What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5291707 about?

The tribunal order states: One Place Limited As Agent For Wild Development must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5291707?

Compensation: Breach Of HHS: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: HHS Report Fee: $251.85 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5291707?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5291707?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13270176-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5291707 about?

The tribunal order states: One Place Limited As Agent For Wild Development must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5291707?

Compensation: Breach Of HHS: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: HHS Report Fee: $251.85 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5291707?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5291707?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13270176-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1824 Great North Road, Avondale, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5291707 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5291707 — net $751.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: HHS report fee	$251.85	HHS report fee
Compensation: Breach of HHS	$500.00	Breach of HHS
Net award	$751.85
Bond	$1,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$751.85

Order

One Place Limited As Agent For Wild Development must pay [The tenant/s] $751.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 (718039) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

There were three hearings in total for the parties. The first was on 7 October 2025 in person, the second on 24 November 2025 via teleconference and the third was on 21 January 2026 in person. The tenant was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter for all three hearings.
At the first hearing, work orders (“the work orders”) were made for the landlord to fix the mailbox, fix the kitchen cupboard drawer, have the premises assess ed for Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) and have the water seepage in the ceiling investigated by 21 October 2025.
Between the first and second hearings, the tenant filed additional documents for his five claims. The tenant sought for: a. Rent refund of $21,608.00 b. Compensation of $17,794.00 c. Early termination of the fixed-term tenancy and a one-month rent-free period between 25 November 2025 to December 2025 d. Moving expenses of $500.00 and e. Refund of the bond of $2,920.00.
At the second hearing, the parties agreed that the tenancy would end on 25 December 2025.
The Bond Centre was also ordered to pay the bond of $1,920.00 to the tenant leaving the balance of the bond of $1,000.00 with the Bond Centre.
The parties had confirmed that the work orders were complied with albeit a day late on 22 October 2025. The tenant’s claim for rent refund
The tenant’s monetary claims are based under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The rent refund of $21,608.00 was based on 80 percent of the total rent paid for “humanitarian reasons “ due to the tenant being victims.
The compensation of $17,794.00 was made up of: a. $10,000.00 for the One Place Property Management company assuming joint and several responsibilities with the landlord and to “punish” the responsible property manager and for the company’s actions; b. $2,460.00 for economic loss due to not being able to work for 6 days and $100.00 for “psychological loss” for each of the three days that the tenant fell ill; and c. $437.00 for 50 percent of the total energy bill – for the extra heating costs in winter.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with the HHS.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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. See section 109(3) RTA.
The tenant claimed that there was air leakage in the house, and that had affected his life and his 10-year-old son’s life. The tenant’s son had attended the third hearing as a witness to give evidence and he explained how terrible the living situation had been. He said that his sleep quality had been bad and had been living in a nightmare situation. He said that he was sleeping much better after he had moved elsewhere.
The only objective evidence to support the air leakage issue was from an HHS report dated 9 October 2025. This report was commissioned by the tenant and prepared by Healthy Homes New Zealand.
There were two areas of concern with the draught stopping. The first was in the ceiling in hallway 1. It was noted that draught could be felt and that “visible mould and bubbling paint to the ceiling with the linen cupboard. Recommend further investigation.”
Although it was noted as “hallway 1”, it was in the ceiling of a linen cupboard, not the hallway itself.
The second was with the bedroom 2 window. It was noted that draught could be felt and that there was a “gap to the bottom sides of the window.” The report noted that there was a 5 mm gap.
The window draught issue was fixed on 22 October 2025 by a contractor. The notes stated: “adjusted the window handle, right hand part of window a bit off level so leaves little gap about 2/3 mm after tightening handle. Right hand side seals fully now.” There was also a recommendation to replace seals from outside window as some parts were missing.
Regarding the visible mould and bubbling paint to the ceiling in the linen cupboard, a contractor came on 29 October 2025 to investigate. The notes from the visit labelled OP-37017 were as follows: Attend at property. Inspected cupboard where mould was appearing as well as water damaged to paint work of the ceiling. This is on the top floor of the townhouse and throughout house, the roof is directly above. Found a hatch in the adjacent bedroom wardrobe which was able to open and see directly above the affected area. Could see areas on the timber framing where water stains were visible, but during visit all was dry. The leak appears to be caused by a roof leak which most likely leaks with heavy rain either getting under the roofing iron or under a flashing. Recommend having a roofer inspect the flashing and roof for area where water is leaking under and re-seal.
The landlord repainted the affected area on 23 November 2025.
There was no other signs of leak, moisture or dampness anywhere else from the evidence.
In relation to the 5 mm gap, the landlord provided photos and evidence suggesting aluminium joinery had 3 mm gaps to allow for thermal expansion.
The landlord also questioned why the son could not sleep in one of the other rooms if his room was the only one with the draught issue.
The tenant claimed that there was too much “stuff to move” and that the other rooms were draughty as well. The tenant acknowledged that the HHS report did not note other rooms to be draughty.
The tenant had provided an “independent building moisture ingress assessment report” dated 29 December 2025. However, that report was based on the same HHS report from 9 October 2025 and the maintenance report OPL-37017. There was nothing to suggest that an actual inspection took place on 25 December 2025 as claimed by the tenant.
Having seen and heard the evidence, I dismiss the tenant’s claims for 80 percent reduction of rent. I do not find that extra 2 mm of window gap warrants 80 percent reduction of the rent. In all other aspects, the premises was a recently built premises fit for purpose.
I do not find that there is basis for compensation of $17,794.00. There is no power for a general “punishment” of $10,000.00 of the property management company. That portion of the claim is struck out entirely. I do not find that the landlord is liable for any loss of income for the 6 days the tenant had to take time off work due to illness of him or his son. I do not find there is any basis for “psychological loss” of $100.00 per sick day.
Regarding 50 percent of the total energy bill, the colder months between June and September averaged $218.50 per month for heating, air conditioning, hot water and the stove top.
In May and between October to December, the average energy bill was $206.99 per month. I do not find that the tenant has proven that the extra 2 mm of window gap had resulted in any significant increase of power use for the colder months. The difference of the average amounts would be expected for the colder months for the increased heating costs.
In relation to the linen cupboard ceiling issue, it is clear that there had been a leak from the ceiling at one point. However, by the time it was looked at in October 2025, the contractors had found no dampness issues. All other places in the timber appeared to be dry.
Other than the linen cupboard ceiling, none of the photos or videos provided showed that the premises suffered from other dampness or mould issues.
I do not give much weight to the medical notes. The doctors can only give opinions based on what they have been told by patients.
I do not find that additional 2 mm gap was such that the tenant’s health would have been affected.
Further to that, the tenant has a duty to mitigate the loss caused by any of the landlord’s breaches. This would have required the tenant to tape up the gap or move to another room. The explanation given by the tenant as to why the other rooms could not be used was not a good enough explanation.
When the leak on the ceiling of the linen cupboard was identified, it was fixed. Fortunately, there were no other mould or dampness issues. I do not find that there is basis for compensation.
However, I acknowledge that the premises was not HHS compliant due to the additional 2 mm gap in the window. I order the landlord to pay the tenant $500.00 to acknowledge the non-compliance of the HHS with the premises.
Further to that, I order the landlord to reimburse the tenant $251.85 for the HHS report costs.
As I do not find that the breach of the HHS and the living conditions of the premises was such that it required the tenant to move, I dismiss the tenant’s claims for a rent-free period for the last month and moving costs. Refund of the bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the remaining $1,000.00 from the bond. The landlord has not filed a counterclaim for the bond with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) RTA provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the remaining $1,000.00 will be refunded to the tenant. Breach of the work order
The tenant sought for exemplary damages to be awarded for the landlord’s breach of the work orders.
Breaching a work order under s 78A RTA without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $5,000.00. See section 108(2A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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. See section 109(3) RTA.
The work orders made on 7 October 2025 had a due date of 21 October 2025.
The work orders were complied with on 22 October 2025, a day late.
I cannot find any public interest in awarding exemplary damages for work orders being completed a day later than the stipulated due date. I acknowledge that there can be inherent delays with getting contractors to attend jobs.
I may have granted exemplary damages if there had there been longer delays with compliance. However, that is not the case here.
I dismiss the claim for any exemplary damages for non-compliance with the work orders.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5291707 — net $751.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: HHS report fee	$251.85	HHS report fee
Compensation: Breach of HHS	$500.00	Breach of HHS
Net award	$751.85
Bond	$1,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$751.85

Order

One Place Limited As Agent For Wild Development must pay [The tenant/s] $751.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 (718039) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

There were three hearings in total for the parties. The first was on 7 October 2025 in person, the second on 24 November 2025 via teleconference and the third was on 21 January 2026 in person. The tenant was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter for all three hearings.
At the first hearing, work orders (“the work orders”) were made for the landlord to fix the mailbox, fix the kitchen cupboard drawer, have the premises assess ed for Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) and have the water seepage in the ceiling investigated by 21 October 2025.
Between the first and second hearings, the tenant filed additional documents for his five claims. The tenant sought for: a. Rent refund of $21,608.00 b. Compensation of $17,794.00 c. Early termination of the fixed-term tenancy and a one-month rent-free period between 25 November 2025 to December 2025 d. Moving expenses of $500.00 and e. Refund of the bond of $2,920.00.
At the second hearing, the parties agreed that the tenancy would end on 25 December 2025.
The Bond Centre was also ordered to pay the bond of $1,920.00 to the tenant leaving the balance of the bond of $1,000.00 with the Bond Centre.
The parties had confirmed that the work orders were complied with albeit a day late on 22 October 2025. The tenant’s claim for rent refund
The tenant’s monetary claims are based under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The rent refund of $21,608.00 was based on 80 percent of the total rent paid for “humanitarian reasons “ due to the tenant being victims.
The compensation of $17,794.00 was made up of: a. $10,000.00 for the One Place Property Management company assuming joint and several responsibilities with the landlord and to “punish” the responsible property manager and for the company’s actions; b. $2,460.00 for economic loss due to not being able to work for 6 days and $100.00 for “psychological loss” for each of the three days that the tenant fell ill; and c. $437.00 for 50 percent of the total energy bill – for the extra heating costs in winter.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with the HHS.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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. See section 109(3) RTA.
The tenant claimed that there was air leakage in the house, and that had affected his life and his 10-year-old son’s life. The tenant’s son had attended the third hearing as a witness to give evidence and he explained how terrible the living situation had been. He said that his sleep quality had been bad and had been living in a nightmare situation. He said that he was sleeping much better after he had moved elsewhere.
The only objective evidence to support the air leakage issue was from an HHS report dated 9 October 2025. This report was commissioned by the tenant and prepared by Healthy Homes New Zealand.
There were two areas of concern with the draught stopping. The first was in the ceiling in hallway 1. It was noted that draught could be felt and that “visible mould and bubbling paint to the ceiling with the linen cupboard. Recommend further investigation.”
Although it was noted as “hallway 1”, it was in the ceiling of a linen cupboard, not the hallway itself.
The second was with the bedroom 2 window. It was noted that draught could be felt and that there was a “gap to the bottom sides of the window.” The report noted that there was a 5 mm gap.
The window draught issue was fixed on 22 October 2025 by a contractor. The notes stated: “adjusted the window handle, right hand part of window a bit off level so leaves little gap about 2/3 mm after tightening handle. Right hand side seals fully now.” There was also a recommendation to replace seals from outside window as some parts were missing.
Regarding the visible mould and bubbling paint to the ceiling in the linen cupboard, a contractor came on 29 October 2025 to investigate. The notes from the visit labelled OP-37017 were as follows: Attend at property. Inspected cupboard where mould was appearing as well as water damaged to paint work of the ceiling. This is on the top floor of the townhouse and throughout house, the roof is directly above. Found a hatch in the adjacent bedroom wardrobe which was able to open and see directly above the affected area. Could see areas on the timber framing where water stains were visible, but during visit all was dry. The leak appears to be caused by a roof leak which most likely leaks with heavy rain either getting under the roofing iron or under a flashing. Recommend having a roofer inspect the flashing and roof for area where water is leaking under and re-seal.
The landlord repainted the affected area on 23 November 2025.
There was no other signs of leak, moisture or dampness anywhere else from the evidence.
In relation to the 5 mm gap, the landlord provided photos and evidence suggesting aluminium joinery had 3 mm gaps to allow for thermal expansion.
The landlord also questioned why the son could not sleep in one of the other rooms if his room was the only one with the draught issue.
The tenant claimed that there was too much “stuff to move” and that the other rooms were draughty as well. The tenant acknowledged that the HHS report did not note other rooms to be draughty.
The tenant had provided an “independent building moisture ingress assessment report” dated 29 December 2025. However, that report was based on the same HHS report from 9 October 2025 and the maintenance report OPL-37017. There was nothing to suggest that an actual inspection took place on 25 December 2025 as claimed by the tenant.
Having seen and heard the evidence, I dismiss the tenant’s claims for 80 percent reduction of rent. I do not find that extra 2 mm of window gap warrants 80 percent reduction of the rent. In all other aspects, the premises was a recently built premises fit for purpose.
I do not find that there is basis for compensation of $17,794.00. There is no power for a general “punishment” of $10,000.00 of the property management company. That portion of the claim is struck out entirely. I do not find that the landlord is liable for any loss of income for the 6 days the tenant had to take time off work due to illness of him or his son. I do not find there is any basis for “psychological loss” of $100.00 per sick day.
Regarding 50 percent of the total energy bill, the colder months between June and September averaged $218.50 per month for heating, air conditioning, hot water and the stove top.
In May and between October to December, the average energy bill was $206.99 per month. I do not find that the tenant has proven that the extra 2 mm of window gap had resulted in any significant increase of power use for the colder months. The difference of the average amounts would be expected for the colder months for the increased heating costs.
In relation to the linen cupboard ceiling issue, it is clear that there had been a leak from the ceiling at one point. However, by the time it was looked at in October 2025, the contractors had found no dampness issues. All other places in the timber appeared to be dry.
Other than the linen cupboard ceiling, none of the photos or videos provided showed that the premises suffered from other dampness or mould issues.
I do not give much weight to the medical notes. The doctors can only give opinions based on what they have been told by patients.
I do not find that additional 2 mm gap was such that the tenant’s health would have been affected.
Further to that, the tenant has a duty to mitigate the loss caused by any of the landlord’s breaches. This would have required the tenant to tape up the gap or move to another room. The explanation given by the tenant as to why the other rooms could not be used was not a good enough explanation.
When the leak on the ceiling of the linen cupboard was identified, it was fixed. Fortunately, there were no other mould or dampness issues. I do not find that there is basis for compensation.
However, I acknowledge that the premises was not HHS compliant due to the additional 2 mm gap in the window. I order the landlord to pay the tenant $500.00 to acknowledge the non-compliance of the HHS with the premises.
Further to that, I order the landlord to reimburse the tenant $251.85 for the HHS report costs.
As I do not find that the breach of the HHS and the living conditions of the premises was such that it required the tenant to move, I dismiss the tenant’s claims for a rent-free period for the last month and moving costs. Refund of the bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the remaining $1,000.00 from the bond. The landlord has not filed a counterclaim for the bond with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) RTA provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the remaining $1,000.00 will be refunded to the tenant. Breach of the work order
The tenant sought for exemplary damages to be awarded for the landlord’s breach of the work orders.
Breaching a work order under s 78A RTA without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $5,000.00. See section 108(2A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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. See section 109(3) RTA.
The work orders made on 7 October 2025 had a due date of 21 October 2025.
The work orders were complied with on 22 October 2025, a day late.
I cannot find any public interest in awarding exemplary damages for work orders being completed a day later than the stipulated due date. I acknowledge that there can be inherent delays with getting contractors to attend jobs.
I may have granted exemplary damages if there had there been longer delays with compliance. However, that is not the case here.
I dismiss the claim for any exemplary damages for non-compliance with the work orders.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5291707 — Healthy homes at 1824 Great North Road, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5291707 — Healthy homes at 1824 Great North Road, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions