What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5325199 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 5325199?

Compensation: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5325199?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5325199?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12831796-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5325199 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 5325199?

Compensation: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5325199?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5325199?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12831796-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5325199 — Smoke alarms

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5325199 — net $3,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,500.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages: Smoke Alarms	$2,000.00	Smoke Alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,528.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Najib Property Management Limited As Agent For The Singh Singh Family must pay [The tenant/s] $3,528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation $1,500.00 Exemplary damages: Smoke Alarms $2,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total award $3,528.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $3,528.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Claims
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
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 tenants also claim that the landlord has breached its 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).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For private rentals where the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the premises must comply within 120 days of the commencement the tenancy. For this rental the compliance date was 17 April 2025.
The tenants also claim that the landlord provided a false or misleading compliance statement with the Tenancy Agreement. See s45(1A) RTA. Background
The tenancy started on 18 December 2024. Some of the tenants did not move in until February, but that is not relevant to the issues I will determine.
The tenancy was for a 1-year fixed term, but the parties agreed to an early termination in September 2025 without any penalty to the tenants.
The tenants were not provided with a move-in inspection report until February. Smoke Alarms were not installed until February 2025.
The tenants claim that the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean condition. The evidence around this issue was limited. The landlord considered that the issue had been resolved earlier in the tenancy.
The Healthy Homes Statement provided with the tenancy agreement claim that the premises were exempt from compliance because they would be redeveloped. It is now accepted by the landlord that the exemption did not apply. So, the date for compliance was 17 April 2025 (being 120 days after 18 December). The evidence establishes that the premises complied by that date.
Even once the premises complied with the Healthy Homes Standard, the tenants say that the house was cold, damp, mouldy and unhealthy. They say that they consistently raised these issues with the landlord.
The landlord disputes that and says that the premises were in reasonable condition having regard to their age and character. Discussion
The Landlord acknowledged that the premises did not have compliant smoke alarms at the start of the tenancy but tried to minimise the breach by saying that not all tenants moved in until February. That argument is not persuasive. At least one tenant had moved in, and rent was being paid from the 18 th of December. Complaint smoke alarms were not installed until February.
The Landlord said one if its staff must have “dropped the ball” in relation to the smoke alarms.
There is a very strong public interest in landlord’s ensuring that premises comply with minimum standards in relation to some alarms and safe egress from buildings.
The tenants provided some evidence of mould and damp at the property. They say they notified the landlord of the issue from February.
A landlord is required to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises (section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)). In addition, the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings and health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises (section 45(1)(c) RTA).
A basic requirement in respect of buildings, health and safety can be found in Rule 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 which states that “every house shall be free from dampness”.
A tenant also has a statutory duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs (section 40(1)(d) RTA). Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects, and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
In this case, the tenants claim that the landlord had failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable living condition. Their evidence was that during the tenancy they had to endure excessive dampness and mould issues. They state that requests for repairs were made, and these requests were either ignored or not properly addressed by the landlord. They say that the issues worsened over time and remained unresolved until the landlord agreed to release them from the fixed term tenancy in September 2025.
In response, the landlord denied the claims. The landlord asserts that the damp and mould problems had been caused through poor house-keeping and lack of proper ventilation by the tenants, having regard to the age and condition of the premises.
Many houses produce some mould during wet seasons, however such mould is usually eradicated by wiping with an appropriate cleaner. Where a property has an inherent problem or a leak causing mould, the landlord has the responsibility to remedy the fault. The premises must be able to be used and lived in, in the normal way, without excessive mould developing. If this cannot be done, then the problem of mould falls to the landlord to remedy under their obligations to maintain the property. If the tenant fails to ventilate and heat appropriately when heating and ventilation is provided, then it is considered the tenant’s problem.
Therefore, there are two main possible causes for the mould – the state of the premises or a lack of ventilation. However, the fact that some mould was in a house was not enough to show that it was not in a reasonable state of repair; and the opinion of unqualified persons was often not persuasive (Repia v Walsh Trust DC Waitakere, CIV-2011-090-00056, 27 April 2011).
The tenants have to prove, on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not), that there was mould and mildew because the premises were not in a reasonable state of repair and that the landlord had notice of the problem and failed to repair within a reasonable time.
Having regard to the photographs provided by the tenants, I find that the premises were not in a reasonable state of repair, even having regard to their age. The photographs support the tenant’s evidence that the premises were cold and damp. Wallpaper was peeling and mould growing on it, there was mould in multiple rooms. I also find that the tenants told the landlord of the problem, and their concerns were ignored or minimised. Even at the hearing the landlord described the tenant’s claims as “absurd”, and yet the photographs of mould and mildew speak for themselves.
I also note that while the premises were brought up to Healthy Homes Standards during the tenancy, at the start there was insufficient insulation, blocked drains, broken and blocked spouting and draught issues. All of which likely contributed to the mould issues. I also accept the tenant’s evidence that a contractor employed by the landlord painted over mould which returned soon after.
The tenants claim to have become unwell because of the mould. There is some medical evidence of one tenant having tonsillitis, but the medical notes do not provide a clear connection between any illness and the tenant’s living conditions.
The tenants also sought the cost of replacement furniture, but did not provide evidence of either purchase or replacement costs. Conclusion
I find that the premises were not in reasonable state of repair (having regard to their age) and that the landlord failed to comply with its obligations in relation to smoke alarms. I also find that the landlord provided a misleading Healthy Homes Statement with the tenancy agreement.
The tenants did not provide sufficient evidence to establish their claims for compensation of a 50% rent rebate and other items. Having regard to all of the evidence and the extent of the issues at the premises, I award compensation for loss of amenity of $1,500.
I also award exemplary damages of $2,000 for the landlord’s failure to provide compliant smoke alarms until 2 months after the tenancy started. While I acknowledge that the landlord usually has systems in place for checking smoke alarms, its lack of explanation for this failure is concerning. It is not a reasonable explanation to say a staff member “dropped the ball”. The effects of not having working smoke alarms can be catastrophic. There is a strong public interest in ensuring compliance.
As the tenants were substantially successful, I award reimbursement of the tribunal application fee and grant their request for suppression of their details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5325199 — net $3,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,500.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages: Smoke Alarms	$2,000.00	Smoke Alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,528.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Najib Property Management Limited As Agent For The Singh Singh Family must pay [The tenant/s] $3,528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation $1,500.00 Exemplary damages: Smoke Alarms $2,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total award $3,528.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $3,528.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Claims
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
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 tenants also claim that the landlord has breached its 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).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For private rentals where the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the premises must comply within 120 days of the commencement the tenancy. For this rental the compliance date was 17 April 2025.
The tenants also claim that the landlord provided a false or misleading compliance statement with the Tenancy Agreement. See s45(1A) RTA. Background
The tenancy started on 18 December 2024. Some of the tenants did not move in until February, but that is not relevant to the issues I will determine.
The tenancy was for a 1-year fixed term, but the parties agreed to an early termination in September 2025 without any penalty to the tenants.
The tenants were not provided with a move-in inspection report until February. Smoke Alarms were not installed until February 2025.
The tenants claim that the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean condition. The evidence around this issue was limited. The landlord considered that the issue had been resolved earlier in the tenancy.
The Healthy Homes Statement provided with the tenancy agreement claim that the premises were exempt from compliance because they would be redeveloped. It is now accepted by the landlord that the exemption did not apply. So, the date for compliance was 17 April 2025 (being 120 days after 18 December). The evidence establishes that the premises complied by that date.
Even once the premises complied with the Healthy Homes Standard, the tenants say that the house was cold, damp, mouldy and unhealthy. They say that they consistently raised these issues with the landlord.
The landlord disputes that and says that the premises were in reasonable condition having regard to their age and character. Discussion
The Landlord acknowledged that the premises did not have compliant smoke alarms at the start of the tenancy but tried to minimise the breach by saying that not all tenants moved in until February. That argument is not persuasive. At least one tenant had moved in, and rent was being paid from the 18 th of December. Complaint smoke alarms were not installed until February.
The Landlord said one if its staff must have “dropped the ball” in relation to the smoke alarms.
There is a very strong public interest in landlord’s ensuring that premises comply with minimum standards in relation to some alarms and safe egress from buildings.
The tenants provided some evidence of mould and damp at the property. They say they notified the landlord of the issue from February.
A landlord is required to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises (section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)). In addition, the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings and health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises (section 45(1)(c) RTA).
A basic requirement in respect of buildings, health and safety can be found in Rule 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 which states that “every house shall be free from dampness”.
A tenant also has a statutory duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs (section 40(1)(d) RTA). Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects, and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
In this case, the tenants claim that the landlord had failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable living condition. Their evidence was that during the tenancy they had to endure excessive dampness and mould issues. They state that requests for repairs were made, and these requests were either ignored or not properly addressed by the landlord. They say that the issues worsened over time and remained unresolved until the landlord agreed to release them from the fixed term tenancy in September 2025.
In response, the landlord denied the claims. The landlord asserts that the damp and mould problems had been caused through poor house-keeping and lack of proper ventilation by the tenants, having regard to the age and condition of the premises.
Many houses produce some mould during wet seasons, however such mould is usually eradicated by wiping with an appropriate cleaner. Where a property has an inherent problem or a leak causing mould, the landlord has the responsibility to remedy the fault. The premises must be able to be used and lived in, in the normal way, without excessive mould developing. If this cannot be done, then the problem of mould falls to the landlord to remedy under their obligations to maintain the property. If the tenant fails to ventilate and heat appropriately when heating and ventilation is provided, then it is considered the tenant’s problem.
Therefore, there are two main possible causes for the mould – the state of the premises or a lack of ventilation. However, the fact that some mould was in a house was not enough to show that it was not in a reasonable state of repair; and the opinion of unqualified persons was often not persuasive (Repia v Walsh Trust DC Waitakere, CIV-2011-090-00056, 27 April 2011).
The tenants have to prove, on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not), that there was mould and mildew because the premises were not in a reasonable state of repair and that the landlord had notice of the problem and failed to repair within a reasonable time.
Having regard to the photographs provided by the tenants, I find that the premises were not in a reasonable state of repair, even having regard to their age. The photographs support the tenant’s evidence that the premises were cold and damp. Wallpaper was peeling and mould growing on it, there was mould in multiple rooms. I also find that the tenants told the landlord of the problem, and their concerns were ignored or minimised. Even at the hearing the landlord described the tenant’s claims as “absurd”, and yet the photographs of mould and mildew speak for themselves.
I also note that while the premises were brought up to Healthy Homes Standards during the tenancy, at the start there was insufficient insulation, blocked drains, broken and blocked spouting and draught issues. All of which likely contributed to the mould issues. I also accept the tenant’s evidence that a contractor employed by the landlord painted over mould which returned soon after.
The tenants claim to have become unwell because of the mould. There is some medical evidence of one tenant having tonsillitis, but the medical notes do not provide a clear connection between any illness and the tenant’s living conditions.
The tenants also sought the cost of replacement furniture, but did not provide evidence of either purchase or replacement costs. Conclusion
I find that the premises were not in reasonable state of repair (having regard to their age) and that the landlord failed to comply with its obligations in relation to smoke alarms. I also find that the landlord provided a misleading Healthy Homes Statement with the tenancy agreement.
The tenants did not provide sufficient evidence to establish their claims for compensation of a 50% rent rebate and other items. Having regard to all of the evidence and the extent of the issues at the premises, I award compensation for loss of amenity of $1,500.
I also award exemplary damages of $2,000 for the landlord’s failure to provide compliant smoke alarms until 2 months after the tenancy started. While I acknowledge that the landlord usually has systems in place for checking smoke alarms, its lack of explanation for this failure is concerning. It is not a reasonable explanation to say a staff member “dropped the ball”. The effects of not having working smoke alarms can be catastrophic. There is a strong public interest in ensuring compliance.
As the tenants were substantially successful, I award reimbursement of the tribunal application fee and grant their request for suppression of their details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5325199 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5325199 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions