Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5303658 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 72 Heathcote Road, Castor Bay, Auckland 0620
Decided 23 Dec 2025 · Published 23 Dec 2025 · Application 5303658
- Cleanliness
- Exemplary damages
- Healthy homes
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant name and identifying details.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
- Excel Property Management Limited As Agents For Loke Chen, Low Joy Wang must pay [The tenant/s] $5,664.73 immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. Background
- The tenancy has now ended with the tenant moving out on 13 December 2025.
- The premises consist of a house – 5 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms. The tenant was residing there with his wife, two children and a small dog. The tenancy began on 4 October 2024 and ended on 13 December 2025.
- The tenant makes his application seeking compensation and exemplary damages in respect of a number of breaches of the RTA.
- I held a hearing with both parties present. Issues
- The issues the Tribunal must decides are these: a. Did the landlord commit any unlawful acts? If so, Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages? b. Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? c. Should the landlord compensate the tenant for loss of amenity due to maintenance issues? d. Should the tenant be reimbursed for medical expenses and other associated costs? Relevant law
- 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).
- A failure by a landlord to comply with these requirements is an unlawful act in each case – section 13A(1F) RTA and section 45(1A) RTA.
- Did the tenant suffer a loss of amenity in respect of his use of the premises?
- Section 85 RTA provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Other legal considerations
- With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
- That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
- This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
- As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
- The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord 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.
- The tenant’s compensation claims are for an actual loss (cleaning expenses) and for the loss of use of and therefore enjoyment of the tenancy (due to the flooding events, cleaning and the maintenance carried out, and because the premises were not HHS compliant).
- In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: a. The nature of the breach; b. The duration of the breach; and c. 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. Those factors are: 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 failing to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition?
- [The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Under section 45, a landlord must • provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness
- Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenant says at the start of the tenancy the house was dirty and mouldy and the windows covered in mould. There was also black mould on the ceiling. The garage walls had mould and the laundry cupboard was rotten with black mould. The oven/stove was dirty.
- The tenant brought this to the attention of the landlord who had a handyman do the initial cleaning.
- The landlord then arranged for a professional cleaner to do another clean on 3 October 2024. The landlord maintains that the property was reasonably clean and tidy.
- The tenant says that even after the professional cleaner had completed a further clean there will still issues with the property. The bathrooms were mouldy (tiles and grouting) and the ceilings covered in mould. This, he says, penetrated the silicone. The tenant says that many of the windows had not been cleaned, with mould on some of the windows. The tenant says that many of the walls had mould on them.
- The tenant provided photographic evidence in support of this claim. Black mould is clearly visible on the inside of the garage door and various windows and the bathroom ceiling and a dirty stove top and oven. The tenant says that the dishwasher was also clogged with old food. The gas stove top was also found to be leaking. There was mould and rot in the laundry cupboard. The tenant says that the dishwasher leaked which caused mould and water damage to the cupboards. There was visible mould on the wall behind the dishwasher.
- The tenant was forced to undertake extensive cleaning at the start of the tenancy. It is clear from the photographs provided that large areas of the house were not in a reasonably clean condition at the start of the tenancy.
- The landlord disagrees with the tenant accusations. The landlord says that most of the curtains were replaced one week prior to the tenant moving in. The landlord says that they spent $605.00 cleaning the house and that it was reasonably clean and tidy.
- Both the landlord and tenant provided photographic evidence during the hearing of the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy. The tenant also took his own photos on or about 5 October 2024 showing areas which the cleaner had not clean properly. The landlord says that after the professional cleaner had finished the tenant stated he was happy with everything. Analysis
- I am satisfied that the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
- Section 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires the landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy. In this case, the tenant has provided detailed evidence that the premises were not reasonably clean at the commencement of the tenancy, including the presence of black mould on ceilings, garage walls, and in the laundry cupboard, as well as mould and dirt on windows and the oven/stove.
- Although the landlord arranged for a handyman and subsequently a professional cleaner to address these issues, the evidence shows that significant mould and cleanliness problems remained, particularly in the bathrooms and on the windows, even after the additional cleaning. It is abundantly clear that the landlord was on the backfoot attending to requests from the tenant which should have been sorted prior to the tenant moving in.
- I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to comply with their obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy.
- The tenant’s claim is therefore established. I award exemplary damages of $1,500.00 in respect of the landlord’s breach of obligation to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition at the start of the tenancy. Did the landlord fail to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair throughout the tenancy and ensuring the premises complied with the Healthy
Home Standard regulations?
- Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains 1 : The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be...”
- Under section 45, a landlord must • provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair • Comply with Healthy Home Standards
- The tenant says that it started with the laundry unit which was rotten. This was in October 2024. It was an old style and original unit with MDF type construction. The tenant says it was covered in black mould. He says that the landlord pushed back saying it would dry out. The tenant says that the landlord did not remedy the issue with the laundry tub within a reasonably timely manner. He says that he brought this to the attention of the landlord in October when they moved in.
- The tenant says that the landlord did not want to replace it straight away. The tenant says that the landlord said it would dry out. The laundry tub was eventually replaced in December with a similar type of tub. The landlord says that when they did the entry inspection of 3 October 2024 they say that it was in good condition.
- On 11 October the landlord received an email from the tenant saying that the laundry tub was leaking water into the cabinet. The landlord sent a plumber who 1 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. Footnotes not included fixed the leak. The landlord then had a face-to-face meeting with the tenant in November to discuss the replacement of the laundry cabinet.
- The tenant does not recall that meeting.
- The tenant says he phoned many times about the laundry cabinet but then stopped calling her when the landlord started shouting at him over the phone. The tenant says that the laundry cabinet should have been replaced a long time prior to December.
- The landlord says that they made an appointment with the tenant in November to discuss with him about replacing this. The tenant says that he offered to the landlord to have one made at a place next to his work which would be cheaper. The landlord says the delay was caused by the tenant’s choice of cabinet which took longer to make and install.
- The landlord maintains that she acted quickly and as best she could. The landlord said that she replaced the kitchen cabinetry just to keep the tenant happy even though she did not have to. Mould on bathroom ceilings
- The tenant says that there was total neglect repairing and cleaning this. The tenant says that he took out the silicone and replaced this himself. He also sanded and repainted the bathroom ceilings.
- The landlord says that the condition of the bathroom ceiling was in a reasonable state of repair. The landlord says that there were a couple of chips in the ceiling. She says that there was no mould present during the entry inspection. The tenant says that the mould was present at the start of the tenancy in October 2024. Dishwasher
- The tenant says that water leaked out of the back of the dishwasher. He says that it leaked into the kitchen cabinetry. He says that this happened in March 2025 and says that the landlord fixed the leak a couple of days later. The kitchen cabinetry was not replaced until July. He says that he followed up with the landlord several times.
- The landlord said that she was struggling to get trades people to do the job. Then she said it was too expensive. She then said she would need to organize insurance. Later she said that she thought the tenant was going to organise something.
- The landlord says that the dishwasher hose was leaking but the amount of water was minimal.
- The tenant says that the under-sink area of the cabinet was replaced in July. The tenant says it took too long. Leaking gutter
- The tenant first noticed a leaking gutter and hole in the exterior ceiling boards on 7 March 2025. The tenant says that the leaking gutter was not repaired until August 2025. The tenant says that the gutter was the direct cause of the flooding in the garage. The tenant provided photographic evidence of the damaged gutter area of the house. The hole was obvious.
- The photo clearly shows a hole in the suffete under the roof. The landlord says that the hole was not there at the start of the tenancy. She also says that the gutter was cleaned in September 2024. There is no mention of whether the hole was repaired.
- The landlord was unable to produce an entry inspection photo of the damaged area at the start of the tenancy.
- The tenant says that this hole was a direct cause of flooding issues in the garage. He says there were 3 separate incidents of flooding in the garage. The first was on 15 June, the second on the 13 July and the last one on 30 July before the gutter was finally repaired in August 2025.
- The flooding resulted in water coming into the garage from the wall. The landlord accepts that there was flooding in the garage. The landlord says that they repaired it by putting concrete in the hole. The landlord says that the gutter was repaired in August 2025.
- [The tenant] claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
- From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
- Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
- There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
- The most recent Healthy Homes assessment report dated 6 September 2025 highlighted the following areas of non-compliance • Ceiling insulation • Sub floor insulation • Ground moisture barrier
- The assessment report clearly records that a ground moisture barrier must be installed to achieve compliance. The report also noted that the ceiling insulation was in poor condition and required an upgrade. The underfloor foil insulation was also non-compliant.
- The tenant says that these issues should have been sorted a lot earlier in the tenancy. When pressed during the hearing, the landlord accepted that these issues should have been sorted earlier. She also accepts that an assessment report should have been undertaken in October 2024 prior to the tenant moving in.
- Parliament intended breaches of the HHS to be taken seriously by providing for exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 for this unlawful act – the highest amount of exemplary damages. Parliament’s intention when enacting the HHS was to ensure that rental premises were warm, ventilated, and draught free.
- I find that the section 109 RTA criteria are met in this case. The premises during the period of the tenancy did not comply with the HHS. That was an intentional act given the information available to the landlord (and its presumed knowledge of the HHS requirements); it was against the tenant’s interests; it had an effect on the tenant; and it was against the public interest.
- I am also satisfied that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a timely manner throughout the tenancy. The vast majority of the maintenance issues were historic and should been addressed well prior to the start of this tenancy.
- Landlords are expected to comply with their statutory responsibilities as a matter of public interest.
- For these unlawful acts I award the tenant exemplary damages of $1,500.00. This is a global award for failing to maintain and breach of Healthy Home Standards.
Did the tenant suffer a loss of amenity?
- The tenant says that he was paying $990.00 rent per week. He says that because of the issues he was not able to gain full use and enjoyment out of the house. He says that when winter came the problems became worse. The house became damper, and it was difficult to keep warm. He says that the floor under the lounge became damp and cold in the winter.
- The tenant accepts that while there were no areas of the house which could not be used the cold and damp nature of the house affected the health of his family.
- The landlord says that a garage is just a garage. She says that it is not an entertainment room. The landlord says that the carpet is only 5 years and is still in good condition.
- I accept the tenant’s claim for loss of amenity. The evidence clearly establishes that the tenant his family were unable to enjoy full use of the property as intended. In particular, the garage – set up as a gym – could not be used, the laundry facilities were unavailable for an extended period, and the tenant then faced ongoing restrictions on being able to use the garage due to the risk of water ingress and damage to stored items. These limitations materially reduced the amenity of the premises.
- Compensation is therefore awarded at 5% of the weekly rent of $990.00 for 46 weeks, amounting to $2,277.00. This award is based on the fact that the majority of areas of the house were still able to be used.
- This percentage reflects a reasonable estimate of the diminished enjoyment of the property over the course of the tenancy.
- The claim for loss of amenity is established. Tenant claims for reimbursement of expenses
- The tenant says that he had to spend money on materials for the repairs and cleaning carried out. The tenant also spent a number of hours cleaning the premises at the start of the tenancy.
- The Tribunal may also award compensation for the tenant’s time, usually calculated at a reasonable hourly rate, provided the time spent is reasonable and directly related to remedying the landlord’s breach.
- A tenant can claim reimbursement for expenses such as moisture detectors and moisture absorbers, but the Tribunal will only award reimbursement if the tenant can prove: • The landlord was in breach of their obligations (for example, failing to provide a dry and healthy home as required by section 45(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Healthy Homes Standards). • The expenses were reasonably incurred as a direct result of that breach (i.e., the tenant had to purchase these items because the landlord failed to address moisture or dampness issues). • The expenses are reasonable in amount and necessary (not excessive or unrelated to the breach).
- The tenant must provide evidence both of the landlord’s breach and that the expenses were a necessary and reasonable response to that breach. For example, if the landlord failed to address a known moisture problem, and the tenant purchased a moisture detector or moisture absorbers to manage the issue, reimbursement may be considered appropriate.
- I find that the expenses incurred by the tenant are directly related to the breach of obligations by the landlord. I allow reimbursement of two receipts from Bunnings which the landlord should reimburse the tenant for.
- I also award a contribution towards the tenant’s time for cleaning. I find that a contribution of 10 hours at $23.50 per hour a reasonable contribution in all the circumstances. Compensation for health impacts on tenant’s family
- The tenant says that he has a young son (aged 10) and severely asthmatic. The tenant says that the house should be free of mould because of his son.
- The tenant says that his son had to be treated with anti-biotics during the tenancy as a direct result of the condition of the house.
- The landlord accepts that this is difficult to respond to. The landlord questioned whether there is any direct evidence in support of this claim. The tenant has provided medical evidence confirming attendances with medical clinics.
- The tenant seeks reimbursement for medical costs incurred during the tenancy, claiming that his son’s asthma and related health issues were caused or exacerbated by the condition of the premises, specifically the presence of mould.
- While the Tribunal acknowledges the tenant’s concerns for his son’s health, the onus is on the tenant to establish a direct causal link between the alleged healthy homes issues and the medical conditions. In this case, the only evidence provided is confirmation of medical attendances, with no medical opinion or documentation directly attributing the child’s health issues to the condition of the property. I have carefully considered the medical documentation from Silverdale Medical, North Shore Ear Nose and Throat and the Northern Allergy Clinic.
- The landlord has questioned the existence of any such link, and the Tribunal is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the medical issues were directly caused by the state of the premises.
- Accordingly, the claim for reimbursement of medical costs is dismissed.
- Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
- The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
- The tenant applied for a name suppression order. The tenant is entitled to name suppression as the application is substantially successful – see section 95A RTA.