What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5255772 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 5255772?

Compensation: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5255772?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5255772?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12015667-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5255772 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 5255772?

Compensation: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5255772?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5255772?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12015667-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5255772 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5255772. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 22 May 2025	$900.00		Rent arrears to 22 May 2025
Compensation for tenant’s losses		$900.00	Compensation for tenant’s losses
Total award	$900.00	$900.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is reduced and now ends on 22 May 2025.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is set-off against the tenant’s claim for compensation as set out below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms White represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for a reduction of the term of her fixed term tenancy; compensation for sick leave and for the early termination of her internet service contact; a refund of her bond; the application fee; and name suppression.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears of $900.00 to 22 May 2025. Background
The tenancy started on 27 December 2024. It was a fixed term tenancy until December 2025. The tenancy comprised a studio room with separate facilities.
The tenant became concerned with the state of the premises from an early time. There was some mould on the curtains, and she found the premises to be dusty, with dust settled high up on the exposed rafters. As well, there was pooling of water after rain events. There were other issues too – the water pressure seemed low; the water seemed too hot and was difficult to control in the washing machine; and the water tasted metallic.
The landlord sent a plumber to check the water pressure and water temperature issues. The plumber reported no issues with water pressure and said the hot and cold-water taps had been connected the wrong way around.
The parties corresponded about liability for the plumber’s call out. However, that is not an issue raised by the tenant in her application before the Tribunal today.
The tenant began to experience respiratory issues. She resorted to sleeping with the door partly ajar to relieve the dust allergens. That meant the room became cold.
The tenant first gave notice to end the tenancy by email dated 29 April 2025. She said she wanted to start the ‘break lease’ process due to ‘health and financial reasons’.
The tenant specifically noted that she would continue to meet all her obligations under the tenancy agreement until a new tenancy began.
The tenant the gave a second notice to terminate the tenancy dated 5 May 2025. She referred to what she said were landlord breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) including a failure the ensure that the premises complied with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) - particularly the drainage standard.
The landlord agreed to release the tenant on 21 days’ notice, an offer she would not accept.
Both parties then filed the applications that are now before the Tribunal. Issues
The issue to be determined are these: •Should the Tribunal reduce the term of the fixed term tenancy? •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? •Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? Relevant law
The Tribunal may reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy under section 66(1) RTA where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities under section 45 RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
In Birch v Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.

Should the Tribunal reduce the term of the fixed term tenancy?

The statutory test for the Tribunal to reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy is a high one. The Tribunal does not lightly interfere with contracts.
The tenant alleged that the premises were unlawful residential premises under section 56A RTA which meant she could give 2 days’ notice to terminate the 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 tenancy. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the premises were unlawful residential premises. That would usually require evidence that the premises are not consented for residential use. The Tribunal does not find that the premises were unlawful residential premises.
The tenant first said that she wanted to terminate the tenancy for health and financial reasons, agreeing to meet her obligations until a new tenant was found (email 29 April 2025). Then she alleged that the landlord had failed to meet its statutory responsibilities and sought termination because of that (email 5 May 2025).
The Tribunal does not find that there had been an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances. Rather, these were premises that did not suit her. Dust and some mould triggered her allergic respiratory condition, medical evidence of which was produced.
Those matters could have been remedied by cleaning.
The tenant has not produced evidence that the premises were not compliant with the HHS. Her opinion is not sufficient to establish non-compliance in fact.
Ms White gave evidence that the premises were assessed as HHS compliant before her firm took over the management of the tenancy. And even if there were a drainage issue that has developed since that was something that could be remedied. It does not meet the threshold of an unforeseen change in circumstances.
The drainage standard of the HHS aims to ensure that water from the roof and guttering drains through drainpipes to an appropriate outfall, usually a council storm water system. But it can also drain to a natural watercourse.
That water pools after a rain event does not of itself constitute a breach of the HHS, provided the gutters and downpipes drain appropriately. If it did, whole areas of Christchurch and many other cities would be unsuitable for rental housing. Flooding can occur after any rain event.
I find no proven breach by the landlord of the HHS in this case.
The tenant has not proved that she suffered an unforeseen change in circumstances for the reasons she advanced. The first part of the section 66 RTA test is not met. The Tribunal will not therefore reduce the term of the tenancy to around 14 May 2025 which is what she seeks.
The landlord agreed to release the tenant from the tenancy and located a new tenant whose tenancy started on 23 May 2025. This tenancy therefore ended on 22 May 2025 and the tenant is liable for rent to that date.
The tenant should be aware that even if the Tribunal had reduced her tenancy to end on 14 May 2025, it would have awarded the landlord compensation for the loss of the contract under section 66(2) RTA. Usually, the Tribunal awards the landlord the bond at least, but in this case the compensation would have been limited to the amount of rent up to the start of the new tenancy.

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation?

The tenant sought compensation for her sick leave ($870.00) and the early termination fee for her internet service contract ($100.00).
The Tribunal would seldom compensate for the use of sick leave. Part of her leave was due to feeling tired from her move (email produced). So, there are subjective elements to that.
Rather, the Tribunal looks to proven breaches by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities under the RTA to assess a claim for compensation.
The tenant’s evidence shows that there was mould on some of the curtains from the start of the tenancy, despite the landlord having had the curtains cleaned. And the photos of the rafters show considerable dust. The tenant gave evidence that she tried to remove that dust which made matters worse.
Some tenants might not have been affected by these things. But this tenant was. The medical evidence shows that she had an allergic respiratory reaction.
But did the landlord breach its responsibilities to provide the premises reasonably clean? A landlord might not think about dust build up on high rafters, but the evidence shows there was dust accumulation in these premises. Mould, even in small amounts, is a known health risk, especially for persons who experience allergic reactions.
Other photos show an area of skirting that seems affected (blown out) by moisture.
I find that the landlord (probably without meaning to) did not provide the premises reasonably clean; the mould on the curtains and the dusty rafters should have been cleaned before the tenancy started.
Compensation is not punitive; it recognises loss, in this case, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and some related costs.
The effects for this tenant were considerable. She attended ED due to her symptoms and required a specialist GP referral. She took to sleeping with the door partly open to minimise her symptoms.
The fair outcome in this case is for the Tribunal to award the tenant compensation equivalent to the rent arrears the tenant owes (an amount she accepted was correctly calculated). The one offsets the other.
I therefore award the tenant compensation for the effects of living in premises that had some mould and where there was dust on the rafters that had not been cleaned which together resulted in her experiencing respiratory symptoms, a response to the allergens.

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

As I have noted, the landlord’s claim for rent to 22 May 2025 is proved by the production of rent records. The amount claimed is accepted by the tenant as correctly calculated. Result
The tenant’s application for a reduction of the term of her tenancy to 14 May 2025 is dismissed. The tenancy ended on 22 May 2025, following which a new tenancy started.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is proved. The Tribunal awards her $900.00.
The landlord’s rent arrears claim for $900.00 is proved.
The bond will be paid to the tenant.
I make no order for the filing fees. Each party has succeeded in part. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek a name suppression order. The tenant sought, and is entitled to, an order for name suppression on the partly successful application – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5255772. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 22 May 2025	$900.00		Rent arrears to 22 May 2025
Compensation for tenant’s losses		$900.00	Compensation for tenant’s losses
Total award	$900.00	$900.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is reduced and now ends on 22 May 2025.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is set-off against the tenant’s claim for compensation as set out below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms White represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for a reduction of the term of her fixed term tenancy; compensation for sick leave and for the early termination of her internet service contact; a refund of her bond; the application fee; and name suppression.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears of $900.00 to 22 May 2025. Background
The tenancy started on 27 December 2024. It was a fixed term tenancy until December 2025. The tenancy comprised a studio room with separate facilities.
The tenant became concerned with the state of the premises from an early time. There was some mould on the curtains, and she found the premises to be dusty, with dust settled high up on the exposed rafters. As well, there was pooling of water after rain events. There were other issues too – the water pressure seemed low; the water seemed too hot and was difficult to control in the washing machine; and the water tasted metallic.
The landlord sent a plumber to check the water pressure and water temperature issues. The plumber reported no issues with water pressure and said the hot and cold-water taps had been connected the wrong way around.
The parties corresponded about liability for the plumber’s call out. However, that is not an issue raised by the tenant in her application before the Tribunal today.
The tenant began to experience respiratory issues. She resorted to sleeping with the door partly ajar to relieve the dust allergens. That meant the room became cold.
The tenant first gave notice to end the tenancy by email dated 29 April 2025. She said she wanted to start the ‘break lease’ process due to ‘health and financial reasons’.
The tenant specifically noted that she would continue to meet all her obligations under the tenancy agreement until a new tenancy began.
The tenant the gave a second notice to terminate the tenancy dated 5 May 2025. She referred to what she said were landlord breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) including a failure the ensure that the premises complied with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) - particularly the drainage standard.
The landlord agreed to release the tenant on 21 days’ notice, an offer she would not accept.
Both parties then filed the applications that are now before the Tribunal. Issues
The issue to be determined are these: •Should the Tribunal reduce the term of the fixed term tenancy? •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? •Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? Relevant law
The Tribunal may reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy under section 66(1) RTA where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities under section 45 RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
In Birch v Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.

Should the Tribunal reduce the term of the fixed term tenancy?

The statutory test for the Tribunal to reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy is a high one. The Tribunal does not lightly interfere with contracts.
The tenant alleged that the premises were unlawful residential premises under section 56A RTA which meant she could give 2 days’ notice to terminate the 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 tenancy. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the premises were unlawful residential premises. That would usually require evidence that the premises are not consented for residential use. The Tribunal does not find that the premises were unlawful residential premises.
The tenant first said that she wanted to terminate the tenancy for health and financial reasons, agreeing to meet her obligations until a new tenant was found (email 29 April 2025). Then she alleged that the landlord had failed to meet its statutory responsibilities and sought termination because of that (email 5 May 2025).
The Tribunal does not find that there had been an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances. Rather, these were premises that did not suit her. Dust and some mould triggered her allergic respiratory condition, medical evidence of which was produced.
Those matters could have been remedied by cleaning.
The tenant has not produced evidence that the premises were not compliant with the HHS. Her opinion is not sufficient to establish non-compliance in fact.
Ms White gave evidence that the premises were assessed as HHS compliant before her firm took over the management of the tenancy. And even if there were a drainage issue that has developed since that was something that could be remedied. It does not meet the threshold of an unforeseen change in circumstances.
The drainage standard of the HHS aims to ensure that water from the roof and guttering drains through drainpipes to an appropriate outfall, usually a council storm water system. But it can also drain to a natural watercourse.
That water pools after a rain event does not of itself constitute a breach of the HHS, provided the gutters and downpipes drain appropriately. If it did, whole areas of Christchurch and many other cities would be unsuitable for rental housing. Flooding can occur after any rain event.
I find no proven breach by the landlord of the HHS in this case.
The tenant has not proved that she suffered an unforeseen change in circumstances for the reasons she advanced. The first part of the section 66 RTA test is not met. The Tribunal will not therefore reduce the term of the tenancy to around 14 May 2025 which is what she seeks.
The landlord agreed to release the tenant from the tenancy and located a new tenant whose tenancy started on 23 May 2025. This tenancy therefore ended on 22 May 2025 and the tenant is liable for rent to that date.
The tenant should be aware that even if the Tribunal had reduced her tenancy to end on 14 May 2025, it would have awarded the landlord compensation for the loss of the contract under section 66(2) RTA. Usually, the Tribunal awards the landlord the bond at least, but in this case the compensation would have been limited to the amount of rent up to the start of the new tenancy.

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation?

The tenant sought compensation for her sick leave ($870.00) and the early termination fee for her internet service contract ($100.00).
The Tribunal would seldom compensate for the use of sick leave. Part of her leave was due to feeling tired from her move (email produced). So, there are subjective elements to that.
Rather, the Tribunal looks to proven breaches by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities under the RTA to assess a claim for compensation.
The tenant’s evidence shows that there was mould on some of the curtains from the start of the tenancy, despite the landlord having had the curtains cleaned. And the photos of the rafters show considerable dust. The tenant gave evidence that she tried to remove that dust which made matters worse.
Some tenants might not have been affected by these things. But this tenant was. The medical evidence shows that she had an allergic respiratory reaction.
But did the landlord breach its responsibilities to provide the premises reasonably clean? A landlord might not think about dust build up on high rafters, but the evidence shows there was dust accumulation in these premises. Mould, even in small amounts, is a known health risk, especially for persons who experience allergic reactions.
Other photos show an area of skirting that seems affected (blown out) by moisture.
I find that the landlord (probably without meaning to) did not provide the premises reasonably clean; the mould on the curtains and the dusty rafters should have been cleaned before the tenancy started.
Compensation is not punitive; it recognises loss, in this case, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and some related costs.
The effects for this tenant were considerable. She attended ED due to her symptoms and required a specialist GP referral. She took to sleeping with the door partly open to minimise her symptoms.
The fair outcome in this case is for the Tribunal to award the tenant compensation equivalent to the rent arrears the tenant owes (an amount she accepted was correctly calculated). The one offsets the other.
I therefore award the tenant compensation for the effects of living in premises that had some mould and where there was dust on the rafters that had not been cleaned which together resulted in her experiencing respiratory symptoms, a response to the allergens.

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

As I have noted, the landlord’s claim for rent to 22 May 2025 is proved by the production of rent records. The amount claimed is accepted by the tenant as correctly calculated. Result
The tenant’s application for a reduction of the term of her tenancy to 14 May 2025 is dismissed. The tenancy ended on 22 May 2025, following which a new tenancy started.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is proved. The Tribunal awards her $900.00.
The landlord’s rent arrears claim for $900.00 is proved.
The bond will be paid to the tenant.
I make no order for the filing fees. Each party has succeeded in part. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek a name suppression order. The tenant sought, and is entitled to, an order for name suppression on the partly successful application – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5255772 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5255772 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal reduce the term of the fixed term tenancy?

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation?

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal reduce the term of the fixed term tenancy?

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation?

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions