What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5315048 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 5315048?

Compensation: Failure to maintain- s…: $1,470.36 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to meet obliga…: $1,853.94 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5315048?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5315048?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12783074-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5315048 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 5315048?

Compensation: Failure to maintain- s…: $1,470.36 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to meet obliga…: $1,853.94 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5315048?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5315048?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12783074-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5315048 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5315048 — State of repair | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5315048 — net $4,552.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain- s45(1)(b) of the RTA breach	$1,470.36	Failure to maintain- s45(1)(b) of the RTA breach
Compensation: Failure to meet obligations under HIR reg 15 and s45(1)(c) of the RTA breach	$1,853.94	Failure to meet obligations under HIR reg 15 and s45(1)(c) of the RTA breach
Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS- draught stopping and ventilation (s45(1)(bb) of the RTA	$1,200.00	Breach of HHS- draught stopping and ventilation (s45(1)(bb) of the RTA
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,552.30
Bond	$3,580.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,552.30

Claims and awards for application 5315048 — net $4,552.30 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: Failure to maintain- s45(1)(b) of the RTA breach

Amount: $1,470.36
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- s45(1)(b) of the RTA breach

Compensation: Failure to meet obligations under HIR reg 15 and s45(1)(c) of the RTA breach

Amount: $1,853.94
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to meet obligations under HIR reg 15 and s45(1)(c) of the RTA breach

Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS- draught stopping and ventilation (s45(1)(bb) of the RTA

Amount: $1,200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of HHS- draught stopping and ventilation (s45(1)(bb) of the RTA

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $4,552.30

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants names and identifying details.
G Wang Trustee Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $4,552.30 immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,580.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 26 November 2025.
The tenants applied for compensation, general damages and exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the application fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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 unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. TENANT’S CLAIMS Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) obligations to the tenant?
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is 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”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
Breaching either of these s45(1) 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.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain and breach of HIR 1947, regulation 15
The tenant gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to her attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances and did not comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises, specifically the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR), regulation 15. Regulation 15 of the HIR requires that every rental premise be from dampness. Leaks and mould
The tenants provided photographic evidence that proves that from around 1 June 2025, when it rained the premise leaked in the ceilings throughout the house with their daughter’s bedroom and the kitchen having the worst leaks. Additionally, there was a leak coming through the the mountings for the television.
The tenants also produced photographic evidence that these leaks led to black mould developing in the wardrobes, walls, ceilings and around the joinery and to the external doors from bedrooms swelling with water so much that they could no longer be opened and closed.
The tenants say they raised these leaks and mould issues with the landlord over the phone during the winter months of the tenancy and again during Ms Sophia Turner’s 9 July 2025 property inspection and on 1 July 2025 when she visited the premise.
The landlord denies ever being told about the leaks and the mould issues and says Ms Turner noticed mould in the bathroom during the 9 June 2025 property inspection and thought this was the result of the tenants not ventilating the property adequately. Further, Ms Turner states that she did not notice the extent of the mould until the tenants moved out and she found patches of mould they had not been able to clean away with bleach.
The tenants produced call logs, text messages and emails between the parties that prove the tenants more likely than not had raised these issues with the landlord: a. In a phone call on 30 June 2025 when the tenants say they explained why they wanted to break the fixed term lease earlier than 23 February 2025 and this was followed up with a confirmation email from Ms Turner; b. On 1 July 2025 when Ms Turner came to check out the state of cleanliness of the home for the purpose of having it in a fit state to conduct viewings for potential new tenants. The female tenant stated that she showed Ms Turner the swollen doors that would not open, asked if the ceiling in her daughter’s room was stable enough for her daughter to continue sleeping in the room, the wet carpet in her daughter’s room and the mould on the ceilings, walls, skirting boards, wallpaper and curtains during this visit. The landlord denies these issues being raised during this visit; c. On 3 July 2025, the female tenant sent Ms Turner a text message with a photograph of the leaks from the TV stand. Ms Turner denied ever having received this text message. The tenants phone shows it was received; d. On 7 July 2025 when the landlord came back to check the house for viewings and complained about mould on the ceilings and asked the tenants to clean it before the viewings on 13 to 17 July 2025. The female tenant stated they could not reach that height, so the landlord offered the tenants the use of some ladders to carry out the cleaning of the black mould on the ceilings; e. On 9 July 2025 during the routine property inspection; and f. On 23 July 2025 in an email complaining about the leaks and dampness being the reason the tenants had ended their fixed term tenancy early.
The landlord also claimed the extensive black mould shown throughout the house in the photographic evidence produced by the tenants was due to the tenants not adequately ventilating the premise regularly. The tenants stated they regularly ventilated the house and cleaned the black mould regularly but the house was so damp that it kept coming back and eventually there were areas that could not be cleaned without leaving traces of black mould.
The tenants claimed that cleaning the amount of black mould that grew in the house over the winter months led to respiratory issues, especially for the male tenant and their young children. No medical evidence was produced to support this claim.
The landlord stated the house had been let out on Airbnb prior to this tenancy, that it was clean and no leaks or mould issues at the start of the tenancy and that there had been no complaints from persons renting the house for short term stays.
There were several times where the landlord denied receiving email responses from the tenants and text messages and the tenants found these on their hand- held devices during the hearing and entered them into evidence. Additionally, I find it highly unlikely, given the amount of black toxic mould and leaks shown in the photographic evidence provide by the tenants, that the landlord was not told about these issues when she visited the premise on 1 and 9 July 2025 and/or that she did not notice the mould and dampness in the house herself while she was carrying out her inspections. I find it more likely than not, given the amount of the mould, the photographic evidence, the inconsistencies between the landlord’s denials and the communications produced by the tenants as well as the health concerns faced by the tenants, that the landlord knew of the black mood, leaks and dampness issues from 1 July 2025.
There is no evidence that the landlord took any steps to address the leaks, dampness or black mould from that date until the tenancy ended on 23 July 2025. There is evidence Ms Turner knew about it, blamed the tenant for it and demanded they clean it so she could have it relet. Consequently, I also find that the landlord breached its regulation 15 of the HIR obligations in that the house was damp and mouldy due to the leaks that were not investigated or addressed.
I find it is more likely than not the landlord knew about the mould and leak related issues and did nothing to have it investigated or remediated in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and in doing so has committed an unlawful act.
I award the tenants a 50% rent rebate for the 3 week and 2-day period from 1 to 23 July 2025, where the tenants have proven that it was more likely than not that the landlord knew about the leaks, dampness and mould and did not have investigated or remediated the causes of the black mould, damp carpet and swollen doors that would not close or open properly. This is a rent rebate of $447.50 per week for 3 weeks and 2 days being $1,470.36. This general damage award recognises the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants but that the did have some amenity of the premise during this period. As such, I do not consider 100% rent rebate to be appropriate.
I also award the tenants a further rent rebate for the additional 4 weeks and 1 day (1 June to 1 July 2025) the tenants lived in a damp, mouldy home in breach of regulation 15 of the HIR. Under this regulation, a landlord has the responsibility to ensure the premise was free from dampness. The tenants have proven the house was damp from 1 June 2025. This is a rent rebate of $447.50 per week for 4 weeks and 1 day being $1,853.94. It recognises the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants during this period.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed investigate the cause of the leaks or to hire a professional mould removal company to investigate and clean the black toxic mould shown in the tenants’ photographs, and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay exemplary damages, because: a. The owner should have reasonably known it had to comply with the HIR, reg 15 and ss 45(1)(b) and (c) of the RTA and I have found that it is more likely than not that it did know the house was damp and mouldy due to leaks during periods of rain. It is not normal for houses to leak during periods of rain and the level of mould in the photographic evidence submitted by the tenants was far more intense and of a type that could not be because the tenants failed to adequately ventilate the house; b. The impact on the tenants of the landlord failing to have the leaks investigated and the mould addressed by a mould cleaning specialist meant the tenants health was put at risk as they were made to clean the toxic black mould themselves by the landlord after having lived in a damp and mouldy premise for 23 weeks; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide a house free from dampness and mould during the winter months they tenanted the property; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide rental accommodation free from dampness, leaks and black toxic mould.
Exemplary damages can only be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 for all s45(1) of the RTA breaches. Therefore, I will address the quantum in the s45(1) of the RTA exemplary damages section below. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards
[The tenant/s] claim that 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). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping and ventilation standards.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 24 February 2025. Therefore, the landlord had 120 days from the commencement date to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards, being Tuesday, 24 June 2025. A. Ventilation
The tenants clam that the landlord has failed to comply with the ventilation standard.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants say the externa doors from the bedrooms were swollen so badly from the leaks and dampness in the house, they could not be opened or closed.
The landlord states in the tenancy agreement the premise met the ventilation standard. However, the tenants’ photographs of at least two doors proves that the doors were jammed shut with a significant gap because they were to damp and full of water to close properly or to open on 22 June 2025 and on 4 July 2025.
The landlord confirmed it had not had a healthy homes assessment done on this premise until 31 July 2025 and it could not disprove the tenants claims the house did not meet the ventilation standard on 24 June 2025.
The landlord produced a healthy homes compliance certificate and assessment report from Oncore that contained scant photographs of the house and was dated 31 July 2025. This was 7 days after the tenancy ended and a month past the compliance date for the tenancy. This gave the landlord time to have work done on the premise to bring it to complaint standard.
In this case I have determined that the tenants have proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord did not meet the ventilation standard on 24 June 2025.
I find G Wang Trustee Limited committed an unlawful act.
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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that the landlord took no steps to ensure the premise would meet the ventilation standard by 24 June 2025 and therefore I consider the breach to be intentional.
Exemplary damages can only be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 for all s45(1) of the RTA breaches. Therefore, I will address the quantum in the s45(1) of the RTA exemplary damages section below. B. Draught Stopping
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the 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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants say there were gaps in the framework of the windows and the doors from the beginning of the tenancy that let cold air and water in and hot air out. The tenant says the excess moisture that built up caused significant black toxic mould to form on the walls, ceilings and door/windowsills and some frames.
The landlord did not provide any details about compliance with this standard in the tenancy agreement. The tenants’ photographs prove there were gaps in the windows and doors from the start of the tenancy that were not addressed by the landlord by the HHS compliance date.
The landlord confirmed it had not had a healthy homes assessment done on this premise until 31 July 2025 and it could not disprove the tenants claims the house did not meet the ventilation standard on 24 June 2025.
The landlord produced a healthy homes compliance certificate and assessment report from Oncore that contained scant photographs of the windows and doors and was dated 31 July 2025. This was 7 days after the tenancy ended and a month past the compliance date for the tenancy. This gave the landlord time to have work done on the premise to bring it to complaint standard. I also have concerns about the quality and accuracy of the Oncore assessor’s assessment based on prior knowledge of quality issues with this assessor’s work and the comparison between the tenants photographic evidence and the assessment report photographs and conclusions.
In this case I have determined that the tenants have proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord did not meet the draught stopping standard on 24 June 2025.
I find G Wang Trustee Limited committed an unlawful act.
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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that the landlord took no steps to ensure the premise would meet the draught stopping standard by 24 June 2025 and therefore I consider the breach to be intentional.
Exemplary damages can only be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 for all s45(1) of the RTA breaches. Therefore, I will address the quantum in the s45(1) of the RTA exemplary damages section below. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed one intentional breach of s45(1)(b) of the RTA, one of s45(1)(c) of the RTA and two of s45(1)(bb). These breaches resulted in the tenants being exposed to damp and mouldy living conditions during winter months and having to end a fixed term tenancy early and incur the stress, inconvenience and cost of finding new rental accommodation and moving due to the loss of the amenities they are paying rent to enjoy.
I find the landlord has committed these unlawful acts intentionally and made unproven claims that the tenants lied about the mould and dampness to get out of the fixed term tenancy as rents had dropped and there was more rental stock available. The landlord claims the tenants have raised these issues only after they asked for the tenancy to end early as they wanted to take advantage of getting a lower rent elsewhere. The tenants have confirmed they never wanted to have to move 23 weeks after the 52-week tenancy commenced but found themselves having to do so for the sake of their and their children’s health and wellbeing.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $1,200.00 exemplary damages to the tenants, being one eighth of the maximum penalty available for s45(1) of the RTA breaches.

Should the tenants contribute to the water rates bills?

The tenants claim the landlord breached its obligations to only charge them for water and wastewater they consumed.
Section 39(1) of the RTA states: The landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that— (a) are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied; and (b) are incurred for common facilities.
Section 39(3), (4) and (5) of the RTA states: (3) The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. (4)Without limiting the generality of subsection (3), the tenant is responsible for the following charges, incurred during the tenancy, in respect of the premises: (a) electricity and gas: (b) telephone and Internet: (c) supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption. (5)In this section, premises includes facilities that are exclusively for the use of the tenant.
The tenancy agreement contains an unlawful and unenforceable clause that states “water bill is split with the tenants of 17A Clarendon Road by persons”. The landlord confirmed there is a granny flat off the premise the tenants rented, and that the granny flat had one occupant while the tenants had two adults and two children. The landlord also confirmed that there is only one water meter for both separate households and that it had billed the tenants using four fifths of the total water bill minus the fixed charges.
The water bills produced by the landlord for the period February 2025 to July 2025 show that the total amount of water consumption charges is $348.60 for both households.
The tenants produced correspondence from Watercare that proves the water meters were not working from December 2024 to April/May 2025 and that the $348.60 covers the period 21 December 2024 to 23 July 2025, being an average monthly consumption of $49.80 for both flats.
The tenants confirmed they have never paid anything towards the water rates as they could not come to a mutually acceptable agreement with the landlord.
They say they were happy to pay something towards the bill but not the $500.00 the landlord was claiming. It is of note that the June/July bill had a rebate on it that the landlord never disclosed to the tenants. This rebate was provided by Watercare after the actual reading of the meter was taken in June/July 2025. The tenants confirmed that Watercare had not been able to read the meter since December 2024 as there was an issue with the smart meter.
I am satisfied that the landlord has intentionally included an unlawful clause in the tenancy agreement requiring the tenants to pay for water on a per person basis that she cannot prove they consumed. The tenants are only responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. Therefore, I find that the tenants are not liable for any water consumption charges for the 23 weeks duration of the tenancy.

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of the filing fee

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their name and identifying details as they consider the publication of their names and identifying details may have a negative impact on their ability to secure future tenancies as many landlords search the published orders when considering a tenancy and may choose not to grant a person a tenancy that has appeared before the Tribunal, regardless of why.
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.
The tenants have substantially succeeded in their proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered. Other miscellaneous claims
The tenants sought reimbursement of their moving costs. There is no provision in the RTA which I can see, nor which the tenants have identified, from which this claim can be based.
Because I cannot make any orders around moving costs, this claim must be dismissed. Landlord counterclaims
The landlord attempted to bring its counterclaims during todays hearing. It had not made a separate cross application and expected the Tribunal to hear its counterclaims as part of today’s hearing.
The tenants did not consent to these counterclaims being heard without a separate application having been made because they had no prior notice of these claims and no time to prepare a defence to them.
I informed the landlord that 4 months had passed since the tenants filed their application and that was plenty of time for the landlord to file a cross application and it had not.
Ms Sophia Turner held herself out to be the Director of the landlord company and an experienced property manager. She ought to have been aware that the rules of natural justice require a party to have prior knowledge of the claims being made against them and reasonable time to formulate a defence to those claims. This can only occur in the tenancy jurisdiction by a party making its own separate cross application. Had the landlord tried to raise these counterclaims prior to the hearing, Tenancy Services or the Ministry of Justice’s registry would have confirmed that Ms Turner was required to make a separate cross application. Instead, she brought her evidence to the Tribunal today, without bringing a separate copy for the tenants, and expected me to hear her unspecified claims for cleaning and damages.
I denied her request to have her counter claims heard today. She is required to file a separate application if the landlord wishes to pursue these claims against the tenant.
In the meantime, the indication of the claims the landlord may make would be unlikely to yield an equitable offset that is more than the remedies awarded to the tenants in the Order above. Therefore, I have ordered that the full bond be refunded to the tenants.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5315048 — net $4,552.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain- s45(1)(b) of the RTA breach	$1,470.36	Failure to maintain- s45(1)(b) of the RTA breach
Compensation: Failure to meet obligations under HIR reg 15 and s45(1)(c) of the RTA breach	$1,853.94	Failure to meet obligations under HIR reg 15 and s45(1)(c) of the RTA breach
Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS- draught stopping and ventilation (s45(1)(bb) of the RTA	$1,200.00	Breach of HHS- draught stopping and ventilation (s45(1)(bb) of the RTA
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,552.30
Bond	$3,580.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,552.30

Claims and awards for application 5315048 — net $4,552.30 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: Failure to maintain- s45(1)(b) of the RTA breach

Amount: $1,470.36
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- s45(1)(b) of the RTA breach

Compensation: Failure to meet obligations under HIR reg 15 and s45(1)(c) of the RTA breach

Amount: $1,853.94
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to meet obligations under HIR reg 15 and s45(1)(c) of the RTA breach

Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS- draught stopping and ventilation (s45(1)(bb) of the RTA

Amount: $1,200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of HHS- draught stopping and ventilation (s45(1)(bb) of the RTA

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $4,552.30

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants names and identifying details.
G Wang Trustee Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $4,552.30 immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,580.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 26 November 2025.
The tenants applied for compensation, general damages and exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the application fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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 unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. TENANT’S CLAIMS Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) obligations to the tenant?
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is 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”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
Breaching either of these s45(1) 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.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain and breach of HIR 1947, regulation 15
The tenant gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to her attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances and did not comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises, specifically the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR), regulation 15. Regulation 15 of the HIR requires that every rental premise be from dampness. Leaks and mould
The tenants provided photographic evidence that proves that from around 1 June 2025, when it rained the premise leaked in the ceilings throughout the house with their daughter’s bedroom and the kitchen having the worst leaks. Additionally, there was a leak coming through the the mountings for the television.
The tenants also produced photographic evidence that these leaks led to black mould developing in the wardrobes, walls, ceilings and around the joinery and to the external doors from bedrooms swelling with water so much that they could no longer be opened and closed.
The tenants say they raised these leaks and mould issues with the landlord over the phone during the winter months of the tenancy and again during Ms Sophia Turner’s 9 July 2025 property inspection and on 1 July 2025 when she visited the premise.
The landlord denies ever being told about the leaks and the mould issues and says Ms Turner noticed mould in the bathroom during the 9 June 2025 property inspection and thought this was the result of the tenants not ventilating the property adequately. Further, Ms Turner states that she did not notice the extent of the mould until the tenants moved out and she found patches of mould they had not been able to clean away with bleach.
The tenants produced call logs, text messages and emails between the parties that prove the tenants more likely than not had raised these issues with the landlord: a. In a phone call on 30 June 2025 when the tenants say they explained why they wanted to break the fixed term lease earlier than 23 February 2025 and this was followed up with a confirmation email from Ms Turner; b. On 1 July 2025 when Ms Turner came to check out the state of cleanliness of the home for the purpose of having it in a fit state to conduct viewings for potential new tenants. The female tenant stated that she showed Ms Turner the swollen doors that would not open, asked if the ceiling in her daughter’s room was stable enough for her daughter to continue sleeping in the room, the wet carpet in her daughter’s room and the mould on the ceilings, walls, skirting boards, wallpaper and curtains during this visit. The landlord denies these issues being raised during this visit; c. On 3 July 2025, the female tenant sent Ms Turner a text message with a photograph of the leaks from the TV stand. Ms Turner denied ever having received this text message. The tenants phone shows it was received; d. On 7 July 2025 when the landlord came back to check the house for viewings and complained about mould on the ceilings and asked the tenants to clean it before the viewings on 13 to 17 July 2025. The female tenant stated they could not reach that height, so the landlord offered the tenants the use of some ladders to carry out the cleaning of the black mould on the ceilings; e. On 9 July 2025 during the routine property inspection; and f. On 23 July 2025 in an email complaining about the leaks and dampness being the reason the tenants had ended their fixed term tenancy early.
The landlord also claimed the extensive black mould shown throughout the house in the photographic evidence produced by the tenants was due to the tenants not adequately ventilating the premise regularly. The tenants stated they regularly ventilated the house and cleaned the black mould regularly but the house was so damp that it kept coming back and eventually there were areas that could not be cleaned without leaving traces of black mould.
The tenants claimed that cleaning the amount of black mould that grew in the house over the winter months led to respiratory issues, especially for the male tenant and their young children. No medical evidence was produced to support this claim.
The landlord stated the house had been let out on Airbnb prior to this tenancy, that it was clean and no leaks or mould issues at the start of the tenancy and that there had been no complaints from persons renting the house for short term stays.
There were several times where the landlord denied receiving email responses from the tenants and text messages and the tenants found these on their hand- held devices during the hearing and entered them into evidence. Additionally, I find it highly unlikely, given the amount of black toxic mould and leaks shown in the photographic evidence provide by the tenants, that the landlord was not told about these issues when she visited the premise on 1 and 9 July 2025 and/or that she did not notice the mould and dampness in the house herself while she was carrying out her inspections. I find it more likely than not, given the amount of the mould, the photographic evidence, the inconsistencies between the landlord’s denials and the communications produced by the tenants as well as the health concerns faced by the tenants, that the landlord knew of the black mood, leaks and dampness issues from 1 July 2025.
There is no evidence that the landlord took any steps to address the leaks, dampness or black mould from that date until the tenancy ended on 23 July 2025. There is evidence Ms Turner knew about it, blamed the tenant for it and demanded they clean it so she could have it relet. Consequently, I also find that the landlord breached its regulation 15 of the HIR obligations in that the house was damp and mouldy due to the leaks that were not investigated or addressed.
I find it is more likely than not the landlord knew about the mould and leak related issues and did nothing to have it investigated or remediated in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and in doing so has committed an unlawful act.
I award the tenants a 50% rent rebate for the 3 week and 2-day period from 1 to 23 July 2025, where the tenants have proven that it was more likely than not that the landlord knew about the leaks, dampness and mould and did not have investigated or remediated the causes of the black mould, damp carpet and swollen doors that would not close or open properly. This is a rent rebate of $447.50 per week for 3 weeks and 2 days being $1,470.36. This general damage award recognises the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants but that the did have some amenity of the premise during this period. As such, I do not consider 100% rent rebate to be appropriate.
I also award the tenants a further rent rebate for the additional 4 weeks and 1 day (1 June to 1 July 2025) the tenants lived in a damp, mouldy home in breach of regulation 15 of the HIR. Under this regulation, a landlord has the responsibility to ensure the premise was free from dampness. The tenants have proven the house was damp from 1 June 2025. This is a rent rebate of $447.50 per week for 4 weeks and 1 day being $1,853.94. It recognises the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants during this period.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed investigate the cause of the leaks or to hire a professional mould removal company to investigate and clean the black toxic mould shown in the tenants’ photographs, and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay exemplary damages, because: a. The owner should have reasonably known it had to comply with the HIR, reg 15 and ss 45(1)(b) and (c) of the RTA and I have found that it is more likely than not that it did know the house was damp and mouldy due to leaks during periods of rain. It is not normal for houses to leak during periods of rain and the level of mould in the photographic evidence submitted by the tenants was far more intense and of a type that could not be because the tenants failed to adequately ventilate the house; b. The impact on the tenants of the landlord failing to have the leaks investigated and the mould addressed by a mould cleaning specialist meant the tenants health was put at risk as they were made to clean the toxic black mould themselves by the landlord after having lived in a damp and mouldy premise for 23 weeks; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide a house free from dampness and mould during the winter months they tenanted the property; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide rental accommodation free from dampness, leaks and black toxic mould.
Exemplary damages can only be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 for all s45(1) of the RTA breaches. Therefore, I will address the quantum in the s45(1) of the RTA exemplary damages section below. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards
[The tenant/s] claim that 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). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping and ventilation standards.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 24 February 2025. Therefore, the landlord had 120 days from the commencement date to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards, being Tuesday, 24 June 2025. A. Ventilation
The tenants clam that the landlord has failed to comply with the ventilation standard.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants say the externa doors from the bedrooms were swollen so badly from the leaks and dampness in the house, they could not be opened or closed.
The landlord states in the tenancy agreement the premise met the ventilation standard. However, the tenants’ photographs of at least two doors proves that the doors were jammed shut with a significant gap because they were to damp and full of water to close properly or to open on 22 June 2025 and on 4 July 2025.
The landlord confirmed it had not had a healthy homes assessment done on this premise until 31 July 2025 and it could not disprove the tenants claims the house did not meet the ventilation standard on 24 June 2025.
The landlord produced a healthy homes compliance certificate and assessment report from Oncore that contained scant photographs of the house and was dated 31 July 2025. This was 7 days after the tenancy ended and a month past the compliance date for the tenancy. This gave the landlord time to have work done on the premise to bring it to complaint standard.
In this case I have determined that the tenants have proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord did not meet the ventilation standard on 24 June 2025.
I find G Wang Trustee Limited committed an unlawful act.
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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that the landlord took no steps to ensure the premise would meet the ventilation standard by 24 June 2025 and therefore I consider the breach to be intentional.
Exemplary damages can only be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 for all s45(1) of the RTA breaches. Therefore, I will address the quantum in the s45(1) of the RTA exemplary damages section below. B. Draught Stopping
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the 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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants say there were gaps in the framework of the windows and the doors from the beginning of the tenancy that let cold air and water in and hot air out. The tenant says the excess moisture that built up caused significant black toxic mould to form on the walls, ceilings and door/windowsills and some frames.
The landlord did not provide any details about compliance with this standard in the tenancy agreement. The tenants’ photographs prove there were gaps in the windows and doors from the start of the tenancy that were not addressed by the landlord by the HHS compliance date.
The landlord confirmed it had not had a healthy homes assessment done on this premise until 31 July 2025 and it could not disprove the tenants claims the house did not meet the ventilation standard on 24 June 2025.
The landlord produced a healthy homes compliance certificate and assessment report from Oncore that contained scant photographs of the windows and doors and was dated 31 July 2025. This was 7 days after the tenancy ended and a month past the compliance date for the tenancy. This gave the landlord time to have work done on the premise to bring it to complaint standard. I also have concerns about the quality and accuracy of the Oncore assessor’s assessment based on prior knowledge of quality issues with this assessor’s work and the comparison between the tenants photographic evidence and the assessment report photographs and conclusions.
In this case I have determined that the tenants have proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord did not meet the draught stopping standard on 24 June 2025.
I find G Wang Trustee Limited committed an unlawful act.
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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that the landlord took no steps to ensure the premise would meet the draught stopping standard by 24 June 2025 and therefore I consider the breach to be intentional.
Exemplary damages can only be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 for all s45(1) of the RTA breaches. Therefore, I will address the quantum in the s45(1) of the RTA exemplary damages section below. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed one intentional breach of s45(1)(b) of the RTA, one of s45(1)(c) of the RTA and two of s45(1)(bb). These breaches resulted in the tenants being exposed to damp and mouldy living conditions during winter months and having to end a fixed term tenancy early and incur the stress, inconvenience and cost of finding new rental accommodation and moving due to the loss of the amenities they are paying rent to enjoy.
I find the landlord has committed these unlawful acts intentionally and made unproven claims that the tenants lied about the mould and dampness to get out of the fixed term tenancy as rents had dropped and there was more rental stock available. The landlord claims the tenants have raised these issues only after they asked for the tenancy to end early as they wanted to take advantage of getting a lower rent elsewhere. The tenants have confirmed they never wanted to have to move 23 weeks after the 52-week tenancy commenced but found themselves having to do so for the sake of their and their children’s health and wellbeing.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $1,200.00 exemplary damages to the tenants, being one eighth of the maximum penalty available for s45(1) of the RTA breaches.

Should the tenants contribute to the water rates bills?

The tenants claim the landlord breached its obligations to only charge them for water and wastewater they consumed.
Section 39(1) of the RTA states: The landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that— (a) are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied; and (b) are incurred for common facilities.
Section 39(3), (4) and (5) of the RTA states: (3) The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. (4)Without limiting the generality of subsection (3), the tenant is responsible for the following charges, incurred during the tenancy, in respect of the premises: (a) electricity and gas: (b) telephone and Internet: (c) supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption. (5)In this section, premises includes facilities that are exclusively for the use of the tenant.
The tenancy agreement contains an unlawful and unenforceable clause that states “water bill is split with the tenants of 17A Clarendon Road by persons”. The landlord confirmed there is a granny flat off the premise the tenants rented, and that the granny flat had one occupant while the tenants had two adults and two children. The landlord also confirmed that there is only one water meter for both separate households and that it had billed the tenants using four fifths of the total water bill minus the fixed charges.
The water bills produced by the landlord for the period February 2025 to July 2025 show that the total amount of water consumption charges is $348.60 for both households.
The tenants produced correspondence from Watercare that proves the water meters were not working from December 2024 to April/May 2025 and that the $348.60 covers the period 21 December 2024 to 23 July 2025, being an average monthly consumption of $49.80 for both flats.
The tenants confirmed they have never paid anything towards the water rates as they could not come to a mutually acceptable agreement with the landlord.
They say they were happy to pay something towards the bill but not the $500.00 the landlord was claiming. It is of note that the June/July bill had a rebate on it that the landlord never disclosed to the tenants. This rebate was provided by Watercare after the actual reading of the meter was taken in June/July 2025. The tenants confirmed that Watercare had not been able to read the meter since December 2024 as there was an issue with the smart meter.
I am satisfied that the landlord has intentionally included an unlawful clause in the tenancy agreement requiring the tenants to pay for water on a per person basis that she cannot prove they consumed. The tenants are only responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. Therefore, I find that the tenants are not liable for any water consumption charges for the 23 weeks duration of the tenancy.

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of the filing fee

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their name and identifying details as they consider the publication of their names and identifying details may have a negative impact on their ability to secure future tenancies as many landlords search the published orders when considering a tenancy and may choose not to grant a person a tenancy that has appeared before the Tribunal, regardless of why.
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.
The tenants have substantially succeeded in their proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered. Other miscellaneous claims
The tenants sought reimbursement of their moving costs. There is no provision in the RTA which I can see, nor which the tenants have identified, from which this claim can be based.
Because I cannot make any orders around moving costs, this claim must be dismissed. Landlord counterclaims
The landlord attempted to bring its counterclaims during todays hearing. It had not made a separate cross application and expected the Tribunal to hear its counterclaims as part of today’s hearing.
The tenants did not consent to these counterclaims being heard without a separate application having been made because they had no prior notice of these claims and no time to prepare a defence to them.
I informed the landlord that 4 months had passed since the tenants filed their application and that was plenty of time for the landlord to file a cross application and it had not.
Ms Sophia Turner held herself out to be the Director of the landlord company and an experienced property manager. She ought to have been aware that the rules of natural justice require a party to have prior knowledge of the claims being made against them and reasonable time to formulate a defence to those claims. This can only occur in the tenancy jurisdiction by a party making its own separate cross application. Had the landlord tried to raise these counterclaims prior to the hearing, Tenancy Services or the Ministry of Justice’s registry would have confirmed that Ms Turner was required to make a separate cross application. Instead, she brought her evidence to the Tribunal today, without bringing a separate copy for the tenants, and expected me to hear her unspecified claims for cleaning and damages.
I denied her request to have her counter claims heard today. She is required to file a separate application if the landlord wishes to pursue these claims against the tenant.
In the meantime, the indication of the claims the landlord may make would be unlikely to yield an equitable offset that is more than the remedies awarded to the tenants in the Order above. Therefore, I have ordered that the full bond be refunded to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5315048 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5315048 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Should the tenants contribute to the water rates bills?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Should the tenants contribute to the water rates bills?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions