What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310840 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5310840?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310840?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310840?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12690111-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310840 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5310840?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310840?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310840?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12690111-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Laramie Place, Broomfield, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5310840 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Rea and Ms Eastwick represented the landlord.

The tenant has applied for compensation and/or exemplary damages for the landlord’s alleged failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and to repair the windows, and a work order. Background

I first heard the application on 3 October 2025. I made a work order for the landlord to carry out work to the windows to ensure weathertightness, repair a section of damaged carpet; and treat an area under the carpet for mould.

The tenant said today that the window seals have not been properly repaired and the windows are not weathertight. She showed videos and produced photos (on her phone) that she says show that water is still ponding at the base of the windows. She says that the windows are still draughty. Relevant law

Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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). Issues

The issues for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Has the tenant proved that the premises do not comply with the HHS? •Has the tenant proved that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises? •Has the tenant proved claims for compensation and /or exemplary damages? Discussion

The landlord produced evidence from its maintenance supervisor who states that all gaskets (the seals) on the outside of the windows were checked and replaced where required. She has explained that the exterior gaskets ensure weathertightness; the interior gaskets do not affect weathertightness. The work was completed by a licensed building practitioner.

The maintenance supervisor has confirmed that the carpet was not replaced or patched because there was only a small amount of mould in the corner that was mould treated, before the carpet was reaffixed.

At the first hearing the tenant’s former partner confirmed that there is a significant condensation problem at the premises. The tenant’s photos and videos show that to be a continuing problem. Though she believes that the water is due to the interior seals not being replaced, that is her opinion only.

The landlord’s evidence, based on the work completed by its contracted licensed building practitioner, is that the exterior gaskets ensure weathertightness; the interior seals play no part in that.

Ms Rea said that the videos and photos produced in evidence suggest that condensation is the cause of the ongoing water ingress onto the windowsills (which have now been repainted). Condensation arises from the way in which premises are used, the way they are heated, and the lack of ventilation.

The landlord proved at the first hearing that the premises are HHS compliant. The Tribunal cannot award the tenant compensation and/or exemplary damages as there is no landlord breach.

Nor can the Tribunal conclude that the landlord has failed to repair and maintain the premises. The landlord complied with the Tribunal’s work order and the work has been completed with evidence that the replacement of (some) of the exterior gaskets has ensured the windows are weathertight.

Other than the tenant’s belief that the cause of the water ingress is the state of the interior window gaskets, there is no objective evidence that the interior seals are the cause of that. It is more probable that condensation on the windows is causing the water to run down the windows and pool.

The landlord’s evidence confirmed that the small area of lifted carpet has been mould treated and the carpet reattached.

I do not award compensation for the landlord’s delay in having these repairs completed. Ms Rea gave evidence that the tenant was not co-operative about access for repairs. At the first hearing an arrangement was made with her former partner so access for the work (now completed) could be granted.

Finally, the tenant said that her property manager failed to communicate with her. Ms Eastwick said that the tenant sends multiple emails sometimes 7 over a weekend and it is difficult to know what to respond to. She said the tenant had told the landlord she would have no further discussion until the Tribunal hearing.

The impression the Tribunal gained was that the tenant can be difficult and demanding and unwilling to consider that condensation might be the cause of the water issue on the windows.

Unless she can provide some objective evidence to the landlord (such as a report from a building professional or other relevant specialist) that there remains a problem with the windows gaskets, the Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord has done all it can reasonably do. The Tribunal makes its decisions based on objective evidence not on one party’s opinion.

The tenant seems to believe that the landlord is deliberately evading its responsibility to complete repairs. The Tribunal did not find that to be the case. Rather, it is more likely the tenant’s abrasive attitude that has caused any delays. The fact that the Tribunal had to intervene by issuing a work order (largely by consent) does not mean that the tenant has established a case for compensation. She has not. Result

The application is dismissed. The tenant has not proved that further repairs are required to ensure weather tightness of the windows beyond the work the landlord has already done. Nor has she proved that the premises fail to comply with the HHS. Name suppression

The tenant sought a name suppression order. I make no order as the application is unsuccessful 1 .

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Rea and Ms Eastwick represented the landlord.

The landlord’s evidence, based on the work completed by its contracted licensed building practitioner, is that the exterior gaskets ensure weathertightness; the interior seals play no part in that.

The landlord proved at the first hearing that the premises are HHS compliant. The Tribunal cannot award the tenant compensation and/or exemplary damages as there is no landlord breach.

The landlord’s evidence confirmed that the small area of lifted carpet has been mould treated and the carpet reattached.

The impression the Tribunal gained was that the tenant can be difficult and demanding and unwilling to consider that condensation might be the cause of the water issue on the windows.

The tenant sought a name suppression order. I make no order as the application is unsuccessful 1 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310840 — Mould & damp at 9 Laramie Place, Broomfield, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310840 — Mould & damp at 9 Laramie Place, Broomfield, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions