What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5283742 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5283742?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5283742?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5283742?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12541636-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5283742 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5283742?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5283742?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5283742?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12541636-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

136 Brookside Terrace, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5283742 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background

This tenancy started on 21 April 2021 and ended on 15 June 2025. The owner of the premises wanted to sell the property and gave the tenant advance notice of that.

On 10 June 2025, 5 days before the tenancy ended, the tenant lodged her application.

The landlord completed an end of tenancy inspection and agreed to refund the bond to the tenant in full.

I held a telephone directions conference with the parties on 13 August 2025. The tenant withdrew her application for work orders, the tenancy having since ended.

I made directions for the parties to file submissions, the tenant setting out her claims and the landlord responding to them.

Today, I heard evidence and submissions from the parties. I also heard witness evidence from Mr Crossey, a current licensed building practitioner and managing director of MR Property Services.

The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages in the total amount of $59,430.00 comprising $12,000.00 for alleged breaches by the landlord of its repair and maintenance and Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) responsibilities; $10,000.00 for damage to chattels due to mould; $14,500.00 for breaches of quiet enjoyment against the landlord and the owner; $10,000.00 for emotional harm; $12,000.00 for excessive power bills; and $930.00 for medical expenses.

I confirm that I have considered all the evidence placed before the Tribunal, and the oral evidence I heard, even if I do not specifically refer to it. Issues

The Tribunal must decide the following issues: •Did the landlord fail to maintain and repair the premises and fail to comply with the HHS? •Has the tenant proved a claim for damage to chattels? •Has the tenant proved claims for breaches of her quiet enjoyment and for harassment? •Has the tenant proved a claim for emotional harm? •Has the tenant proved a claim for reimbursement of high electricity accounts? •Has the tenant proved a claim for medical expenses? Relevant law

Section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord and that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant. A breach of quiet enjoyment that amounts to harassment is a defined unlawful act.

Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the HHS. Compensation and exemplary damages

The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.

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 and the accompanying stress and anxiety.

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.

Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.

In Birch, the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Discussion Did the landlord fail to maintain and repair the premises and fail to comply with the HHS?

The tenant has not proved any failure by the landlord either to repair and maintain the premises or to comply with the HHS.

The landlord produced 3 HHS reports (all undertaken by different professional assessors) one from March 2021 about 3 months before the tenancy started, one dated 21 June 2025, 6 days after the tenancy ended, and one dated 9 July 2025.

The tenant alleged that during the 6-day period between the tenancy ending and the second report, the landlord undertook compliance work. Mr Curtis gave evidence that no work had been done during that time.

In fact, the report completed by MR Property Services on 21 June shows that some top-up insulation is required. That is not a breach of the HHS (given the earlier confirmed compliance) but a maintenance issue.

In evidence, Mr Crossey, the author of the report, said the slight reduction in the ceiling insulation height involved a small area that would not have made any significant difference.

Mr Crossey said in evidence that he checked the ceiling and underfloor insulation, the windows, and the roof tiles. He said there was no evidence of any failures in the insulation (other than the need for a small area requiring a top-up in the ceiling) and no gaps around the windows. He said there was no evidence of leaking in the ceiling; it was dry and there was no moisture. Nor was there any issue with the mortar on areas of the external cladding.

Mr Crossey explained that concrete tile roofs (which he recommended be replaced just due to their weight) allowed light to show through into the ceiling cavity and would allow draught in the cavity, but the insulation protected against that. He said even though light could show through, that did not mean that the roof leaked or allowed the ingress of moisture.

The tenant relies on a report by Tamaiti Healthy Homes. The report writer states that the underfloor insulation requires repair or replacement, the windows require draught stopping, and the roof needs significant repair or replacement.

This report is not evidentially sound as a HHS assessment. It is not referenced to the standards. The qualifications of the assessor are not stated, and it has a broader context – it is a whanau housing assessment.

Furthermore, the Tribunal does not accept the conclusions of the assessor given the evidence Mr Crossey provided. He fully inspected the underfloor insulation, he checked the windows, he described how a concrete roof allows light to penetrate and how that can be confused with gaps allowing water ingress when it does not, and he confirmed that the roof cavity and the premises generally were not affected by high levels of moisture.

Mr Crossey’s evidence and the photos attached to his HHS assessment establish that the Tamaiti assessment is either wrong, flawed, or lacks an understanding of the HHS.

I find that the premises were always HHS compliant during the tenancy and that the landlord met their section 45 RTA responsibilities to maintain and repair the premises having regard to the age and character of the premises. I dismiss this part of the tenant’s application.

Has the tenant proved a claim for damage to chattels?

Compensation follows a proven breach by, in this case, the landlord. Given my finding that the landlord did not breach their section 45 RTA responsibilities, the tenant’s application for compensation for damage to chattels cannot succeed. I find it more probable that any damage to chattels was due to mould caused by the way in which the premises were used.

Even if the breach by the landlord had been proved, this claim is based on a ‘best guess’ estimate. There is no evidence about the loss of value of the chattels alleged to have been damaged upon which the Tribunal could calculate compensation. I dismiss this part of the tenant’s application. Had the tenant proved claims for breaches of her quiet enjoyment and for harassment?

The tenant has not proved claims for breaches of her quiet enjoyment, let alone to a level that would establish harassment.

The tenant said that the owner would come to the property to do repairs and would ask her partner to assist, which contributed to family tension. She confirmed that her partner agreed to assist, but ‘looking back that was not right’.

The tenant said she was not listened to and took offence at comments made to her about the need to ventilate the premises.

Compensation follows a breach. Here, the tenant has not proved any breach by the landlord amounting to an interference with her quiet enjoyment of the premises. The Tribunal does not compensate hurt feelings. This part of the application is dismissed.

Has the tenant proved a claim for emotional harm?

The tenant referred to stress, the house being cold, a lack of sleep, shivering due to cold, and not being listened to.

The premises had 3 heat pumps. The premises were HHS compliant. That the premises were cold is not a landlord breach, it results from the way in which the premises are used.

For the same reasons given above, the tenant has not proved a claim for emotional harm compensation. I dismiss this part of the tenant’s claim. Has the tenant proved a claim for reimbursement of high electricity accounts?

Given that there is no proven breach by the landlord of its section 45 RTA responsibilities this claim cannot succeed. Even if there had been a proven breach, there is no evidence on which the Tribunal could calculate compensation. This was a ‘best guess’ by the tenant after asking other people about their electricity accounts. I dismiss this part of the tenant’s application.

Has the tenant proved claim for medical expenses?

This claim must also fail. The evidence does not link the tenant’s medical expenses for her and her children to any proven breach by the landlord. I dismiss this claim. Owner’s comment

Mrs Golovko, the owner of the premises, expressed her hurt and disappointment at the tenant’s application. She said the premises were her family home for 7 years and she was careful to hire professional assessors to ensure the premises were compliant with the RTA. She felt that the tenant’s application was in response to the owners selling the property which ended the tenancy.

The Tribunal’s observation is that the application was contrived. The tenant took no actions during the almost 4 years of the tenancy, during which the tenancy was renewed more than once. To raise these complaints in the dramatic manner in which they have been pleaded a few days before the tenancy ended does not add credence to the claims at all. Many of the tenant’s communications with the landlord and the owner do not support the claims she now makes. Rather, they show in some cases gratitude and an enjoyment of the tenancy. Result

The application is dismissed. Name suppression

The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenant sought name suppression. I make no order for name suppression as the tenant’s application is unsuccessful 2 .

Reasons