What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5293840 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 5293840?

Compensation: mouldy curtains 8 week…: $320.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: mouldy wardrobe 9 week…: $180.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5293840?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5293840?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12285699-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5293840 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 5293840?

Compensation: mouldy curtains 8 week…: $320.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: mouldy wardrobe 9 week…: $180.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5293840?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5293840?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12285699-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

31 Fox Street, Ngaio, Wellington 6035 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5293840 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5293840 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: mouldy curtains 8 weeks at	$320.00	mouldy curtains 8 weeks at
Compensation: mouldy wardrobe 9 weeks at	$180.00	mouldy wardrobe 9 weeks at
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$500.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Rent Better Property Management Limited As Agent For Owner must pay [The tenant/s] $500.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. One tenant represented all the tenants. I confirmed that the application should be amended to show all the tenants on the order.
The tenants signed a fixed term tenancy agreement from October 2024 – October 2025. They reported a lot of maintenance during the first two months of the tenancy. They are concerned at the time it took for repairs to be carried out. They are also concerned that the house did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). The landlord, which no longer manages the tenancy, agreed the fixed term tenancy could end early, in January 2025. The issues I have to decide include: • Did the house comply with the HHS? • Was there a breach of the duty to repair? • Should the tenants get compensation for moving costs and a rent reduction?

Did the house comply with the HHS?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019. The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the ventilation standard and the moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable.
The tenants had problems with the windows from the start of the tenancy. One broke before they moved in and some latches needed attention. The landlord said it acted quickly to repair the broken window. I find this was a maintenance issue rather than a HHS issue because the HHS report done before the tenancy started states all the rooms had the required number of windows that could be opened.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The tenant said the wardrobe in her bedroom was mouldy and a builder told her that this was because of an issue with the drainage system. The HHS report, which was done in September 2024, states the house has a ground moisture barrier and adequate gutters, pipes and drains. The landlord said the actual problem with the wardrobe was moisture ingress from cracked exterior cladding. This is the tenants’ claim to prove, which means the tenants must have better evidence than the landlord does. The tenants have not provided me with sufficient evidence to show the damaged wardrobe was from faulty gutters, pipes or drains.
The claim there was a breach of the HHS is dismissed.

Was there a breach of the duty to repair?

The tenants claim that the landlord breached its obligations under section 45 RTA by not providing and maintaining the premises in a reasonable state of repair. A landlord is required to carry out any repairs within a reasonable time frame.
The tenants said the time it took to replace the windows and the mouldy curtains was not reasonable. The mould was not removed from the wardrobe during the tenancy. The landlord said it acted quickly to fix the windows. The curtains were delayed because tradespeople let them down but were installed at the start of January. This is the tenants’ claim to prove.
Based on the evidence provided the tenants have not proved the time frame for repairing the windows was not reasonable.
The tenants have provided a message which shows they first told the landlord about the mouldy curtains on 8 November. The curtains were installed on 3 January. I find the time it took to install the curtains was not reasonable, especially since the mould was easy to see at the start of the tenancy. I find there was a loss of amenity because the tenants were paying rent for a house with maintained curtains. It took the landlord 8 weeks to have the new curtains installed. I find $40 a week to be reasonable compensation because all the curtains had to be replaced.
The tenants have provided me with a message dated 18 November advising the landlord about the mould in the wardrobe and their reluctance to use it for storage. The mould was never addressed and the tenancy ended on 23 January. I find there was a loss of amenity for 9 weeks. $20 a week seems fair compensation because the bedroom could still be used but the lack of storage was frustrating.

Should the tenants get compensation for moving costs and a rent reduction?

The tenants have claimed the cost of moving because they moved sooner than expected. This claim was dismissed at the hearing. I find the tenants made decision to move and they should pay the usual costs associated with a decision to move.
There is also a claim for a reimbursement in rent in the amount of $90 dollars a week for the duration of the tenancy. The tenants found the house advertised for the lower rent after the end of the tenancy. The property manager who managed the end of the tenancy said that she had done her best to release the tenants from the fixed term as quickly and as easily as possible, and she did not think further compensation would be appropriate in the circumstances.
I can see from the correspondence that the property manager was helpful and the tenants did not have to pay any of the costs usually associated with finding replacement tenants. I accept there is value in that. I find the amounts already ordered for loss of amenity are sufficient to compensate the tenants and the claim for reimbursement of rent is dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest in names when a landlord has to pay compensation. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5293840 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: mouldy curtains 8 weeks at	$320.00	mouldy curtains 8 weeks at
Compensation: mouldy wardrobe 9 weeks at	$180.00	mouldy wardrobe 9 weeks at
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$500.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Rent Better Property Management Limited As Agent For Owner must pay [The tenant/s] $500.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. One tenant represented all the tenants. I confirmed that the application should be amended to show all the tenants on the order.
The tenants signed a fixed term tenancy agreement from October 2024 – October 2025. They reported a lot of maintenance during the first two months of the tenancy. They are concerned at the time it took for repairs to be carried out. They are also concerned that the house did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). The landlord, which no longer manages the tenancy, agreed the fixed term tenancy could end early, in January 2025. The issues I have to decide include: • Did the house comply with the HHS? • Was there a breach of the duty to repair? • Should the tenants get compensation for moving costs and a rent reduction?

Did the house comply with the HHS?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019. The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the ventilation standard and the moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable.
The tenants had problems with the windows from the start of the tenancy. One broke before they moved in and some latches needed attention. The landlord said it acted quickly to repair the broken window. I find this was a maintenance issue rather than a HHS issue because the HHS report done before the tenancy started states all the rooms had the required number of windows that could be opened.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The tenant said the wardrobe in her bedroom was mouldy and a builder told her that this was because of an issue with the drainage system. The HHS report, which was done in September 2024, states the house has a ground moisture barrier and adequate gutters, pipes and drains. The landlord said the actual problem with the wardrobe was moisture ingress from cracked exterior cladding. This is the tenants’ claim to prove, which means the tenants must have better evidence than the landlord does. The tenants have not provided me with sufficient evidence to show the damaged wardrobe was from faulty gutters, pipes or drains.
The claim there was a breach of the HHS is dismissed.

Was there a breach of the duty to repair?

The tenants claim that the landlord breached its obligations under section 45 RTA by not providing and maintaining the premises in a reasonable state of repair. A landlord is required to carry out any repairs within a reasonable time frame.
The tenants said the time it took to replace the windows and the mouldy curtains was not reasonable. The mould was not removed from the wardrobe during the tenancy. The landlord said it acted quickly to fix the windows. The curtains were delayed because tradespeople let them down but were installed at the start of January. This is the tenants’ claim to prove.
Based on the evidence provided the tenants have not proved the time frame for repairing the windows was not reasonable.
The tenants have provided a message which shows they first told the landlord about the mouldy curtains on 8 November. The curtains were installed on 3 January. I find the time it took to install the curtains was not reasonable, especially since the mould was easy to see at the start of the tenancy. I find there was a loss of amenity because the tenants were paying rent for a house with maintained curtains. It took the landlord 8 weeks to have the new curtains installed. I find $40 a week to be reasonable compensation because all the curtains had to be replaced.
The tenants have provided me with a message dated 18 November advising the landlord about the mould in the wardrobe and their reluctance to use it for storage. The mould was never addressed and the tenancy ended on 23 January. I find there was a loss of amenity for 9 weeks. $20 a week seems fair compensation because the bedroom could still be used but the lack of storage was frustrating.

Should the tenants get compensation for moving costs and a rent reduction?

The tenants have claimed the cost of moving because they moved sooner than expected. This claim was dismissed at the hearing. I find the tenants made decision to move and they should pay the usual costs associated with a decision to move.
There is also a claim for a reimbursement in rent in the amount of $90 dollars a week for the duration of the tenancy. The tenants found the house advertised for the lower rent after the end of the tenancy. The property manager who managed the end of the tenancy said that she had done her best to release the tenants from the fixed term as quickly and as easily as possible, and she did not think further compensation would be appropriate in the circumstances.
I can see from the correspondence that the property manager was helpful and the tenants did not have to pay any of the costs usually associated with finding replacement tenants. I accept there is value in that. I find the amounts already ordered for loss of amenity are sufficient to compensate the tenants and the claim for reimbursement of rent is dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest in names when a landlord has to pay compensation. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5293840 — Tenancy dispute at 31 Fox Street, Ngaio, Wellington 6035

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5293840 — Tenancy dispute at 31 Fox Street, Ngaio, Wellington 6035

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the house comply with the HHS?

Was there a breach of the duty to repair?

Should the tenants get compensation for moving costs and a rent reduction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the house comply with the HHS?

Was there a breach of the duty to repair?

Should the tenants get compensation for moving costs and a rent reduction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions