What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5298261 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 5298261?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5298261?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5298261?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12461240-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5298261 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 5298261?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5298261?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5298261?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12461240-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

62 Acacia Avenue, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5298261 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay Jasper Vartan, Alex Rutter, Calan Meechang, Harry Johnstone, Kurt Tayong, Ruth McLeod, Ethan Trent and Jackie Miller $2,880.00 immediately, as compensation for the landlord’s delay in providing the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and for delayed repairs resulting in a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
The tenants’ application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The tenants’ application for a reduction of the term of the fixed term tenancy is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing; five of the named tenants and both directors of the landlord company.
The tenants have applied for a reduction of the term of their fixed term tenancy; exemplary damages for alleged breaches of the landlord’s responsibilities amounting to unlawful acts; and compensation in the form of a 50% rent rebate for the landlord’s alleged failure to comply with their statutory responsibilities and for breaches of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment.
Because the tenancy has now ended the tenants confirmed at the hearing that they withdrew the application for a reduction of the term of the fixed term tenancy.
Both parties provide documentary evidence, and both gave oral evidence. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Background
The tenancy started on 1 December 2024. The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy until 30 November 2025. Around July 2025 the tenants told the landlord they wanted to leave the tenancy as they were dissatisfied with the state of the premises. The parties agreed to end the tenancy on 17 August 2025.
The premises comprised a house with 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, living room and kitchen, and a separate area referred to as a sleep out with 5 bedrooms and a storage room.
For a long time, the premises have been rented as student accommodation and the landlord is therefore experienced. When the landlord’s previous tenants vacated, the landlord was disappointed with the state of the premises and spent much of the first week cleaning, undertaking repairs, and removing rubbish.
Once the tenants took possession, they raised on-going repair issues and eventually issued a 14-day notice by text message.
Throughout the tenancy one of the tenants, Alex, was the landlord’s main point of contact. That tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord released the tenants from the tenancy without penalty and refunded the bond to them in full.
On 3 July 2025, the tenants filed their Tribunal application. They seek compensation equivalent to 50% of the rent they paid for all the issues they have raised (stated in the application to amount to $21,600.00) and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and to maintain and repair the premises. Issues
The Tribunal must determine these issues: •Have the tenants proved breaches by the landlord that amount to unlawful acts? If so, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages? •Have the tenants proved a claim for compensation arising from the state of the premises and including breaches of their quiet enjoyment? If so, should the Tribunal award them compensation equivalent to 50% of the rent they paid? Relevant legal considerations
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.
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 Healthy Homes Standards (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 usually 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 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 • 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 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 Have the tenants proved breaches by the landlord that amount to unlawful acts? If so, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages?
The tenants have not provided any objective evidence that the premises did not comply with the HHS.
There is a difference between non-compliance and repair issues to ensure on- going compliance.
The landlord company’s director gave evidence that the premises were professionally assessed for HHS compliance in 2020 and 2022. He said he was very aware of the HHS and ensured that the premises remained compliant. After the tenants raised the issues they did, he sought further advice from a professional assessment firm, Home Check.
The tenants produced video evidence of guttering over-flowing during heavy rain. That was due to a bottle having been thrown onto the roof, though not by these tenants. Events like that can happen. It is not the event that is the issue, but the landlord’s response to it.
I am satisfied that the landlord was not only aware of the importance of HHS compliance but was careful to ensure that the premises, assessed as compliant in 2022, remained so. That intervention was required to deal with issues as they arose does not establish non-compliance. In other words, it is the landlord’s actions to ensure compliance that matter.
The same applied to the landlord’s responsibility to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. As with HHS compliance that is a section 45 RTA responsibility. It is referenced to the age and character of the premises.
The landlord does not dispute that repairs were necessary both at the start of the tenancy (due to the previous tenants’ breaches) and during the tenancy when these tenants raised issues.
This is not a case where the landlord has failed to engage and therefore failed to act on matters brought to its attention.
The landlord company’s director gave evidence that he spent $30,000.00 on repairs and maintenance, including a new kitchen, during 2023 and over $5,000.00 at the start of, and during, this tenancy. Those are not the actions of a non-compliant landlord.
The landlord company’s director said he was aware of his statutory obligations and was careful to ensure that he met them. He was concerned about tenant safety and comfort. And he tried to ensure that he was easy to communicate with. I accept that.
It is clear from the evidence that Alex was the tenant who communicated most with the landlord. The communications appear to be reasonable, polite, and professional.
The tenants said there was mould at the premises, and they produced medical certificates for two tenants that refer to mould, dampness, and cold.
The landlord company’s director gave evidence that there was no evidence of mould at inspections, nor were the premises mouldy and cold. He said they were warm and had a sunny aspect.
The presence of mould does not of itself establish a landlord breach. Mould can develop due to the way in which premises are used, due to inadequate ventilation.
The HHS were an attempt by Parliament to raise the standard of conditions in New Zealand’s rental housing stock. But they are not absolute. Much still depends on how the premises are used, how they are ventilated, and how they are heated.
The tenants referred to some matters that are cosmetic rather than structural or necessary repairs. Some of their photos show partly completed repairs, with plastering work not completed. The landlord director explained that plastering requires several processes before it is completed.
Even if the tenants had proved that the landlord failed to comply with its section 45 RTA responsibilities, they would have to establish an intentional act by the landlord before the Tribunal could award exemplary damages.
Following Birch, which means the landlord would have to ‘turn its mind to the act (non-compliance with its statutory responsibilities) and deliberately set about to commit it’.
My assessment of the landlord directors was they are responsible landlords aware of their statutory responsibilities. They took all reasonable steps to comply with them. The tenants’ application for exemplary damages does not clear the first hurdle. It is dismissed. Have the tenants proved a claim for compensation arising from the state of the premises and including breaches of their quiet enjoyment? If so, should the Tribunal award them compensation equivalent to 50% of the rent they paid?
I find, and the landlord accepts, that there were issues with cleaning and some required repairs at the start of the tenancy caused by the actions of the previous tenants. And some issues arose during the tenancy which the landlord addressed as they were raised.
That the tenants were not always satisfied with the landlord’s response or the quality of the repairs, does not establish a landlord breach.
Generally, I am satisfied that the landlord responded promptly to repair issues raised including the heat pump remote control issue and the servicing of the heat pump. The tenants have not proved any fault with the heat pump that would have meant it was non-compliant. The landlord’s evidence establishes that it was.
The tenants complained that the landlord or his contractor did not always give the required notice before attending to do work. Any breaches were not so egregious as to require Tribunal sanction. Contractors often do not keep to time. Systems are not perfect.
The tenants appeared to be especially sensitive to the landlord’s actions and communications. The Tribunal cannot address, or make orders about, hurt feeling, or less than perfect communications.
That a drier was not installed is not a landlord breach. There was no drier at the start of the tenancy. The landlord was agreeable to having the tenants’ drier installed (at its cost) but that turned out not to be suitable and did not proceed.
As I have noted, the landlord’s communication seems appropriate and reasonable. The tenants undertook an almost forensic analysis of the landlord’s texts to paint a picture of some fault or failure. I did not find that convincing.
What the tenants have failed to recognise is this. Had the landlord not agreed to release them from the tenancy, the Tribunal would not have released them because the issues they have raised do not meet the threshold to have the term of a fixed term tenancy reduced.
A tenancy agreement is a contract, and the Tribunal does not lightly interfere with a contract. They would have had to show an unforeseen chance in their circumstances with significant hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced.
The matters they have raised fall well short of that.
Had the Tribunal released them it would have compensated the landlord for the loss of the contract. At the minimum the Tribunal would have awarded the landlord the bond.
Here, the landlord released the tenants from the agreement without any penalty. Had a professional property management firm been the landlord it would have sought (and would have been awarded) what is referred to as ‘break lease’ costs, compensation for the time and trouble finding replacements tenants. And the tenants would have remained liable for rent until a new tenancy started.
So, the landlord’s latitude here been of some benefit to the tenants.
The tenants have sought a rent rebate. Rent cannot abate unless the premises are destroyed or are so seriously damaged (in whole or in part) so as to become uninhabitable 2 . That is not the case here.
Even after the Christchurch earthquakes, when some premises became uninhabitable due to damage, rent was seldom abated to a 50% level, and when it was, usually for a limited time. So, the tenants’ claim for compensation based on a 50% rent rebate is unrealistic.
The landlord offered compensation equivalent to 1 week’s rent for the cleaning and repair issues at the start of the tenancy, which the landlord acknowledged. The tenants rejected that.
I accept that there were some delayed repairs and some inconvenience beyond the first week and had the parties agreed to negotiate they probably would have settled on a higher figure for compensation. 2 See sections 59, 59A RTA
But I do not accept that the matters raised had the dramatic effect on the tenants they attempted to portray in their evidence. Some of the matters raised were annoyances rather than compensable breaches.
For the tenants’ loss of enjoyment for delayed repairs and cleaning and for rubbish left at the premises by the previous tenants which affected their enjoyment of the tenancy (and taking account of the benefit they received being released from the tenancy without penalty) I award them compensation equivalent to 2 weeks’ rent - $2,880.00. Result
The tenants’ application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The landlord will pay the tenants compensation of $2,880.00 for their loss of enjoyment of the tenancy arising from delayed repairs, the premises not being reasonably clean, and rubbish remaining at the premises after the previous tenancy.
I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee as the application is only partly successful. Name suppression
Both parties sought a name suppression order. The tenants are not entitled to name suppression as the application is only marginally successful. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as its defence to the application is mostly successful 3 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5298261 — Mould & damp at 62 Acacia Avenue, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5298261 — Mould & damp at 62 Acacia Avenue, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

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