How much money was awarded in case 5271001?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5271001?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5271001?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12339924-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5271001?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5271001?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5271001?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12339924-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Pirimai, Napier Tenancy Tribunal Case 5271001 — Mould & damp

Order

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background
These premises (“the flat”) were built over the original garage for [Tenancy address suppressed], (“the main house”). The tenant had use of the garage below, except for one power outlet that was connected to the main house.
The tenant’s family has an extensive history with the property. Her daughter, then her sister, lived in the flat before she did. Her mother lived in the main house.
The flat was originally built under a consent to build a utility room. The approved plans included a toilet, vanity, shower and hot water cylinder. In 1995 the landlords added a sink and stove and started renting it out as separate self-contained residential accommodation.
This tenancy began on 2 June 2020. The landlords had gone to Australia in May 2019 and got stuck there with covid related travel restrictions. Mrs Garland came back in July 2021 for a visit but again through covid related travel restrictions could not return to Australia for around 6 months.
The tenancy ended on 13 October 2022. The tenant’s bond has been refunded.
When they returned, the landlords moved into the flat for a while. The property was then sold.
When she was later talking with the purchaser Ms Nitschke, the tenant was told that Ms Nitschke had made enquiries with the Council which showed that the flat had never been consented for use as a separate dwelling and that Mr Garland was well aware of that and had been trying to get it consented.
Ms Nitschke gave evidence confirming that was her understanding of the situation.
That information prompted the tenant to bring this application. The Claims
The tenant claims compensation and/ or exemplary damages because: a. renting out the flat was unlawful; b. the landlords breached their obligations by: a. not providing any form of heating; b. failing to provide compliant smoke alarms; c. not having the premises properly insulated; d. not providing a Healthy Homes compliance statement; e. not making sure that the premises complied with Healthy Homes standards.
The tenant also claims that the premises were not adequately maintained and her use of the premises was affected by: a. leaks through into the garage; b. leaks in the kitchen; c. water damaged cabinetry from leaks in the bathroom.
In the context of this application, it is important to note that while claims for compensation can be bought within the 6 year limitation period, claims for exemplary damages can only be considered if they are brought within a year of the date when the unlawful act is committed (see s.109(2)). Here, the claims were brought on 22 May 2025, around 2 ½ years after the tenancy ended.

Were these unlawful residential premises?

Unlawful residential premises means residential premises that are used for occupation for a person as a place of residence but that cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes by that person.
In an Order dated 17 July 2025, I noted that: “The landlords’ evidence should include a report from [Council] addressing whether: a. installation of the stove and cooking facilities at the premises in 1995 was completed in accordance with necessary consents and regulatory requirements in place at the time; b. renting out [Tenancy address suppressed] in June 2020 as a separate residence, was a permitted/ approved use; c. checks were made as to the premises’ compliance with applicable fire safety requirements.”
The landlords have put those questions to the [Council]. A response from the Building Consents Manager says: Question a: “a building consent was not required to install a stove and cooking facilities in 1995 but a building consent was required for the installation of the kitchen sink and we have no such record of a building consent being applied for.” Question b: “from a regulatory perspective Council was not aware that the utility room was being rented out as a separate residence in June 2020 so there was no approval as such however our planning team have confirmed that it would have been permitted as a supplementary unit under the district plan.” Question c: “from a regulatory perspective Council was not aware that the utility room was being rented out as a separate residence so there were no checks made however if the utility room and garage below were being used as one separate unit then there would be no fire rating requirements but if the garage was being used by the original dwelling then the structure below the utility room would require fire rating”
The change of use of the premises from a utility room to a residence would have required Council consent under s.115 Building Act 2004. The change of use occurred before that provision was in place.
The Council’s response to the questions noted above, confirms that installation of the sink was not consented and that use of the premises as a residence, as opposed to a utility room, would have been permitted under the District Plan, as supplementary to the main house.
The landlord’s evidence is that they did everything they could to ensure the premises were able to be lawfully used as a separate rental premises. They gave evidence of a council inspector having visited the premises and confirmed there were no issues with the premises being rented out. They note too that the property is recorded, for rating purposes, as comprising 2 dwelling units. A separate address, 57A, is allocated to the premises.
The evidence does not prove that the premises were unable to be lawfully occupied for residential purposes.
The appropriate enquiry is whether the premises, for that use, complied with necessary regulatory standards and the Healthy Homes requirements under the RTA.

Did the premises meet Healthy Homes requirements?

This was a general tenancy that began on 10 June 2020. Under the HH Regulations, the date for compliance with HH standards was 1 July 2025, after the tenancy ended.
The landlords cannot therefore have breached the obligation to ensure the premises complied with Healthy Homes standards during the tenancy.
The landlords are nevertheless required to ensure that the premises were provided and maintained in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair and that other regulatory requirements were met.

Were regulatory requirements met?

Two provisions of the RTA need to be considered.
First s.36 requires a landlord to take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes.
Second, s.45(1)(c) requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. Breach of that obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded.
The evidence shows that when the landlords converted the premises for to rent out as a residence, consent for installation of a sink was required but not obtained.
The landlord gave evidence of what appear to be quite extensive steps to make sure the conversion met Council requirements.
However, had they put to the Council the questions they asked, at the Tribunal’s direction, for the purpose of this hearing, they would surely have been told then what they were told now. That is, “...a building consent was required for the installation of the kitchen sink and we have no such record of a building consent being applied for...”
I find that constitutes a breach of the landlords’ obligations under s.36.
It also constitutes a breach of the landlords’ obligations under 45(1)(1)(c). I find that it was an intentional unlawful act for the purposes of s.109(3).
The evidence does not show any direct loss caused to the tenant from that breach.
Section 109(2) does not allow the tenant to ask for exemplary damages because her application was brought mor than 12 months after the tenancy ended.

Was heating required and provided?

Irrespective of the specific requirements of the Healthy Homes standards, Regulation 6 Housing Improvement Regulations 1974 requires that, “Every living room shall be fitted with a fireplace and chimney or other approved form of heating.”
The tenant has given direct evidence that no working heater was provided. The landlords say that a heater, with capacity to meet the heating requirements of the Healthy Homes Regulations, was delivered to the premises for the previous tenant. The landlords were in Australia when the entry inspection was done and their son conducted it on their behalf so they cannot give direct evidence that the heater was there when this tenancy started.
The agreement includes a signed acknowledgment that a heater was present. The tenant says that must have referred to an older heater, that was not useable. As this is the tenants claim it is for her to provide evidence to prove the facts supporting her claims, on the balance of probabilities.
Given the content of the agreement, alongside the other evidence, I do not find it proved that the landlords breach of the obligation to provide a form of heating in the premises.
The same analysis applies to the tenant’s claim that smoke alarms were not provided. The agreement includes a signed acknowledgment of their presence.
The tenant claims that the premises were not insulated when the tenancy began.
The landlords have provided evidence that they bought insulation product on 11 March 2019 and again on 30 April 2019. Their evidence is that first Mrs Garland and then with Mr Garland’s help, they installed the insulation themselves, under some time pressure, before leaving for Australia in May.
The tenant says her recollection is clear that the insulation was installed just by Mrs Garland while she, not her sister, was living there. She suggests it must have been when Mrs Garland was back from Australia in mid-2021.
Insulation regulations required the landlord to have the premises insulated by 1 July 2019. The landlords’ evidence is consistent with their having taken stapes to meet that obligation before going to Australia. It is supported by evidence of them buying insulation product at that time.
I do not find the tenant’s claim proved. Healthy Homes compliance statement
The landlord did not include in the agreement a Healthy homes compliance statement as required by s.13A(1CA) RTA, as it applied at the time the tenancy was entered into.
That constitutes an unlawful act and was intentional for the purposes of s.109(3).
There is no evidence of direct loss caused to the tenant by that omission and exemplary damages cannot be claimed due to the passage of time since.

Did the landlords breach their repair/ maintenance obligations?

The photographs show: a. significant water damage to the ceiling above the stove; b. a badly water damaged vanity unit and flooring under the bathroom sink c. some areas of significant mould growth around the bath.
The tenant also says that there was an ongoing problem with leaks from the shower into the garage below.
The landlords have provided evidence that the leaking vanity tap was repaired in June 2020, the water damaged floor under the shower was repaired in June 2020, the roof was replaced in March 2021.
They say that no continuing or other maintenance/ repair issues were brought to their attention.
The tenant’s evidence is that the damages caused by the leaking vanity taps was never repaired nor was the kitchen ceiling damage. The shower leak into the garage resumed some time after it was initially repaired. The tenant accepts that she did not let the landlords know about that.
A landlord has an obligation to maintain the premises in reasonable state of repair (s.45(1)(b)). That is an obligation that requires proactive measures, not simply an obligation to respond to concerns raised by a tenant.
A tenant has an obligation to let the landlord know about any damage or the need for repairs (s.40(1)(d)). A tenant cannot really claim compensation for the consequences of major damage or lack of repairs that the landlord hasn’t been told about. The need for other more routine maintenance should be monitored by the landlord through inspections.
Here, the landlords were aware of the historic leak damage to the kitchen ceiling. The roof was replaced in March 2021, with the possibility of continuing leak damage until then. The ceiling damage was not repaired. They were told about the vanity leak and arranged for the taps to be replaced but not for any assessment or repair of the damage caused by the leak. They had the shower leak repaired and were not made aware that it began leaking again.
The landlord did not conduct regular inspections, either themselves or through the son as agent. For part of the tenancy that was complicated by covid- related restrictions.
Weighing those considerations, I find that there were breaches of the landlords’ maintenance/ repair obligations. The tenant had a very badly water damaged vanity which should have been addressed as part of the bathroom repair. The tenant had a badly damaged and unsightly kitchen ceiling – caused by damage the landlords were aware of.

Should compensation be awarded?

This long after the tenancy ended, it is difficult to quantify the loss caused to the tenant by the landlord’s breaches of their maintenance and repair obligations or by the unlawful acts committed by the landlords for which exemplary damages cannot be awarded due to the lapse of time.
In those circumstances, it is appropriate to consider making an award of general damages, the purpose of which is not to compensate for a quantifiable loss but to compensate for pain and suffering or emotional distress” 1
In Tenant v Ezy Rentals 2 the Tribunal said: “By reference to Otautahi, I consider the bands that might usefully inform the Tribunal’s decision in this case are: A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $2,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of over $3,000.00.”
Applying that approach here, taking into account that: a. the landlords have breached obligations owed to the tenant, some of which were unlawful acts; b. the unlawful acts were of a technical/ regulatory nature and the evidence does not show direct loss caused as a result; c. The tenant did not raise with the landlord the need for maintenance or repair of the premises and did not seek redress for 2 1/2 years after the tenancy ended: I find that an award of general damages at the mid-point of the lower band referenced in Ezy Rentals would be just.
As the tenant has had claims upheld I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5271001 — Mould & damp in Pirimai, Napier

Tenancy Tribunal case 5271001 — Mould & damp in Pirimai, Napier

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Were these unlawful residential premises?

Did the premises meet Healthy Homes requirements?

Were regulatory requirements met?

Was heating required and provided?

Did the landlords breach their repair/ maintenance obligations?

Should compensation be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Were these unlawful residential premises?

Did the premises meet Healthy Homes requirements?

Were regulatory requirements met?

Was heating required and provided?

Did the landlords breach their repair/ maintenance obligations?

Should compensation be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.