What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5275484 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 5275484?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5275484?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5275484?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12358589-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5275484 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 5275484?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5275484?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5275484?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12358589-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5275484 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details.
The Tenants application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tenant was represented by Mr Wilson Manu.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means it is the Tenants job to prove that their case is more likely than not to be correct.
The Tenant claimed breach of Healthy Home Standards, compensation, retaliatory termination and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord filed a cross-application; however, this was in substance a response to the tenant’s claims and not an independent claim seeking relief. Breach of Healthy Home standards
The tenant claimed that the landlord has breached their 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). While the tenant could not identify specific standards breached, they raised the following as breaches of Healthy Home standards a. The hot water cylinder cupboard was damp with visibly wet walls, first noticed on 30 June 2024. The landlord allegedly dismissed this concern. b. In December 2024, part of the bathroom floor collapsed. A temporary repair was made on 28 December 2024, with permanent repairs not completed until March 2025. c. The tenant claimed that mould and dampness were present throughout the property, exacerbated after the bathroom floor collapse. d. Upon moving in on 1 July 2024, the Tenant observed that the deck was “brittle.” The tenant claims that on 23 December 2025, a visitor fell through broken planks and suffered a sprained ankle. The tenant’s 6-year-old daughter also fell through on an earlier occasion, suffering minor scratches. .7. The tenant submitted that they notified the landlord of these issues multiple times via phone calls and text messages but received delayed responses. The Tenant provided photographs of the damaged areas, text message conversations between the parties.
In response, the landlord stated that the property was compliant with the Healthy Home Standards, supported by a compliance certificate dated 1 September 2021 which they submitted.
The landlord disputed that concerns about the hot water cupboard were raised at or near the start of the tenancy. They maintain that the first notification of any issue relating to the bathroom was submitted through the landlord’s maintenance system on 16 December 2024.
The landlord further submits that delays in repairs in December 2024 were due to the Christmas shutdown period. A contractor attended on 28 December to install a temporary cover, and full repairs were completed by March 2025.
During a mid-tenancy inspection on 20 November 2024, the landlord requested a written list of any concerns. The tenant did not raise the hot water cupboard, bathroom floor, or general mould concerns at that time. The tenant explained that they were unaware of the hole in the bathroom floor during the 20 November inspection and therefore could not raise it. They stated they had offered to assist with deck repairs but were waiting on materials to be provided by the landlord, which did not eventuate.
The landlord submits that the issues raised (particularly regarding the deck and floor) do not constitute breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards, which relate specifically to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping. The Law
The Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) set out minimum requirements for: -Heating -Insulation -Ventilation - Moisture ingress and drainage - Draught stopping
For private rentals: -If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, compliance must be achieved within 90 days of the tenancy starting. -If the tenancy commenced on or after 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the compliance period is 120 days. -All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
In considering the evidence, the tenant was unable to clearly identify which specific Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) were breached. The issues raised largely relate to failure to maintain obligations rather than breaches of the defined HHS categories. While the bathroom floor collapse and deck condition may raise concerns under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA (which requires the landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair), they do not constitute a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards per se. Furthermore, the landlord provided a current HHS compliance certificate dated 1 September 2021, and there is no persuasive evidence to rebut that certification or demonstrate subsequent non-compliance under section 45(1)(bb). It is not the role of the Tribunal to assist the Tenant in formulating their claim or in determining which provisions of the law may apply. It was open to the Tenant to familiarise themselves with the Healthy Homes Standards and to present evidence demonstrating how the alleged defects in the property met the specific criteria set out in those standards. In the absence of clear identification of which standards were breached and supporting evidence to that effect, the Tribunal cannot make a finding in the tenant’s favour on this ground.
The claim is dismissed.
It also follows that the tenant's related claim for compensation under this ground is therefore also dismissed. Retaliatory Termination
The tenant alleges that a notice given by the landlord on 7 May 2025 to end the tenancy on 7 July 2025 was retaliatory, issued in response to complaints made between April and May 2025 regarding the condition of the premises. The tenant believes the decision to terminate was motivated, at least in part, by their efforts to exercise rights under the RTA and to compel the landlord to carry out repairs.
The landlord advised that the tenancy was due to end on 7 July 2025 and the termination notice was issued to align with that fixed-term expiry. The landlord stated that they were considering selling the property and issued the notice early to provide the tenants with sufficient time to prepare. The Law
Under section 54 of the RTA, the Tribunal may declare a notice retaliatory if the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant: -Exercising any right, power, authority, or remedy under the RTA or the tenancy agreement; or -Making a complaint against the landlord relating to the tenancy.
If the Tribunal finds the notice to be retaliatory, it may declare it to be of no effect. The Tenant must also apply to the Tribunal within 28 working days of receipt of the notice.(Section 54(1) RTA)
Section 50 RTA also states a fixed-term tenancy terminates on the expiry of the term of the tenancy or, if any of sections 55AA, 56A(1), 58(1)(d), (da), 58A, 59, 59A, or 59B apply, by giving notice in accordance with the applicable section.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant did not file a claim within 28 working days of the notice being provided on 3 May 2025. They applied to the Tribunal on 1 July 2025. There is also insufficient evidence that the landlord was motivated by those complaints when issuing the termination notice. The evidence supports a reasonable explanation that the landlord was considering a sale and provided advance notice in accordance with the tenancy end date. Furthermore, this was a fixed term tenancy nearing the termination end date and the Landlord was ending it in accordance with the legislation.
The claim is dismissed.
As the Tenant has been unsuccessful, they shall bear the costs of their filing fee and name suppression is granted to the Landlord. In this case the Landlord was successful so name suppression is granted .

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details.
The Tenants application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tenant was represented by Mr Wilson Manu.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means it is the Tenants job to prove that their case is more likely than not to be correct.
The Tenant claimed breach of Healthy Home Standards, compensation, retaliatory termination and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord filed a cross-application; however, this was in substance a response to the tenant’s claims and not an independent claim seeking relief. Breach of Healthy Home standards
The tenant claimed that the landlord has breached their 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). While the tenant could not identify specific standards breached, they raised the following as breaches of Healthy Home standards a. The hot water cylinder cupboard was damp with visibly wet walls, first noticed on 30 June 2024. The landlord allegedly dismissed this concern. b. In December 2024, part of the bathroom floor collapsed. A temporary repair was made on 28 December 2024, with permanent repairs not completed until March 2025. c. The tenant claimed that mould and dampness were present throughout the property, exacerbated after the bathroom floor collapse. d. Upon moving in on 1 July 2024, the Tenant observed that the deck was “brittle.” The tenant claims that on 23 December 2025, a visitor fell through broken planks and suffered a sprained ankle. The tenant’s 6-year-old daughter also fell through on an earlier occasion, suffering minor scratches. .7. The tenant submitted that they notified the landlord of these issues multiple times via phone calls and text messages but received delayed responses. The Tenant provided photographs of the damaged areas, text message conversations between the parties.
In response, the landlord stated that the property was compliant with the Healthy Home Standards, supported by a compliance certificate dated 1 September 2021 which they submitted.
The landlord disputed that concerns about the hot water cupboard were raised at or near the start of the tenancy. They maintain that the first notification of any issue relating to the bathroom was submitted through the landlord’s maintenance system on 16 December 2024.
The landlord further submits that delays in repairs in December 2024 were due to the Christmas shutdown period. A contractor attended on 28 December to install a temporary cover, and full repairs were completed by March 2025.
During a mid-tenancy inspection on 20 November 2024, the landlord requested a written list of any concerns. The tenant did not raise the hot water cupboard, bathroom floor, or general mould concerns at that time. The tenant explained that they were unaware of the hole in the bathroom floor during the 20 November inspection and therefore could not raise it. They stated they had offered to assist with deck repairs but were waiting on materials to be provided by the landlord, which did not eventuate.
The landlord submits that the issues raised (particularly regarding the deck and floor) do not constitute breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards, which relate specifically to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping. The Law
The Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) set out minimum requirements for: -Heating -Insulation -Ventilation - Moisture ingress and drainage - Draught stopping
For private rentals: -If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, compliance must be achieved within 90 days of the tenancy starting. -If the tenancy commenced on or after 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the compliance period is 120 days. -All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
In considering the evidence, the tenant was unable to clearly identify which specific Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) were breached. The issues raised largely relate to failure to maintain obligations rather than breaches of the defined HHS categories. While the bathroom floor collapse and deck condition may raise concerns under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA (which requires the landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair), they do not constitute a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards per se. Furthermore, the landlord provided a current HHS compliance certificate dated 1 September 2021, and there is no persuasive evidence to rebut that certification or demonstrate subsequent non-compliance under section 45(1)(bb). It is not the role of the Tribunal to assist the Tenant in formulating their claim or in determining which provisions of the law may apply. It was open to the Tenant to familiarise themselves with the Healthy Homes Standards and to present evidence demonstrating how the alleged defects in the property met the specific criteria set out in those standards. In the absence of clear identification of which standards were breached and supporting evidence to that effect, the Tribunal cannot make a finding in the tenant’s favour on this ground.
The claim is dismissed.
It also follows that the tenant's related claim for compensation under this ground is therefore also dismissed. Retaliatory Termination
The tenant alleges that a notice given by the landlord on 7 May 2025 to end the tenancy on 7 July 2025 was retaliatory, issued in response to complaints made between April and May 2025 regarding the condition of the premises. The tenant believes the decision to terminate was motivated, at least in part, by their efforts to exercise rights under the RTA and to compel the landlord to carry out repairs.
The landlord advised that the tenancy was due to end on 7 July 2025 and the termination notice was issued to align with that fixed-term expiry. The landlord stated that they were considering selling the property and issued the notice early to provide the tenants with sufficient time to prepare. The Law
Under section 54 of the RTA, the Tribunal may declare a notice retaliatory if the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant: -Exercising any right, power, authority, or remedy under the RTA or the tenancy agreement; or -Making a complaint against the landlord relating to the tenancy.
If the Tribunal finds the notice to be retaliatory, it may declare it to be of no effect. The Tenant must also apply to the Tribunal within 28 working days of receipt of the notice.(Section 54(1) RTA)
Section 50 RTA also states a fixed-term tenancy terminates on the expiry of the term of the tenancy or, if any of sections 55AA, 56A(1), 58(1)(d), (da), 58A, 59, 59A, or 59B apply, by giving notice in accordance with the applicable section.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant did not file a claim within 28 working days of the notice being provided on 3 May 2025. They applied to the Tribunal on 1 July 2025. There is also insufficient evidence that the landlord was motivated by those complaints when issuing the termination notice. The evidence supports a reasonable explanation that the landlord was considering a sale and provided advance notice in accordance with the tenancy end date. Furthermore, this was a fixed term tenancy nearing the termination end date and the Landlord was ending it in accordance with the legislation.
The claim is dismissed.
As the Tenant has been unsuccessful, they shall bear the costs of their filing fee and name suppression is granted to the Landlord. In this case the Landlord was successful so name suppression is granted .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5275484 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5275484 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions