What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5312666 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 5312666?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Gas Bottle: $41.07 awarded to landlord; Re-Letting Costs, Advertising: $275.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,160.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $328.59 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312666?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312666?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13139316-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5312666 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 5312666?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Gas Bottle: $41.07 awarded to landlord; Re-Letting Costs, Advertising: $275.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,160.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $328.59 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312666?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312666?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13139316-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

27 Ferry Parade, Herald Island, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5312666 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5312666 — net $3,054.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 September 2025	$4,160.00		Rent arrears to 9 September 2025
Water rates	$328.59		Water rates
Gas bottle	$41.07		Gas bottle
Re-letting costs, advertising	$275.00		Re-letting costs, advertising
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry		$750.00	Unlawful entry
Exemplary damages: Breach HHS insulation		$1,000.00	Breach HHS insulation
Total award	$4,804.66	$1,750.00
Net award	$3,054.66
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,054.66

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5312666 — net $3,054.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 September 2025	$4,160.00		Rent arrears to 9 September 2025
Water rates	$328.59		Water rates
Gas bottle	$41.07		Gas bottle
Re-letting costs, advertising	$275.00		Re-letting costs, advertising
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry		$750.00	Unlawful entry
Exemplary damages: Breach HHS insulation		$1,000.00	Breach HHS insulation
Total award	$4,804.66	$1,750.00
Net award	$3,054.66
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,054.66

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 Tribunal also orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of () immediately apportioned as follows: : :
The Tribunal declares the term of the fixed-term tenancy of at ended at 11.59 pm on 9 September 2025.

Reasons

This is a cross application.
The tenants, [The tenant/s], and the landlord both attended the hearing. The landlord was supported by their partner who acted as the landlord’s agent on many occasions and in many capacities during the tenancy. “The landlord” in this decision can refer to either the landlord or their agent.
A case conference for these applications was heard by teleconference on the 25th of August 2025 before me.
In that case conference the tenants raised the following claims: a. Reduction of fixed-term tenancy, b. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards, draught stopping standard, c. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards, heating standard, d. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards, insulation standard, e. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards, moisture ingress standard, (relating to two leaks in the roof and an uncapped gutter and a leaking extractor fan), f. Breach of quiet enjoyment, due to numerous visits by the landlord’s husband in June and July 2025, g. Unlawful entry, relating to a visit by the landlord on 28 July 2025, h. Compensation for belongings disposed due to mould, i. Compensation for illness caused by the condition of the house.
Today the tenants confirmed the above claims and also said they would be seeking compensation for: j. Professional reports, k. Electricity costs, l. Disposal costs, m. Moving costs.
The landlord confirmed they are seeking compensation for: a. Water rates, b. Repairs and maintenance in the downstairs lounge, c. Rent arrears until a replacement tenant could be found, d. Costs for finding a replacement tenant.
The parties signed a one-year fixed term tenancy beginning on 25 January 2025 and ending on 24 January 2026. Difficulties with the tenancy meant that the tenants gave notice to end the tenancy early. The tenants vacated the premises on 8 August 2025. The tenants’ claims Unlawful entry
claim the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenants’ consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, (the “RTA”).
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48(4)(a) and Schedule 1A, RTA.
The tenants said the landlord entered their premises without giving the correct notice on the following four occasions: a. 25 June 2025 the landlord made a brief visit and entered the premises. Neither of the tenants were home at the time. b. 11 July 2025 the landlord again made a brief visit and entered the premises when neither of the tenants were home. c. 28 July 2025 the landlord visited the premises with their builder. Notice had been given for the visit. The purpose of the visit was to install insulation. After the insulation had been installed, the landlord and the builder sat on the tenants’ deck in one of the tenants’ deck chairs and drank a small amount of beer. The tenants say they gave consent for the landlord to conduct the maintenance work, but the consent did not go so far is allowing them to use stay for such a recreational purpose and use their furniture. d. Later, also on the 28 July 2025 the landlord returned to the premises. They entered the premises and they took a photograph while they were there. The tenants say the notice to enter the premises did not extend to a second visit later in the day with the other landlord, for that purpose.
In response the landlord said: a. On 25 June 2025 they entered the premises to look at the rangehood. Consent had previously been given to enter the premises on a different day to look at the rangehood. The landlord considered that the consent extended to future dates as long as it was for the same purpose. b. The landlord didn't recall the purpose of the visit on 11 July 2025. c. The landlord and the builder had completed laying insulation in the ceiling and they only stayed for a short time and didn't consume a full can of beer. d. The landlord said they returned to check on the cleanup from the day's work. In doing so they got dust on their hands and entered a bathroom to wash their hands which is when they discovered a washing machine had been installed in the bathroom without the landlord’s consent. Because of this they took a photograph of the washing machine.
The landlord’s entry on 25 June 2025 is a breach of section 48 of the RTA. A landlord must give notice on each and every occasion they intend to enter a tenant’s premises. The reasons for this are obvious and include a tenant’s right to privacy in their own home. This claim is proved.
The landlord’s entry on 11 July 2025 is unchallenged. This claim is also proved.
The landlord’s entry on 28 July was with notice, but I accept the tenant’s submission that to know that the consent did not extend to the landlord using the tenant’s furniture for any sort of recreational purpose. Consent to enter extends only to the purpose requested and the purpose given. This claim is proved.
The landlords’ return on 28 July 2025, included different persons (the first visit was for the landlord’s agent and the second time included the landlord themselves) and for a different purpose than the consent had been given for earlier in the day. Therefore, a new notice to enter was required. This claim is also proved.
The first, second and fourth breaches involved entering the premises without notice. The tenants are entitled to an expectation of complete privacy, and their premises to be free from entry without notice from the landlord at all times. I accept that generally the landlord was addressing ongoing problems that the tenant was experiencing. However that probably was not the case when the landlord entered the property and photographed the washing machine. I consider the landlord’s intention on this occasion as unclear given it wasn't stated at the outset.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Having considered the above fact factors, I determine have a moderate award of exemplary damages is appropriate in this case and I award $750.00. Breach of Healthy Homes insulation standard
The tenants claim the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA 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 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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants’ children aged 1 year and 3 years old, began suffering respiratory illnesses and skin rashes during this tenancy. They made repeated visits to [urgent care] and [Hospital]. A health service worker inquired about the standard of their accommodation and suggested they have their premises assessed as to whether or not it was Healthy Homes standards compliant.
In July 2025 the tenants engaged a company called [Company A] to conduct a Healthy Homes standards assessment. In [Company A]’s report dated 14 July 2025, [Company A] raised a number of “failures” in meeting Healthy Homes standards. One of them was insulation.
Insulation must be 120 millimetres thick and be in reasonable condition. The [Company A] report stated that neither of these requirements were met. Photographs show old, degraded insulation and gaps where it has moved.
The landlord said that when she purchased the property in December 2024, the real estate agent assured her that the premises were Healthy Homes standards compliant.
When the tenancy began, the landlord signed a “Healthy Homes standards- current level of compliance” document that said she didn't know the R value of the insulation but that it was in a reasonable condition without any mould dampness damage or gaps. She stated the insulation was 5 centimetres thick.
The landlord said that in May 2025 they became aware that the insulation in the ceiling was not in reasonable condition. They began investigating laying more insulation.
Installation of the insulation was completed on 29 July 2025, ten days before the tenants moved out.
The tenants say the new insulation covered the downlights in the ceiling and caused a fire risk. The tenants produced a report from a home and building inspection company called [Company B], dated 29 July 2025 which says the new insulation has been installed over old existing degraded insulation contrary to best practise and NZ Building Code, clause H1. The report says: “Insulation is in contact with downlights creating a serious fire risk and violating New Zealand electrical safety standards”.
The landlord stated the downlights are LED lights pose no fire risk at all. The landlord produced an electrical certificate of compliance and electrical safety certificate from [Person] in which the description of work is stated as check LED downlights and confirm that they are safe and comply with safety regulations. The certificate states: “By signing this document I certify that the completed prescribed electrical work to which the certificate of compliance applies has been done lawfully and safely, and the information in the certificate is correct.” The certificate is dated 9 September 2025 but is not signed. I therefore cannot determine the certificate is reliable.
The tenants accepted that if the lights are LED or of a certain type, they do not pose a fire risk if insulation covers them. The tenants stated it was not clear what sort of lights have been installed because they couldn’t see any identification on the lights.
I consider there is insufficient certainty around the type of downlights that have been installed for me to determine on the balance of probabilities that the insulation covering them is a fire risk.
When I consider the above information, both parties accept the insulation was not compliant with the healthy home standards from the beginning of the tenancy until 29 July 2025, a period of approximately six months.
This is an unlawful act. This claim is proved.
It is a landlord’s responsibility to ensure their premises complied with healthy home standards. It is not sufficient once in the Tribunal, to have relied on the word of a real estate agent who has no responsibilities under the RTA.
In signing the “Healthy Homes current level of compliance” document the landlord warranted the insulation in the ceiling insulation was in reasonable condition. This was not the case. The landlord subsequently made efforts to upgrade the insulation. By this time however the tenants believe the condition of the house had led to their children becoming repeatedly sick. This is not a conclusion I consider proved, but it is well documented that poor living conditions lead to illness. The Healthy Homes Standards are regulations designed to improve tenants’ living conditions, partly to avoid related illnesses.
I consider this to be a significant breach off the insulation standard and I consider exemplary damages of $1,000.00 are warranted. Breach of Healthy Homes heating standard
The tenants claim 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 (HHS). considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in a particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The formula for assisting what size heater is required in the main living area of the premises is complex and is set out in section 10 of the Residential Tenancies Act (healthy homes standards) Regulations 2019.
The landlord and the tenants commissioned separate Healthy Homes assessment reports. The tenant commissioned one from [Company A], and in response the landlord commissioned one from [Company C], dated 25 September 2025.
The tenants pointed out the [Company C] report is dated after the tenancy ended. The landlord explained that following the new insulation being installed on 29 July 2025, they were overseas for the month of August and so commissioned a report on their return. The heat pump was not changed and nor was any work relating to the healthy homes standards other than insulation undertaken.
There is no suggestion from the tenants of any impropriety on the landlord’s behalf in the information contained within the [Company C] report.
I have no reason to doubt the reputability of either company. However they each arrive at different conclusions regarding both the heating requirements and the compliance level of the property with the Healthy Homes legislation.
Both reports address the heating standard and agree that the floor area of the main living room is 28 square metres more or less.
The [Company A] report concludes the premises requires a 4.8 kilowatt heater.
The [Company C] report states that a 3.6 kilowatt heater is required, but if the heater was installed prior to 2019 it only needs to meet 80% of the current standard. The current heater is a 3.2 kilowatt heater which exceeds 80% of the current required heating standard. The difference in the reports involves complex mathematical calculations regarding heat loss in the walls.
The Tribunal does not have the expert knowledge or the resources to undertake its own assessment of the property. It must rely on the expert information provided. Where there are two contradicting reports, I enquire with the parties what their views on the inconsistencies are, and I assess whether there is any reason why I would prefer one expert’s information over the other.
In this case, the parties did not suggest either of the reports was not professional or reliable, and I have not found any reason to prefer one expert’s information over the other. Instead I assess each report’s claim of a breach to require proof on the balance of probabilities.
I am satisfied that the report provided by [Company C] is a professional report and the correctness of its approach is not disputed. The Oncore report does not address the issue of the heatpump having been installed prior to 2019.
I am satisfied the difference between the [Company C] calculations on heat loss in the walls and the Oncore calculations for the same, is due to assessments that must be estimated as to heat loss. Both results are reasonable to arrive at, and neither is likely to be 100% correct. It does not surprise me that two reports arrive at different answers.
It is reasonable that the landlord has an expectation that they can rely on the information contained within a professional report.
Considering the information above, I determine the tenants’ claim for breach of the healthy homes heating standard is not proved. Breach of Healthy Homes draught stopping standard
claims 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 (HHS). consider the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The tenants’ [Company A] report says windows in the following rooms are non- compliant with the draught stopping standard: The upstairs bathroom, toilet, main bedroom, front door, and conservatory, and the downstairs kitchenette, living room and one of the bedrooms.
Included in this report are photographs of the windows concerned.
The landlord’s report from [Company C] says the premises are compliant with the draught stopping standard.
Again this is a situation where one report says the premises is compliant with the standard, and the other report says the premises is not compliant with the standard.
The tenants said the premises was cold and draughty but have not produced any of their own information that shows the premises breaching the draught stopping standard.
When I look at the photographs produced by the tenants taken predominantly from the [Company A] report, I cannot see any gaps in the joinery. This claim is not proved. Breach of Healthy Homes moisture ingress and drainage standard
claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the HHS. The tenants consider the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
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 tenants say the premises suffered two leaks during their tenancy.
One leak came through the rangehood flue in the kitchen. Occasionally water would drip from the rangehood onto the hob. The tenants provided photographs which show approximately two cups of dirty water collected over a period of two to three hours during one rainy period.
The landlord says they had trouble discerning where the leak was coming from. Initially they thought it was from condensation from within the rangehood unit as the drip appeared when there had been no rain. Later they thought it may have been coming down the flue from the roof. Tar was applied to seal the roof, and a rubber boot was installed over the chimney to prevent rain water coming down the flue.
By the end of the tenancy, the cause of this leak had not been resolved. The landlord says that since the tenancy ended there have been no more leaks, but the cause of the leaks is still uncertain.
The second leak related to a patch on the ceiling in the hallway. Initially the landlord thought that may have been the result of the decomposing rodent in the ceiling. Later, a loose nail was discovered on the roof and this was replaced. Water never dripped from the ceiling to the floor from this leak.
The tenants said the size of the patch on the ceiling was about the size of a plate. The landlord said the size of the patch was about the size of the palm of his hand.
I do not consider either of these leaks to have been substantial. At worst the leak in the kitchen was an occasional inconvenience; I do not consider the leak in the hallway to have had any impact on the tenants at all.
I am also satisfied the landlord responded to the tenants’ complaints and the leaks with inappropriate level of concern. The second leak was intermittent, not major, and repeated efforts to address them were made. This claim is not proved. Reduction of fixed term tenancy
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy. They are seeking a declaration that the tenancy ended on 8 August 2025.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants claim the following to be unforeseen circumstances that affected their tenancy: a. The leaks, b. Mould contamination downstairs, c. Fire risk due to the ceiling insulation being incorrectly installed, and d. Their daughters’ deteriorating health.
For different reasons I am not persuaded the reasons listed at a, b, and c amount to unforeseen circumstances which justify a reduction in the fixed-term tenancy. As already stated, I consider the leaks were minor and I do not consider the fire risk to have been proved. For reasons stated below I do not consider the mould contamination to be the responsibility of the landlord.
The tenants’ remaining reason for seeking a reduction in the fixed-term, is that because the house was non-compliant with the HHS, their daughter became sick.
The tenants said their daughters had never suffered respiratory conditions or skin rashes prior to moving into this property in January 2025.
The tenants say that in April and May 2025 their 3-year-old daughter, suffered a rash on her [body], as well as facial swelling, swollen eyes, a cough, a runny nose and an increased breathing rate, up to 60-70 beats per minute. The tenants were told that the usual rate for a child of that age is 30 beats per minute.
Because of ongoing health issues, the tenants’ daughter had to take repeated periods off daycare, and this impacted on the tenants’ work.
On 18 June 2025 the tenants again visited their GP doctor with their elder daughter, and on 19 June 2025 the tenants’ younger daughter went to hospital with respiratory issues.
On 4 July 2025, the tenants’ older daughter returned to [Hospital] with distressed breathing. The doctor offered to refer them for a healthy homes assessment which the tenants accepted, and then due to delays cancelled in favour of getting their own healthy homes assessment.
The tenants’ elder daughter was diagnosed with pneumonia and was also prescribed an inhaler.
The landlord pointed out the following: a. The house is situated on a south facing slope that gets little sunlight in winter. b. The house section descends to the upper harbour. c. Between this body of water and the house is an area of bush. d. The prevailing wind in New Zealand is a south-westerly.
On the information before me I am not persuaded that the children’s illnesses were the result of breaches of the RTA by the landlord. Therefore, I am not persuaded the landlord should compensate the tenants for medical or other associated costs.
Even though the house was non-compliant with the Healthy Homes standards insulation standard, I am not persuaded this was causative of the girls’ illnesses. There are several reasons for this.
Firstly, I consider it likely the environmental factors contributed to this house being cooler and damper than the average [City] house, whether or not it is compliant with the Healthy Homes legislation. This does not amount to a breach of the RTA by the landlord.
Secondly, the effect of the insulation not being compliant with the Healthy Homes standards has not been established. Even if I took judicial notice of the fact that a house with poor insulation is going to be colder in winter and more costly to heat than a house properly insulated, the degree to which this was the case in this instance is difficult to assess. This was not a house that was generally in poor condition. On the contrary, I am satisfied that on the whole this house was in very good condition. The landlord pointed to the presence of insulation between the floors and in the walls.
Thirdly, the specific cause of the tenants’ children’s illnesses has not been substantiated.
Nonetheless, it is not disputed that the tenant’s daughters’ health deteriorated. The cause of their deteriorating health may not be material. However I am persuaded on the balance of probabilities it was at least partly due to the environmental conditions.
I also accept the tenants’ information that their daughters had not suffered similar illnesses before. This persuades me that their daughters’ deteriorating health was an unforeseen circumstance, and was probably caused by an environmental factor.
I am persuaded the unforeseen circumstance of the tenants’ daughters’ illnesses was a severe hardship for the daughters and was in turn for the tenants, in terms of health, emotion and financially. I accept it is likely this would have continued if the tenancy had continued.
I accept the landlord suffered hardship due to the fixed-term tenancy ending. Mainly this was financial hardship, but there was work to do also, and this may be considered a hardship.
When I balance the two hardships, I have no doubt that the hardship suffered by the tenants was significantly more than the hardship suffered by the landlord.
Therefore, I consider it correct that the tenancy should, albeit retrospectively, be allowed to end early. This claim is proved.
The tribunal may order the applicant pay the other party an amount determined by the tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss or damage to the other party which would result from the reduction of the fixed term tenancy, see RTA 66(2).
The tenants gave notice to end the tenancy on Tuesday 22 July 2025. They said they would be ending the tenancy on 8 August 2025. The landlord was overseas on 8 August 2025, and returned to New Zealand on 31 August 2025. The landlord then undertook some work on the premises and in mid-September advertised it for rent. A new tenant was found, and they moved in on 17 October 2025. The landlord is seeking rent up until this date. That amounts to 10 weeks at $910.00 per week.
I consider it reasonable for the tenants to give 21 days’ notice from 22 July 2025 (the date they gave notice), and then to be liable for compensation equal to a further 28 days rent, to allow for work on the premises and for the landlord to find a new tenant. This means the tenants are liable for rent up until 9 September 2025. I calculate that until 9 September 2025 a further four weeks and four days rent was owed. The total of rent arrears amounts to $4,160.00.
I also consider it reasonable for the tenants to pay the landlord’s reasonable re-letting expenses of $275.00 (advertising costs), and to pay $35.00 for a final water reading which the landlord was unable to do personally as they were overseas at the time the tenants vacated the premises. Compensation for mould damaged belongings
The premises included a downstairs area comprising of a kitchenette, two bedrooms and a bathroom. The tenants said the downstairs area was rarely used other than for storage. [The tenant/s] occasionally used one of the rooms as a workroom, but this was no more than once a month. When a guest stayed for a period, they used a downstairs bedroom. The downstairs had a heat pump but this was only turned on once a month or so when the tenants were downstairs.
In July 2025 the tenants discovered belongings they had been storing downstairs had become mouldy. This included a laptop bag, a desk chair, travel cot, pushchair, bag for Christmas tree, bassinet, suitcase, wooden draws, desk, mattress, rocker horse, children’s toys, mattress, sleeping bag and sofa. The tenants are seeking $8,486.00 compensation for these belongings, and $241.00 for disposal costs.
As stated above the house faces south, gets little sun in winter, is near bush and descends to the upper harbour.
The landlord’s view is that the mould was probably a result off the downstairs not being used very often, not ventilated very well, and not heated very often.
A landlord must provide a premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the beginning of the tenancy, see the RTA, section 45(1)(a). After this, the tenant must keep the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy, see RTA section 40(1)(c). This includes managing mould, through ventilation, heating and not allowing belongings to sit untouched for long periods of times.
Despite regulations, it is a fact that some premises are more prone to mould than others. It appears this property needs to be actively managed to stay on top of mould. I am satisfied in this case it was predominantly the tenants’ management of the premises that caused the mould, rather than a breach of the RTA by the landlord.
I am not persuaded that damage to the tenants’ belongings in this case is the result of a breach of the RTA by the landlord. This claim is not proved, and no compensation is ordered. The landlord’s claims

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Rent arrears has been addressed above as part of the tenants’ claim for reduction of fixed-term tenancy.
The landlord is seeking $328.59 for unpaid water rates invoices. This is based on water rates and voices of $293.59 and $35.00 for a final water metre reading. This $35.00 charge has been ordered above, but I will set out the dispute here.
The tenant disputes their liability for their water rates and voices because the landlord did not forward them to the tenants until the end of the tenancy.
When the tenants moved into the premises, the gate through which the water metre reader habitually entered tended to swing open of its own accord. Because of this the tenants installed a latch on top of the gate. The water metre reader did not enter the property after the latch had been installed because they believed the gate was locked. The water usage was estimated conservatively at $10.00 per month and the landlord who received the invoices decided they were so insignificant she would pay them herself.
At the end of the tenancy when the final reading was conducted, it was discovered that the water usage was closer to average than had been estimated.
This is a somewhat convoluted set of circumstances, but it is clear there was no ill will on either party’s behalf, at least until their relationship deteriorated towards the end of the tenancy.
The amount of water rates being sought is not particularly high and I consider it reasonable that the tenants pay what is a reasonable amount for their water usage. I therefore determine the tenants are liable for the water bill, and as stated above I determine that the $35.00 fee for the final water reading is reasonable compensation following a reduction in the fixed term tenancy.
The landlord is claiming $41.07 for a gas bottle and the tenant does not dispute this. These claims are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claims walls in the downstairs living area were damaged during the tenancy and that the tenant dismantled two wardrobes which needed to be put back together at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord says they were told that the whole premises had been freshly painted prior to her purchasing it in December 2024. The landlord says that the tenant removed blinds from some of the windows downstairs and installed curtains. At the end of the tenancy the tenant left the curtains behind. The landlord kept the curtains but wanted to raise them. Therefore the curtain rail was taken down and raised. Part of the damage the landlord is seeking is to repair the holes left when the landlord raised the curtain rail. The landlord is also seeking compensation for repairing the damage when the fittings that held the blinds were removed.
The damage being claimed is not damage caused during the tenancy or by the tenant. I am not persuaded the damage caused when the landlord or contractor repositioned the curtain rails and removed the blinds brackets is damage that can be charged back to the tenant. This claim is not proved.
The landlord is also seeking compensation for repainting walls which they say the tenant marked during the tenancy and then repaired to a sub-standard level.
The tenant says that the damage he repaired was damaged that was present at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant also says that the paint that he used in repairing the holes was colour matched proficiently by [Paint Company] at [Trade Shop], and he produced a photograph and an invoice and support. The tenant also produced photograph of a wall used in advertising material for the property from 2023, which shows a gouge in the wall that was still present at the beginning of their tenancy. The tenant says this shows the premises had not been freshly repainted prior to the moving in.
The tenant produced a photograph they took of the wall after they had repaired it. The photograph is good quality and to me the wall looks very tidy. I cannot see any blemishes on it. The landlord says this is because the photo does not show enough detail.
The landlord has not produced any photographs from the start of the tenancy. The photographs from the end of the tenancy include walls that are clearly marked by the landlord’s own repairs.
Altogether it is difficult to see any damage that I consider to be caused by the tenants.
This claim is not proved.
The landlord is claiming $350.00 for a handyman that assisted in painting, raising the curtains, and repairing two wardrobes.
The landlord says at the beginning of the tenancy she gave consent to the tenants to “move” the two wardrobes. The tenant says he was told he could “remove” the two wardrobes. He then dismantled them and stored them at the property. At the end of the tenancy the landlord had to reassemble the two wardrobes and is seeking compensation for time spent doing this.
Because the wardrobes were kept at the premises during the tenancy I consider it more likely that the parties understood the wardrobes could be “moved”, but consent was not given for them to be “removed”. That is to say, I prefer the landlord’s recollection of this conversation over the tenant’s recollection.
Given that the $350.00 for the handyman includes an amount for painting and for raising the curtains as well as reassembling the wardrobes, I determine that $200.00 should be awarded to the landlord for the four to five hours work that it may have taken to reassemble the wardrobes.
Because both parties have been partially successful in their claims I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fees. These costs shall lie where they fall.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5312666 — Rent arrears at 27 Ferry Parade, Herald Island, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5312666 — Rent arrears at 27 Ferry Parade, Herald Island, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions