What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300913 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 5300913?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300913?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300913?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12208716-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300913 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 5300913?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300913?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300913?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12208716-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5300913 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application to reduce the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant appeared. [ Property Manager] appeared for the landlord.
The tenancy commenced on 13 June 2025 and is for a fixed term to end on 13 June 2026. On 17 June 2025, the tenant filed an application to reduce the fixed term on the grounds that the rent was unaffordable. That application is scheduled to be heard before another adjudicator on 06 August 2025.
On 07 July 2025, the tenant filed a further application seeking a reduction in the fixed term, which is the matter before me today, Monday 28 July 2025. In this application, the tenant argues that the fixed term should be reduced because the property does not comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (“Healthy Homes Standards”). The tenant also claims that the tenancy agreement was entered into as a result of misrepresentation and seeks a variation from a fixed term to a periodic tenancy.
At the commencement of the hearing, I canvased whether both applications should be heard together. It appears that the grounds to be advanced in support of the application scheduled for 06 August 2025 are materially different from those advanced today and relate to the tenant’s employment. The tenant has not yet provided evidence for that application, and the landlord is not in a position to proceed. In my view, it would not be fair on either party to deal with both applications today. The matter scheduled for hearing on 06 August 2025 will remain separate. Reduction of fixed term
On 17 November 2020, the landlord engaged a contractor to conduct a Healthy Homes assessment. The report identified that the property had unacceptable gaps of more than 3mm around the front and rear doors and required an extractor fan in the kitchen. These matters were addressed in February 2021.
The Healthy Homes compliance certificate included with the tenancy agreement states that the property complies with the Healthy Homes Standards.
The tenant questioned the accuracy of the statement, and on 16 June 2025, issued the landlord a 14-day notice stating: “Ventilation. Each liveable space must have a window or door that opens to the outside and can be fixed. Unreasonable gaps or holes, in walls, ceilings, windows, floors with noticeable drafts, no heat source.”
In response to the notice, on or about 24 June 2025, the landlord engaged a contractor who attended the property, investigated, and then completed further draft stopping deemed necessary.
The tenant states the property still fails to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards relating to moisture, ventilation, and draft stopping. In support of the claim concerning moisture, the tenant has produced photographs showing what they claim to be black mould on a windowsill. For the draft stopping, photographs showing what they claim to be gaps around the front and back doors (with a $2 coin inserted into the gap which is a guide to 3mm), between the wooden floorboards in the kitchen, and small cracks in the corners of two windows. For the ventilation, a photograph of a window in the kitchen which they state is unable to be adequately fixed in an open position. Law
The usual legal position with a fixed-term contract is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it. For residential tenancies, one of those circumstances is found in section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”), which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements.
Section 66(1) of the Act allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements. 66 Reduction of fixed-term tenancy (1) On application by a party to a fixed-term tenancy, the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of the tenancy by a period stated in the order, and making such variations in the terms of the tenancy as are necessary because of the reduction of the term, where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant's circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced.
Section 66(2) provides that, if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, it may order the applicant to pay reasonable compensation to the other party for any loss or damage which results from the reduction of the term.
Under section 66 of the Act, the unforeseen change of circumstances must relate to the tenant personally, and not the property. Decision
The substance on the windowsill has not been proven to be black mould, nor is it sufficient to prove that the property fails to meet the HHS for moisture ingress.
I accept the landlord’s submission that the gaps shown in the photographs, although 3mm, are covered on the outside side by the door jamb and do not constitute “draft gaps”.
The hairline cracks in the two windows do not appear to allow drafts, nor am I satisfied that they allow for water ingress affecting moisture and dampness.
There is insufficient evidence as to whether the gaps in the floorboards created a draft issue.
The property was built in the 1950’s, retains some original features, including a permanently open louvre-style bathroom window. This was replaced with a closed window on or about 09 July 2022.
Although the kitchen window is shown in an open position, the tenant states that the stays are insufficiently strong, and that the window tends to shut in strong winds. The landlord denies that there is an issue with the stays and points out that it is not unusual for windows with this type of stay to close in strong wind. The landlord adds that there are at least three other opening windows nearby and the kitchen has an extractor fan which opens to the outside.
The landlord states that the remote for the heat pump was missing at the commencement of the tenancy, and they were unaware of this until advised by the tenant on 16 June 2025. The landlord states the remote was replaced on 21 June 2025.
The tenant denies this and says it was not provided until 25 June 2025. The invoice produced by the contractor supplying the remote is dated 21 June 2025 and suggests delivery to the property. Neither party are able to advise whether the heat pump can be operated without the remote control. The Tribunal notes that some heat pumps can be operated manually. In this case there is insufficient to be satisfied that there has been a breach of the heating standard.
Having considered the evidence, I am not satisfied that the matters raised constitute a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. More importantly, they do not relate to a change in the tenant’s personal circumstances, which must be established to support an application under section 66 of the Act. The claim to reduce the fixed term is dismissed. Misrepresentation
The tenant claims that they had been induced to enter the agreement relying on the property being Healthy Homes compliant.
A garage on the property, not forming part of the tenancy, had been discovered to contain “human waste.”
The dishwasher, a chattel, was damaged and inoperable.
There were wood splinters in the floor. Law
Under section 78(1)(g) of the Act, the Tribunal may, where it appears that an agreement between the parties has been induced by misrepresentation, make orders varying or setting aside the agreement, either wholly or in part.
In Gillies v Blackham and Co Real Estate Limited [2021] NZTT Timaru 4297433 at para [6], the Tribunal stated: “A misrepresentation is a false statement of fact made by one of the contracting parties to the other. Silence is not a misrepresentation unless the maker of the statement has a duty in law to speak.”
A tenant alleging that they were induced to enter an agreement by a misrepresentation must establish: i. That there has been a false statement of fact, ii. That the statement was made by or on behalf of the landlord, iii. That they relied on the misrepresentation, and iv. That the misrepresentation caused a loss. Evidence
The first time the splinters have been raised is at the hearing.
The tenant stated that shortly after the tenancy commenced, they noted vermin. They reported the matter to the property manager who attended soon afterward. During the visit, the property manager lifted the tilt door to the garage and looked inside. The tenant states that inside was full of rubbish including “human” waste. The tenant states that had they been aware of the contents of the shed they would not have entered the tenancy.
The landlord disputes this and states the garage contained furniture and other household items, and not human waste. The landlord states the garage was emptied around 13 July 2025, but does still not form part of the tenancy. There are no photographs showing the interior of the garage on which to make an independent assessment.
The tenant has produced a photograph of the dishwasher showing damage to the door. The tenant states that the door is unsafe and states they raised this with the landlord shortly after the start of the tenancy, but that nothing has been done.
The landlord accepts that the matter had been raised. The landlord stated that on 20 June 2025, the contractor engaged to repair the dishwasher had advised that the part required had been ordered, and that it would take about 6 weeks to arrive. The landlord disputed the tenant’s claim that the dishwasher was inoperable, stating that they had closed the door and commenced a cycle. Decision
The tenant viewed the property where another letting agent was present. There is no evidence of any statements made by the letting agent concerned. Following the viewing the tenant made an offer to rent the property which was accepted. The parties then entered in an agreement.
There is no evidence of any statements made prior to the agreement being entered into that would constitute a misrepresentation.
The matters raised by the tenant have all been raised post the commencement of the tenancy.
Although the tenants claim that the Healthy Homes Standards statement was false, as stated based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that this is the case.
I am not satisfied that the tenant was induced to enter the agreement by any misrepresentation made by or on behalf of the landlord.
The claim is dismissed. Name suppression.
The landlord and tenant both seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been wholly successful in these proceedings and is granted name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
As stated, the tenant has filed a second application to reduce the fixed term, which is advanced on different grounds. That application will be decided on its own facts by a different adjudicator. As this application is still to be heard, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to exercise the discretion in section 95A(4) and suppress the name of the tenant and the address of the property.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300913 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300913 — 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