did not attend.
A case conference was held on 11 September 2025. The parties were requested to provide certain documents. The landlord, for example, was asked to provide all inspection reports and photographs and all documents relating to the property’s compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord was required to file any counterclaim within two weeks. The landlord has not filed any documents or cross-application.
The landlord requested, and was granted, an adjournment of the hearing on 17 December 2025. The landlord said they had closed their business for the holidays. The landlord said it would be unfair not to grant an adjournment given they had been ready for the hearing on 4 December 2025 (which the Tribunal had rescheduled of its own motion).
On the morning of the hearing on 27 January 2026, the landlord applied for an adjournment due to sickness. No supporting evidence was provided, and the hearing proceeded with the tenant. Background
The tenant’s application (filed on 17 April 2025) relates to a tenancy agreement for a periodic tenancy from 31 October 2022 at a weekly rent of $670.00. A bond of $2,680.00 was paid.
The tenancy agreement was accompanied by a Healthy Homes Statement. This referred to an extractor fan in the kitchen. The heating capacity of the main living room was not stated. There was ceiling insulation.
The tenant did not read the Healthy Homes Statement properly until about a year into the tenancy. She then realised the house had been under a 12-month exemption for demolition or substantial rebuilding work.
The tenant said she noticed during winter that the house was cold and damp. Her son had to use his asthma inhaler more frequently. Her daughter was constantly getting sick during their time at the premises. The tenant had to run the heat pump all day and could not afford to constantly take her children to the doctor: ...I had to rely on home remedies and staying warm by covering ourselves with blankets all-day it was more warmer [sic] outside than inside the home...
The Huakina Development Trust conducted a home visit on 21 February 2025, produced a report and took photographs. The healthy homes report, which is undated, stated: There is a pronounced odor [sic] of mold [sic] and dampness present in and around the property. It appears that the bathroom is subject to considerable condensation accumulation on the walls and windows. It is advisable to consider the installation of a more effective ventilation system, such as an extractor fan, to mitigate this issue, as this is mandatory under the healthy homes standard. This can also be seen in how the curtains have been affected. The presence of numerous trees surrounding the property significantly obstructs the entry of natural light, despite efforts to ventilate the home (opening windows and doors to “air out”). Val has indicated that there are signs of privet growth and that a service was scheduled to remove it before its flowering; however, this task has not yet been completed. Val's son has been having some trouble with his asthma lately, and it seems like his respiratory issues have become a bit more pronounced since they moved in. We hope that this matter will be addressed urgently. Furthermore, the gutters require attention, as the overhanging leaves from the trees are now accumulating on the roof – drainage is another mandatory healthy home standard. As previously indicated, it is essential to address certain interventions without delay. In our capacity as advocates for this whanau, we prioritize their health and well-being with the utmost seriousness. The subsequent actions will involve either initiating proceedings through the tenancy tribunal or exploring alternative options that may enhance the safety of the whanau residing in the property.
The photographs provided support these concerns. They show mouldy curtains in the lounge (the tenant said they were mouldy in every room) mould on some of the wooden ceilings and walls, trees overhanging the premises, and plant- growth in the gutters.
The tenant took steps to leave the premises when she became pregnant and found accommodation with a community housing provider. The tenancy ended on 31 March 2025. Relevant Law
The tenancy agreement relied on the exclusion contained in regulation 31 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
Regulation 31 provides that the Healthy Homes Standards do not apply where the landlord has applied for consent to demolish or substantially rebuild the premises within 12 months of commencement of the tenancy and, at the start of the tenancy the application is either pending, or if the consent has been granted, it remains in force.
Landlords must provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. Landlords must also comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. Failure to comply with these requirements is an “unlawful act” for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
A landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms pursuant to the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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. Analysis
I accept the tenant’s evidence that she was living in a cold and damp home, especially in winter. The photographs suggest the landlord’s failure to maintain and trim back overhanging trees contributed to the problem, perhaps significantly. The trees were probably blocking out sunlight for large parts of the day. The property was suffering from some mould, although apart from the curtains it does not look to have been very extensive or severe. That could also be because the mould does not show up very clearly on the wooden panelling. The gutters had not been maintained which was the landlord’s responsibility.
The Huakina Development Trust’s photographs show missing smoke alarms, and it may be that they were missing throughout the tenancy. The tenancy agreement does not refer to smoke alarms. However, I cannot identify a requirement in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to record information about smoke alarms in the tenancy agreement.
There was no extractor fan in the bathroom in breach of the Healthy Homes Standards.
I find that the landlord breached their obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable condition, resulting in dampness and mould. There was also a breach of the ventilation standard given the lack of an extractor fan in the bathroom and there may have been a breach of the requirements around smoke alarms
Assessing compensation is a question of fact and there is limited evidence. The premises were cold, and the tenant could not afford to have the heat pump on all the time. Her children were getting sick due to the conditions. There is a note from the tenant’s GP dated 8 June 2025, commenting that her son had suffered from daily exacerbation of asthma due to poor housing conditions. He was now well due to improved conditions.
The lack of sunlight due to overhanging trees probably contributed to the problems and could have been remedied by the landlord relatively easily. The landlord could not rely on the exclusion in regulation 31 for more than 12 months. Despite being requested to do so, the landlord has not provided any evidence to show the exemption applied at the start of the tenancy. The tenant confirmed that, to her knowledge, no steps were taken during the tenancy to commence any building works.
I award compensation of $3,500.00 to compensate the tenant for living in a damp home. It is unclear to what extent the landlord knew of the problems and failed to act. There is an email from the tenant dated 21 October 2024 which mentioned that the property would get “very cold and damp during wintertime”. This is the only mention of a moisture problem in the communications provided. I decline to award exemplary damages to the extent they should be treated as having been claimed (they were not explicitly requested in the application form). Bond and Owner’s Liability
I also direct that the bond is refunded to the tenant. The landlord has not filed a counterclaim as directed.
The owner was joined to the application on 11 September 2025. The landlord property manager contracted expressly as agent for the owner. The owner, as party to the tenancy agreement, is liable for the breaches of the landlord’s obligations. I also hold the property manager liable, in the absence of evidence that they had no active role in the management of the tenancy or with ensuring compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards. Filing Fee
The tenant’s application has been successful. I award the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5240153 — Tenancy dispute at 6 Gaylands Place, Opaheke, Papakura 2113

Tenancy Tribunal case 5240153 — Tenancy dispute at 6 Gaylands Place, Opaheke, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions