What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5313163 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 5313163?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313163?

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 5313163?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14202917-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5313163 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 5313163?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313163?

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 5313163?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14202917-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5313163 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,150.00 to [The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s], Murugesu [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed term tenancy, exemplary damages for breach of Healthy Home Standards, failure to maintain the property, compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee and refund of the bond.
By way of background, on 21 June 2025, the Tenant attending a viewing of this property with their daughter. The Landlord advised at the viewing that he wanted short- term tenants because he was waiting for council consent for sub- division to re-build. The Tenants requested the Landlord clean the property as the property had not been lived in since October 2024, there was furniture that needed to be removed and the hot water cylinder required attention. The Landlord agreed to attend to these.
On 23 June 2025, the Tenants signed a tenancy agreement for a 3-month fixed term commencing 30 June 2025. Around 26 June 2025, the Tenant (through their insurance company) paid $4000.00 for bond and rent in advance to the Landlord. On 27 June 2025, the Tenant collected the key.
On 28 June 2025, the Tenant attended with their son. The Landlord confirmed the property still had not been cleaned. The Landlord was given a list of issues to repair before the Tenant moved in. The Landlord organised to meet the Tenant to discuss these issues on 29 June 2025 however the Tenant did not attend. She did not feel safe to meet with the Landlord because of the way he spoke with her. The Tenant returned the key to the letter box and provided a termination notice on 29 June 2025. The Tenant stated the property was not in a condition fit for habitation/ They travelled down to Blenheim to stay with their daughter because they had nowhere else to go. They submitted they had a lot of health issues and subsequently had to return to Auckland for medical appointments. Reduction of the fixed -term tenancy
The Tenants applied for the fixed-term tenancy to end before its agreed expiry date of 30 September 2025.
Under s 66(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), the Tribunal may reduce the term of a fixed-term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; b. the applicant would suffer severe hardship if the term were not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term were reduced.
The Tenants viewed the property before entering into the tenancy and were aware of its condition. They identified cleaning issues before moving in and arranged to meet with the Landlord on 29 June 2025 to discuss those matters. The Landlord advised them that no one had occupied the property since October 2024. Instead of talking to the Landlord, the Tenants sought to terminate the tenancy without giving the Landlord an opportunity to remedy the alleged issues.
The Tenants noted dirt marks in the hallway, mould on the alarm and ceilings, broken kitchen drawers, dead maggots in the kitchen drawers, stained carpets, wall damage, human faeces in the backyard, protruding nails on the gate, a faulty front-door lock, fungus in the cupboard, damaged light bulbs, broken washing line, missing light bulbs, filthy car port and alleged non- compliance with the healthy homes standards. The Tenants submitted they did not attempt to clean off the mould. Photographs were filed to substantiate the claim.
In considering the evidence, the Tenants have not established the requirements of s 66(1). They did not provide sufficient evidence that they would suffer severe hardship if required to remain for the fixed term, or that their hardship would be greater than the Landlord’s hardship if the term were reduced. The issues the Tenants raised were able to be rectified by cleaning or repairing. I have no records from an independent expert confirming the condition of the house was unliveable. While the house was not clean, I find there was no evidence it was uninhabitable. Also without giving the Landlord an opportunity to rectify the issues, they could not have speculated that their hardship would have been greater.
The claim to reduce the fixed term is dismissed. Breach of HHS
The Tenant has claimed the Landlord has breached the HHS by failing to comply. They submitted the Landlord was not exempt from the HHS.
The Landlord submitted they applied for resource consent before the tenancy began which is why he made the tenancy short term.
Regulation 31 of the RTA (HHS) Regulations 2019 provides that a landlord is exempt from complying with the HHS if they intend to demolish or substantially rebuild the premises, and have applied for the necessary building consent or resource consent. It applies only while consent is pending until the work is completed or consent lapses and the Landlord must notify the Tenant in writing.
The onus is on the Tenant to prove the house is non-compliant with HHS. There is no evidence from an independent expert or an HHS report. This is their responsibility to prove their claim. The Tenant did not prove that a resource consent had not been sought by the Landlord. The claim is there for dismissed. Failure to prove the premises in a reasonable state of repair
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s], Murugesu [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] 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 and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
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.
Under s 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available.
A breach of these obligations may constitute an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Under s 109(3) RTA, where an unlawful act is committed intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it considers it just to do so, having regard to the party’s intention, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party and the public interest.
In these circumstances, the Landlord took steps to prepare the premises for the tenancy, including sourcing a hot-water cylinder at a cost exceeding $2,000, paying more than $200 for cleaning, and installing a gate personally.
The Tenant raised concerns regarding the cleanliness and readiness of the premises two days before the tenancy commenced. However, the Tenant declined to meet with the Landlord and therefore did not give the Landlord a reasonable opportunity to address or remedy the alleged issues.
The Tenant was required under s 49 RTA to take all reasonable steps to limit any loss arising from an alleged breach by the Landlord. In the circumstances, giving the Landlord an opportunity to address the identified cleaning and repair issues was a reasonable step. Instead, the Tenant declined to meet with the Landlord and proceeded to serve a termination notice.
In considering the evidence, I am not satisfied that an award of exemplary damages is justified. The Tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is therefore dismissed. Claim for compensation
The Tenant claimed compensation of $1500.00 for hiring a van for 2days to move into the property and then for storage. As no grounds were found for ending the fixed term tenancy early, this claim is dismissed. Refund of the bond
The landlord has a claim against the bond, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
As the Tenants have not been successful with their claims, name suppression is not granted to the Tenants and the Tenants shall bear their own filing fee. As the Landlord has been successful, name suppression is granted to the Landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313163 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313163 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.