Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5318567 — Mould & damp at 37 Anglem Street, Hawthorndale, Invercargill 9810
Decided 30 Jan 2026 · Published 30 Jan 2026 · Application 5318567
- Mould & damp
- State of repair
- Cleanliness
- Healthy homes
- Exemplary damages
- Leaks
Order
- The respondent landlord is to pay the sum of $250.00 to the tenants by 5pm, Friday 13 th February 2026.
- All other claims are dismissed, and this concludes all matters in relation to this tenancy.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- On 30 October 2025 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
- The previous order dealt with a number of the claims that the tenant bought against the landlord. There was insufficient time to deal with the entire claim at that time. Today’s hearing was a continuation of the hearing to deal with the remaining issues.
- The tenancy commenced on the 17 August 2024 and ended on the 1 August 2025. The tenants viewed the property on two occasions and signed the tenancy agreement that included the appropriate documentation, including the Health Homes Standards current level of compliance and a pre inspection report.
- A number of issues were raised during the tenancy and were remedied in a timely manner. Although the tenant states they were Band-Aids and the actual causes of issues never addressed. It is noted that plumbers and electricians used were qualified tradespeople.
- The remaining issues that are to be determined today are: a. Did the landlord fail to maintain the property in relation to i) Mould ii) Dog odour iii) Oven iv) Carpet v) Footpath vi) Plumbing b. Has the landlord breached the Healthy Homes Standards in relation to i) Heating ii) Draughts iii) Moisture and dampness.
- [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Under section 45, a landlord must provide 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.
- The tenant submitted that they bought to the attention the issue of mould throughout the tenancy, the landlord did not agree. There was never a formal notice produced to the landlord. They stated that the mould became an issue just after moving in, however the landlord stated that it was never an issue and occurred due to tenant error. There is no record of the claims in any inspection.
- In relation to the dog odour, two previous tenancies prior to this tenant had a dog. An invoice was supplied confirming that the appropriate carpet cleaning had taken place at the end of that tenant’s tenancy. There was no dog at the property the following tenancy. There was never an issue raised in any inspection reports.
- The tenant claims that there were issues with the oven elements. It was recorded in the work orders of the landlord that there were two complaints and the invoices from the registered electrician confirm they carried out the repairs in a timely manner.
- The tenant claims at the commencement of the tenancy that the carpet was lifting in the corners. The carpet was old and both parties signed the inspection report. They had the carpets cleaned and it made some areas of the carpet worse. However, I do not accept that this is a claim in which a landlord could be blamed for failing to maintain the property.
- The tenant claims that the footpath was unstable, he agreed that he proposed how to remedy this at the time and did so using existing material in the garden.
- The tenant also raised an issue they had during the term of the tenancy in relation to the plumbing. The invoices and work orders show this was dealt with and in a timely manner.
- The tenants accepted that they believed the immediate remedy was fixed but that more could have been done, such as buying a new oven in relation to the oven.
- All complaints that were lodged by the landlord, show that they were dealt with in a timely manner. The tenants accepted that once they moved in, they felt that the property should have been in a better condition as the tenancy went on. The accepted that it was good at the start and the relationship deteriorated with the property manager after the issue of the tradesman turning up unexpectedly, this is addressed in the previous order.
- Having considered on the balance of probabilities all of the evidence and submissions by both parties I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to maintain the property and this part of the claim is dismissed.
- [The tenant/s] and [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). Candice Manukonga- Hughes and [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard, the draught stopping, moisture and dampness. In relation to this they rely on a report they obtained in relation to all alleged breaches, and I shall refer to that below.
- 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 the 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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
- 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(1A).
- There is no evidence that the heat pump does not satisfy this requirement.
- On the evidence I must dismiss the claim as insufficient evidence has been submitted to prove the claim.
- [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claims 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). Candice Manukonga- Hughes and [The tenant/s] considers that 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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
- 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(1A).
- On the evidence, I am not satisfied that this has been proven.
- [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claims 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). Candice Manukonga- Hughes and [The tenant/s] considers that 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 Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
- The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
- 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(1A).
- As stated, the tenants obtained a report from the Tenancy Compliance and Investigation Team to support the claims of the alleged breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. The report states “the tenant sought TCIT assistance to identify issues and support a Tenancy Tribunal application.” They used this to support eh allegations of the breaches.
- The tenant accepted that the landlord did not know the property was not compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards. A number of photos were taken of the property however the report remains incomplete in that it does not make conclusions or recommendations in relation to noncompliance. The property manager has not been contacted in relation to any concerns.
- The report concluded “TCIT did not contact the landlord per the tenant request. Potential breaches were observed but not substantiated due to lack of landlord engagement to assess if the landlords were aware of the issues due to the tenant’s request”.
- The tenant believed that this report and photos could lead me to the conclusion that the property did not reach the standards. That is a misunderstanding.
- There is insufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by breaching the standards, and the claim is therefore dismissed.