What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329970 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 5329970?

Compensation: Rent rebate from 17 Ju…: $1,698.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329970?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329970?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12888690-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329970 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 5329970?

Compensation: Rent rebate from 17 Ju…: $1,698.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329970?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329970?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12888690-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 600 Great South Road, Otahuhu, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5329970 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5329970 — net $4,926.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$3,200.00	Failure to maintain
Compensation: Rent rebate from 17 June to 6 September	$1,698.57	Rent rebate from 17 June to 6 September
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,926.57
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,926.57

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5329970 — net $4,926.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$3,200.00	Failure to maintain
Compensation: Rent rebate from 17 June to 6 September	$1,698.57	Rent rebate from 17 June to 6 September
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,926.57
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,926.57

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details. The address of the property may be published.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $4,926.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on the 15 December 2025. The Tribunal was assisted by an interpreter for the hearing.
The tenancy premises was a one-bedroom brick and tile unit (circa 1960s) that was on the end of a row of three units. The tenants were signed up to the tenancy by another property management company. Soon after the tenancy began the owner changed property management companies. The new property management company (the landlord) tells me that it requested all the documents relating to the tenancy from the former property management company, including the tenancy agreement, the healthy homes report, the ingoing inspection documents etc but despite repeated requests the former agents have not provided them with anything. 1
This tenancy began on the 1 October 2024 it was fixed for a period of one year until 6 October this year. The tenant his wife and young child lived at the property.
The tenants are immigrants to New Zealand, this was the first home that they lived in together in New Zealand. The husband had lived in New Zealand previously whilst studying, but in a flatting situation. The wife had never lived in New Zealand before.
In my adjournment decision of the 20 October 2025 I identified the questions that the Tribunal needed to determine: a. Did the landlord fail to maintain the property by not fixing the cause of the leaks? b. Did the landlord fail to maintain the property by not repairing holes in the toilet? c. Did the landlord fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards, in particular that moisture ingress and drainage standard. d. Is the tenant entitled to compensation.? e. Is the tenant to be awarded exemplary damages? f. What is the remedy?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property by not fixing the cause of leaks?

Section 45(1)(b) RTA provides that the landlord shall: provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; and
The landlord’s obligation to repair is not absolute, a landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage, and a tenant must notify the landlord as soon as damage becomes apparent as to the need for repair. Together these obligations mean that a landlord has a responsibility to only repair and maintain items after they are broken or damaged or a reasonably observable as being damaged and in need of repair. 1 I noted that the landlord provided in evidence a healthy Homes Report from 2019.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain the property because it failed to fix a leak in the bedroom which was first notified in November 2024. The leak in the bedroom resulted in significant mould growth in the carpet and on the walls and a foul odour in the house especially when some of the wall was removed in June.
The landlord does not dispute that there was a leak problem in the bedroom but says that it took all reasonable steps to investigate the cause of the leak and dampness and that it was a process of elimination. The landlord accepts that since the tenants moved out on the 6 September 2025, (with the consent of the landlord), that it has found that the cause of the leaks was a faulty installation of the shower and fall of the drains. The landlord says that the owner has spent over $20,000 fixing the problem and is a good owner who wants to comply with the RTA and ensure that her tenants live in healthy homes.
The landlord was first notified of the leak by the tenants on the 24 November 2024, a day after the landlord gave notice of an inspection that was to take place on the 26 November.
The tenant’s email to the landlord said:
The landlord conducted an inspection on the 26 November 202. As the landlord had taken over this property from another property management firm, they say they did a thorough routine inspection so they could understand what the condition of the property was like at the beginning of the tenancy.
The inspection report notes the following issues:
On the 4 December 2024 the landlord had the property checked by Leak Detection Services Limited, the invoice from Leak Detection Services records the following:
The landlord says that as Leak Detection Services could not pinpoint the cause of the leak then they kept a watch and wait brief. I was not given any documents that show me that the shower was re-sealed. They say that the tenant did not notify them of any further leaks at the premises between December and the next inspection in March.
On the 6 December the tenants complained to the landlord about mould at the property. They were concerned that the mould would be detrimental to their baby’s health. The landlord told them the mould was ‘small’ and that they should clean it off.
On the 13 March 2025 the landlord undertook another routine inspection. The agent noted in that report the following problems at the property that she had observed.
On or about late April the landlord sent a plumber and Oncore Maintenance to the property. I do not have the plumber’s invoice, the landlord tells me that the plumber used a dye test to try and ascertain if the shower was leaking. In the time line provided by Oncore they record that they attended on site on the 28 April and checked the bedroom leak and lounge ceiling, they say they then reported to the landlord’s agent that “the suspicion was that the leak was occurring via the shower even though the shower had been tested.”
On the 12 May, Oncore arranged for a roof specialist to check the roofing tiles. A cracked tile was found and that was sealed.
On the 8 June the tenants sent an email complaining about the mould at the property, they sent photographs of the property and described the mould as being in every nook and corner of the home. They say that they had tried cleaning the mould but that it would reappear. They say they were worried for their baby’s health.
On the 17 June a further routine inspection was done. The tenants say that at this inspection they did not clean the mould off the walls beforehand (as they had done previously) because they wanted the landlord to see the extent of the mould and what was happening at the property and the conditions that they had to live in.
The inspection notes the same issues as the previous inspection (wet carpet) in respect of the issues in the lounge and the bedroom it also notes that considerable mould at the property which the agent says she has told the tenants about ventilating the property.
Following the routine inspection in June, the landlord or their tradesperson came to the property and removed some of the wall between the bedroom and the bathroom, the wall showed the timber joinery was rotten. The tenants said that smell was so bad that they could not sleep in the room. They say they were extremely worried about the effects on their health. They say from about this point onwards they slept in the lounge at night.
On the 25 June the tenant told the landlord they no longer wished to stay at the property. The landlord says that they agreed the tenants could leave the property at this time, but I was not provided with any written communication that showed the landlord had agreed to that, at that time.
On the 25 July, a month later, the landlord had a healthy homes report competed. The healthy homes report showed noncompliance with the draught stopping standard (which the landlord remedied almost immediately on the 4 August). The report also noted that there was: Significant mould in the bedroom on the carpet this should be investigated and remedied.
On the 25 July Oncore say that they completed another inspection of the property to try and identify the cause of the leaks and considered drainage issues.
On the 5 August 2025 Oncore emailed the agents for 4 options to identify the cause of the leaks and then repair.
On the 12 August the landlord gave Oncore permission to remove the shower to see if that was the problem, on or about the same time the landlord spoke to the tenants about leaving the property and the tenants accepted that they would leave the property.
After the tenants left the landlord found the cause of the leaks to be:
I am satisfied that the landlord failed to maintain the property by failing to properly investigate the cause of the leaks between December and August and failing to repair and maintain the property in a reasonable condition. I say this for the following reasons: a. Once the landlord became aware of the problem in December then it was incumbent on the landlord to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the problem was fixed. The landlord was told by Leak Detection Services that the problem most likely originated from the bathroom, and yet the landlord took no further steps to identify if there were issues with leaking from the shower. b. It is not up to the tenant to keep on complaining about issues that have already been brought the landlord’s attention. The agent had a responsibility to follow up on what was causing the dampness and mould on the carpet (which could be seen clearly from the March inspection onwards). c. The landlord failed to engage a plumber or builder after the March inspection until the 28 April 2025. d. Oncore’s report in April says that they told the agent that the problem was most likely coming from the shower, (This was reiterated in their further report of 25 July 2025) yet despite that the shower was not removed until after the tenancy ended. e. It was clear that the most likely source of the problem was the shower which was on the other side of the wall, and yet there is no evidence that a builder or plumber was sent in to investigate this further after April until Oncore went again on the 28 July, a further 3 months later. 2 f. The landlords did not provide me with any plumbing invoices that showed that the shower was leak tested or further examined after December 2024 g. When the wall was removed in June, this should have immediately alerted the landlords to a serious problem. It was clear that the timber was badly rotten, the carpet was extensively damaged. h. The cause of the leaks was partly due to poor installation of the shower and previous bathroom renovations, including the shower tray not being glued down and the shower waste note sealed. Leak detection services first told the landlord that the shower was old and cracked and needed resealing in December 2024. Did the landlord fail to maintain the property by not repairing holes in the toilet?
The tenants say that there was a rodent problem at the property. The showed photographs of rodent droppings which they say was everywhere. They say that 2 There is mention in the tenant’s correspondence about a plumber not turning up, but I have not been given any written evidence about when the Plumber went, what they did or what their findings were. one day whilst the tenant was in the bathroom/toilet a mouse came out of gap by the toilet. The tenants say that they had previously noticed piles of ‘dirt’ in this area and did not know what it was or how it got there.
The tenants showed me photographs taken of the area between the wall and toilet, it shows that the timber appears to be rotted in one area allowing a cavity. There is also another hole in the wall which has tape on it. The tape is the same colour as the wall so it is not immediately obvious.
The tenant accepts that it never told the landlord of the problem with the mice and did not ask the landlord to fix the holes in the toilet.
I do not consider that the landlord breached their obligations in respect of the holes in the toilet for the following reasons: a. The damage/ holes are right behind the toilet and hard to see. They would not be easily apparent to an agent doing a routine inspection. b. The damage is not noted on the inspection reports. The inspection reports are quite comprehensive and the inclusion of the issues with the leaks and the carpets shows me that the landlord was not trying to avoid or not include issues at the property. The inference that I make from the holes and the tape not being noted in the inspection reports is that the agent did not know that they were there and had not seen them. c. These agents did not have the property at the beginning of the tenancy. d. The tenant accepted that he did not tell the landed about the problems with rodents or the holes until this application. Given that the holes are hard to spot, and the tenant never told the landlord about the rodent problem, I do not consider that the landlord was in breach of its obligations as it was not aware of the problem. Did the landlord fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards, in particular that moisture ingress and drainage standard?
The tenant says that the landlord failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord says that at the beginning of the tenancy the house was compliant with Healthy Homes Standards because that it what is recorded in the Healthy Homes statement in the tenancy agreement. Whilst the information is recorded in the tenancy agreement the statement has not been signed.
The agent tells me that she previously managed these properties up until 2020 when she was at another agency, she says she is aware that the landlord ensured that they were compliant well before the house was required to be.
The landlord says that the house was compliant with the moisture and drainage standard and that this is evidenced by the pass in the updated report from Oncore that the owner obtained in July 2025.
Oncore’s report says that the house is compliant for moisture and drainage but notes that the property did not pass the draught stopping standard. I also note that in the 2019 report that was provided by the landlord, the property also did not pass the draught stopping standard.
The landlord had the draught stopping work completed on the 4 August 2025 to make the home compliant.
Whilst it is clear from the Healthy Homes Report of the 25 July 2025 that the house did not meet the draught stopping standard, the landlord quickly remedied the problem.
I consider that the landlord was in breach of the Healthy Homes Standards by failing to comply with the draught stopping standard, but given that it was quickly remedied, then I do not award any compensation for this breach.
I am satisfied that the premises complied with the moisture and drainage standards, because at the time the drainage was compliant, it was simply not working as it should.

What is the remedy?

I have found that that the landlord breached s45(1)(b) by failing to investigate and repair the leaks and the resultant damage from the leaks.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
The tenant is seeking $10,000 in compensation and exemplary damages. The tenant’s submissions are: a. The tenant believes that the leak, and the mould caused his daughter to become sick. He is concerned that this will have an affect on her health long term. b. That as a result of the leak the tenants did not have the full use and enjoyment of the unit. The say that they could not use the bedroom, and the house smelt. c. That he had to take time off work to be at the home during June when the plumber and builder were supposed to come, as his wife did not speak English, and yet despite appointments being made the plumber did not turn up. d. That the family was inconvenienced by having tradespeople come into the home (which happened fairly regularly from late June). e. That they had to move away from a community that they had just moved to. f. That this ordeal was very stressful for them. They were very worried about their health and their daughter’s health, the felt that they had to keep on complaining to get things done. They had to do constant cleaning.
The landlord accepts that the tenant has suffered some loss, but submits: a. that any award for compensation should be restricted only to the period 13 March to 28 April, because after that the landlord tried to find the cause of the leaks and then repair. b. That the tenant’s baby slept in a cot in the bedroom during the day after May 2025, because she was seen there by tradespersons and the agents. c. That the tenants did not ventilate the property and that this caused the mould. d. That the landlord gave the tenants a dehumidifier which should have prevented moisture issues. e. That the landlord did not act with intention and therefore it would be unfair to make an award of exemplary damages.

What caused the mould?

In Warwick Todd Ltd v Tapper TT1381/02, Christchurch, 14/08/2002, it was said: “Mould (or mildew) is a primitive form of fungal growth which grows from spores which abound everywhere. Mould will grow in any home where humidity remains high, but will have difficulty in surviving in one with low humidity. There are two ways to reduce humidity; by heating and ventilation, and ventilation is the most basic requirement. Responsibility for mould problems can rest with the tenant if the tenant fails to air and heat the premises properly. On the other hand the landlord must provide the tenants with the necessary means to heat and air the premises. If appropriate fans and dehumidifiers should be provided. Also devices should be fitted to windows so that they can be left open and also secure. This is especially so if the tenants are away during the daytime as tenants should not be required to leave the premises insecure in order to ventilate them. A tenant must also tell the landlord where there is a mould problem so that the necessary action can be taken. The landlord is also required to provide premises that are not prone to mould. If the premises have an inherent problem, such as bad construction or water lying under the premises, the landlord has the responsibility to remedy the fault. Premises must be able to be used and lived in, in the normal responsible way, without mould developing. If this can not be done then it is the landlord problem. If the tenants fail to ventilate and heat appropriately when heating and ventilation is available, then it is the tenant’s problem.”
I am satisfied that there was an inherent problem with the property, the leaking in the bathroom and the drainage issue, which caused the mould, not a lack of cleaning or ventilation by the tenant. I am satisfied that the tenant using the property in a normal way could not prevent the mould from growing.
I have therefore considered the mould problem as part of the landlord’s failure to maintain.

Did the leak and mould make the tenants or their baby sick?

It is not disputed that mould can cause illnesses such as sinus or respiratory problems. However, the problem is that it is difficult to prove that a person’s illness was caused by mould, this is because these type of illness can occur for other reasons as well such as exposure to viral or bacterial infection, like a cold or covid.
Many of the ailments or symptoms that the tenant says that they and their child had could have been caused by other issues. Children aged between 1-2 often have colds, ear infections and will sometimes have fevers.
The tenants produced no evidence that proven a causal link between the dampness and mould at the house and their or their child’s illness. Therefore, I am not satisfied, that it was likely that the mould caused any damage to the tenants or their child’s health.
In saying that I remain concerned that there was a significant amount of mould at this address and the tenants were exposed to it for a long time. I accept that they tried to clean the mould but it would reappear. Mould is known to be toxic and when landlords see it, to the extent it was here, then it should have been dealt with quickly.
I am also satisfied that the tenants suffered a significant lack of amenity as a result of the landlord’s failures. I am satisfied that from late June to the end of the tenancy they were unable to sleep in the bedroom and properly use the bedroom. The property was small, and the bedroom represented about one third of the space. Whilst the tenants’ belongings were kept in there, I consider that the fact that they could not use the space for sleeping caused them significant disruption and inconvenience.
I award the tenants a rent rebate of $145 per week from the 17 June 2025 to the end of the tenancy.
I will deal with lack of amenity for the rest of the tenancy as part of the exemplary damages.
I am satisfied that the landlord breached s45(1)(b)RTA Breaching those sections is also an unlawful act (section 45 (1A) to which exemplary damages of up to $7,200 may be awarded.
I consider that the landlords breached s45(1)(b) intentionally. Intentionally does not mean that the landlord set about to commit an unlawful act, it means that they knew that there was something wrong and choose not to remedy it. I say this because the landlord was aware of the problem and did little to deal with it. This is particularly so for the period 13 March to 28 April 2025.
In TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundhal [2021] NZDC the court said Parliament's intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law. 3
I award the tenant $3200 in exemplary damages for this breach, this takes into account the following: a. The length of the breach. The tenant had to live with the leaks, the mouldy carpet, and the mould caused by the leaks since December. b. The nature of the breach. This was a serious problem that affected the way that the tenant was able to use the property. It was a small property and a problem in an area, effectively narrowed down the way they could use the property. It affected every aspect of their life. The tenants were a migrant family already isolated because of language, they spent a lot of time in their home. To have to live with this problem disheartening, worrying and inconvenient. I also accept that it was a risk to their health, despite having found, on the balance of probabilities that it was the cause of their child’s illness. Mould is a well known toxin. The carpet infected with mould should have been removed. c. The effect on the tenant, I accept that dealing with these issues was stressful on the tenants, they did not know if the problem was affecting their child’s health, they were unable to use their bedroom properly. Their house smelt and they had to do constant cleaning. The husband had to take time 3 TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundhal [2021] NZDC 16182. off work to deal with tradespeople and the agents because his wife did not speak English well. They were new to New Zealand and were unsure what they were expected to do in these situations. d. The public interest. I consider that there is considerable public interest here. Parliament has made it clear that tenants should expect to live in warm and dry homes, and when issues such as leaks arise that they are dealt with quickly by landlords. This problem went on far too long. There should be both an element of punishment and deterrence in this award. Name suppression and filing fee
The tenant has been successful in their claim, and I award the tenant the filing fee and name suppression as requested.
I also award the landlord name suppression because I accept their submission that to some degree that they inherited this problem from the previous property manager and that when they asked for documents from the previous property managers that would have provided them with some clarity about the problem that they were not given them. The landlord has also accepted early on their shortcomings in dealing with the problem especially from March to June. Neither this agency nor the owner have had exemplary damages award made against them before and therefore I do consider that there is likely to a be a pattern of breaches.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5329970 — State of repair at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 600 Great South Road, Otahuhu, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5329970 — State of repair at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 600 Great South Road, Otahuhu, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property by not fixing the cause of leaks?

What is the remedy?

What caused the mould?

Did the leak and mould make the tenants or their baby sick?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property by not fixing the cause of leaks?

What is the remedy?

What caused the mould?

Did the leak and mould make the tenants or their baby sick?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions