What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331361 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 5331361?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331361?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331361?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13396922-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331361 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 5331361?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331361?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331361?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13396922-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5331361 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $105.71 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Colliers New Zealand Limited on behalf of the Ministry of Education: $28.00 [The tenant/s]: $77.71
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
At a previous hearing, the Tribunal awarded rent arrears to the landlord and ordered the refund of most of the bond. An amount of $105.71 remains at the Bond Centre.
The remaining claims to be considered in this order are the tenant’s claims for compensation and exemplary damages arising from alleged failures by the landlord to maintain the premises and to comply with Healthy Homes obligations.
Both parties filed extensive documentation. I confirm that all material has been reviewed and considered, whether or not expressly referred to. Background
Prior to the tenant moving into the property, she raised several issues requiring attending to, including cleaning, carpet cleaning, heating and the presence of mould in various areas (including exterior areas, the bathroom, windowsills, ceiling and one wall).
The landlord undertook works to address those concerns. On 2 May 2024 the landlord advised that most works had been completed. Following further discussion, the tenant advised on 28 May 2024 that she considered the property sufficiently addressed to allow her to move in and requested confirmation of the heat pump installation date.
The tenant moved into the property on 8 June 2024. A heat pump was installed on 8 July 2024.
In November 2024 the tenant raised a number of concerns during a routine inspection process, including matters relating to the HRV system, kitchen, bathroom and laundry mould, windows, and bedroom issues. She expressed general concerns about dampness stating that mould was appearing despite ventilation practices.
The tenant followed up in December 2024 and sought a rent reduction.
On 8 January 2025 the landlord advised that service requests had been logged for some matters and requested further information and photographs for others. The tenant responded the same day, providing photographs and further requesting a 50% rent reduction pending resolution
On 21 January 2025 the landlord advised that an independent assessment would be undertaken to assess dampness, ventilation, draughts and mould. The landlord advised that rent reduction would not be considered until that assessment was completed.
A contractor attended on 22 January 2025. Although the tenant says concerns were expressed verbally to her, those concerns are not reflected in the written report produced.
On 3 February 2025 the tenant advised that she intended to end the tenancy and vacated on 1 March 2025.
The landlord subsequently advised that the January assessment found no mould within the property. The contractor accessed the ceiling to check for leaks, inspected gutters, assessed draught stopping (rectifying minor issues), tightened window latches, and confirmed the ventilation systems was functioning correctly. A further inspection in May 2025 also noted no mould. Tenant’s claims
The tenant seeks compensation of $7,000.00 comprising claimed illness-related costs, moving costs, loss of peace and comfort, damaged household items, curtains and blinds, monitoring equipment, and mould treatment products.
The tenant also seeks exemplary damages for alleged Healthy Homes breaches and for missing or inadequate information in the tenancy agreement.
The tenant says she was frequently unwell while living at the property, that her doctor linked this to mould exposure, that the property was cold in winter, and that she needed to run a dehumidifier daily. General legal principles
Before proceeding to consider the claims by the tenant, I first set out some relevant general guiding legal principles. Civil burden of proof
The Tribunal applies the civil standard of proof. The party bringing a claim must establish it on the balance of probabilities.
As stated by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, 1 an applicant must provide sufficient evidence to prove their case. If they fail to do so, the claim must be dismissed.
I must consider all evidence and determine what is more likely than not. Exemplary damages 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02.
Exemplary damages are punitive and deterrent in nature. They may only be awarded where an unlawful act has been committed intentionally.
Section 109 of the RTA requires the Tribunal to consider the intent, effect, interests of the parties, the public interest, and whether it is just to make an award.
Exemplary damages may only be awarded for unlawful acts as defined by the Act. Healthy homes obligations
Section 45 of the RTA requires landlords to ensure premises comply with the Healthy Homes Standards, including ventilation, heating, insulation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping.
For this private tenancy, which commenced in June 2024, compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards was required no later than 120 days after commencement.
The tenant also relies on alleged failures to maintain the premises.
Tenants have obligations under section 40(1)(c) of the RTA to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy, including ventilating the premises by opening windows and using extractor fans. Preventing mould is a shared responsibility. Discussion
The tenant’s concerns relate to heating performance, draughts, ventilation system operation, humidity and mould.
The tenant relies on photographs and videos. She also challenges the reliability of the landlord’s evidence.
The landlord denies any non-compliance and relies on documentary and independent inspection evidence. The landlord submits there is no evidence of serious mould, causation of illness, or quantifiable loss.
The landlord produced a Healthy Homes inspection report dated 17 December 2019 which identified ventilation and drainage issues. Those matters were remedied in September 2021, well before this tenancy commenced, and compliance certificates were obtained.
A pre-tenancy inspection dated 6 June 2024 recorded only one minor maintenance issue.
The landlord installed a heat pump at the tenant’s request, notwithstanding that the property already had a compliant fireplace.
An independent asset condition assessment dated 21 January 2025 found heating and ventilation systems to be functioning as expected, no draught gaps exceeding Healthy Homes tolerances, and no mould or moisture issues beyond dampness consistent with normal usage.
A final inspection on 3 March 2025 recorded no maintenance or moisture concerns. Findings
I accept that the tenant genuinely perceived issues within the property. Photographs and videos are admissible and relevant.
However, such evidence is inherently context-dependent and does not, of itself, establish non-compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards.
I place significant weight on the independent professional evidence relied upon by the landlord. Those inspections directly addressed the relevant statutory standards and did not identify systemic moisture, mould, ventilation or draught issues.
Where lay observations conflict with objective professional evidence, the Tribunal generally prefers the latter. The tenant did not provide expert or independent evidence capable of undermining the landlord’s reports.
I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the premises were non- compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards at the relevant time.
As no breach of the RTA has been established, the tenant’s claim for compensation must fail. Even if minor mould was present at times, there is insufficient evidence to establish a causal link between that and the losses claimed. No supporting receipts, invoices, or medical evidence were provided.
Exemplary damages require proof of intentional breach. The landlord’s conduct, obtaining compliance reports, responding to complaints, and engaging independent assessors, is inconsistent with intentional non-compliance. The threshold for exemplary damages is not met.
The tenant’s claims for compensation and exemplary damages are dismissed. Other matters
As the landlord has substantially succeeded (also considering the previous order), the filing fee is reimbursed.
The tenant sought name suppression. Given the genuinely held concerns raised and the importance of not discouraging tenants from bringing Healthy Homes claims in good faith, I consider suppression appropriate under section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 03 April 2026

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $105.71 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Colliers New Zealand Limited on behalf of the Ministry of Education: $28.00 [The tenant/s]: $77.71
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
At a previous hearing, the Tribunal awarded rent arrears to the landlord and ordered the refund of most of the bond. An amount of $105.71 remains at the Bond Centre.
The remaining claims to be considered in this order are the tenant’s claims for compensation and exemplary damages arising from alleged failures by the landlord to maintain the premises and to comply with Healthy Homes obligations.
Both parties filed extensive documentation. I confirm that all material has been reviewed and considered, whether or not expressly referred to. Background
Prior to the tenant moving into the property, she raised several issues requiring attending to, including cleaning, carpet cleaning, heating and the presence of mould in various areas (including exterior areas, the bathroom, windowsills, ceiling and one wall).
The landlord undertook works to address those concerns. On 2 May 2024 the landlord advised that most works had been completed. Following further discussion, the tenant advised on 28 May 2024 that she considered the property sufficiently addressed to allow her to move in and requested confirmation of the heat pump installation date.
The tenant moved into the property on 8 June 2024. A heat pump was installed on 8 July 2024.
In November 2024 the tenant raised a number of concerns during a routine inspection process, including matters relating to the HRV system, kitchen, bathroom and laundry mould, windows, and bedroom issues. She expressed general concerns about dampness stating that mould was appearing despite ventilation practices.
The tenant followed up in December 2024 and sought a rent reduction.
On 8 January 2025 the landlord advised that service requests had been logged for some matters and requested further information and photographs for others. The tenant responded the same day, providing photographs and further requesting a 50% rent reduction pending resolution
On 21 January 2025 the landlord advised that an independent assessment would be undertaken to assess dampness, ventilation, draughts and mould. The landlord advised that rent reduction would not be considered until that assessment was completed.
A contractor attended on 22 January 2025. Although the tenant says concerns were expressed verbally to her, those concerns are not reflected in the written report produced.
On 3 February 2025 the tenant advised that she intended to end the tenancy and vacated on 1 March 2025.
The landlord subsequently advised that the January assessment found no mould within the property. The contractor accessed the ceiling to check for leaks, inspected gutters, assessed draught stopping (rectifying minor issues), tightened window latches, and confirmed the ventilation systems was functioning correctly. A further inspection in May 2025 also noted no mould. Tenant’s claims
The tenant seeks compensation of $7,000.00 comprising claimed illness-related costs, moving costs, loss of peace and comfort, damaged household items, curtains and blinds, monitoring equipment, and mould treatment products.
The tenant also seeks exemplary damages for alleged Healthy Homes breaches and for missing or inadequate information in the tenancy agreement.
The tenant says she was frequently unwell while living at the property, that her doctor linked this to mould exposure, that the property was cold in winter, and that she needed to run a dehumidifier daily. General legal principles
Before proceeding to consider the claims by the tenant, I first set out some relevant general guiding legal principles. Civil burden of proof
The Tribunal applies the civil standard of proof. The party bringing a claim must establish it on the balance of probabilities.
As stated by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, 1 an applicant must provide sufficient evidence to prove their case. If they fail to do so, the claim must be dismissed.
I must consider all evidence and determine what is more likely than not. Exemplary damages 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02.
Exemplary damages are punitive and deterrent in nature. They may only be awarded where an unlawful act has been committed intentionally.
Section 109 of the RTA requires the Tribunal to consider the intent, effect, interests of the parties, the public interest, and whether it is just to make an award.
Exemplary damages may only be awarded for unlawful acts as defined by the Act. Healthy homes obligations
Section 45 of the RTA requires landlords to ensure premises comply with the Healthy Homes Standards, including ventilation, heating, insulation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping.
For this private tenancy, which commenced in June 2024, compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards was required no later than 120 days after commencement.
The tenant also relies on alleged failures to maintain the premises.
Tenants have obligations under section 40(1)(c) of the RTA to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy, including ventilating the premises by opening windows and using extractor fans. Preventing mould is a shared responsibility. Discussion
The tenant’s concerns relate to heating performance, draughts, ventilation system operation, humidity and mould.
The tenant relies on photographs and videos. She also challenges the reliability of the landlord’s evidence.
The landlord denies any non-compliance and relies on documentary and independent inspection evidence. The landlord submits there is no evidence of serious mould, causation of illness, or quantifiable loss.
The landlord produced a Healthy Homes inspection report dated 17 December 2019 which identified ventilation and drainage issues. Those matters were remedied in September 2021, well before this tenancy commenced, and compliance certificates were obtained.
A pre-tenancy inspection dated 6 June 2024 recorded only one minor maintenance issue.
The landlord installed a heat pump at the tenant’s request, notwithstanding that the property already had a compliant fireplace.
An independent asset condition assessment dated 21 January 2025 found heating and ventilation systems to be functioning as expected, no draught gaps exceeding Healthy Homes tolerances, and no mould or moisture issues beyond dampness consistent with normal usage.
A final inspection on 3 March 2025 recorded no maintenance or moisture concerns. Findings
I accept that the tenant genuinely perceived issues within the property. Photographs and videos are admissible and relevant.
However, such evidence is inherently context-dependent and does not, of itself, establish non-compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards.
I place significant weight on the independent professional evidence relied upon by the landlord. Those inspections directly addressed the relevant statutory standards and did not identify systemic moisture, mould, ventilation or draught issues.
Where lay observations conflict with objective professional evidence, the Tribunal generally prefers the latter. The tenant did not provide expert or independent evidence capable of undermining the landlord’s reports.
I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the premises were non- compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards at the relevant time.
As no breach of the RTA has been established, the tenant’s claim for compensation must fail. Even if minor mould was present at times, there is insufficient evidence to establish a causal link between that and the losses claimed. No supporting receipts, invoices, or medical evidence were provided.
Exemplary damages require proof of intentional breach. The landlord’s conduct, obtaining compliance reports, responding to complaints, and engaging independent assessors, is inconsistent with intentional non-compliance. The threshold for exemplary damages is not met.
The tenant’s claims for compensation and exemplary damages are dismissed. Other matters
As the landlord has substantially succeeded (also considering the previous order), the filing fee is reimbursed.
The tenant sought name suppression. Given the genuinely held concerns raised and the importance of not discouraging tenants from bringing Healthy Homes claims in good faith, I consider suppression appropriate under section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 03 April 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331361 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331361 — Rent arrears

At a glance

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