What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5332640?

The tribunal order states: Saurabh Abrol and Himani Abrol must pay Natasha Brougham $200.00

How much money was awarded in case 5332640?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5332640?

The primary dispute was Mould. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Leaks, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5332640?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13405007-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5332640?

The tribunal order states: Saurabh Abrol and Himani Abrol must pay Natasha Brougham $200.00

How much money was awarded in case 5332640?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5332640?

The primary dispute was Mould. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Leaks, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5332640?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13405007-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

232A Harewood Road, Bishopdale, Christchurch 8053 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5332640 — Mould

Order

Saurabh Abrol and Himani Abrol must pay Natasha Brougham $200.00 immediately.
The tenant’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Pritchard represented the landlords.
The tenant, Ms Brougham, applied for reduction of the term of the fixed term tenancy, compensation and exemplary damages.
The application first came before me for a telephone directions hearing on 24 September 2025 where the parties agreed to settle tenant’s claim for reduction of the fixed term tenancy by the tenancy being changed from a fixed term tenancy to a periodic tenancy. Ms Brougham subsequently gave notice to end the tenancy, and the tenancy ended on 30 October 2025. At the directions hearing Ms Brougham confirmed that her remaining claims were as follows: Compensation and/or exemplary damages for: i.Failure by the landlords to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards, and/or failure to maintain and repair the premises at all or in a timely manner, in particular: • The heat pump; • Ceiling insulation (not compliant at the tenancy commencement); • Window seals in all rooms; • Window glass in two bedrooms (dropped from the frame); • Floor coverings lifting in dining room, hall, bedrooms, toilet and bathroom; • Extractor fan in bathroom; • Mould in laundry cupboard, and on walls and window frames in dining room, lounge, two bedrooms, kitchen, bathroom and toilet. ii.Failure by the landlord to address issues with the front neighbour; iii.Property manager bringing another person to a property inspection without first telling the tenant that they intended to do so.
The application came back before me on 24 March and at that hearing Ms Brougham confirmed that she wished to withdraw the claim for failure by the landlord to address issues with the front neighbour. Was the landlord in breach of the obligation to comply with the Healthy Homes

Standards?

Ms Brougham’s tenancy commenced on 11 January 2025. Thus, the landlords were required to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards by 10 May 2025 (the 120 th day after the tenancy commenced).
In December 2024, the landlords had the premises assessed to determine whether the premises complied with the Healthy Homes Standards. In a report dated 4 December 2024 the assessor records that, with the exception of the heat pump, the premises were compliant including compliance with the insulation standards and requirements regarding draughts. The report records that the heating capacity of the heat pump was only 4.8kW when the required capacity was 5.4kW and that the “heat pump works but makes a loud noise continuously...service recommended”.
A new heat pump that met the required capacity was installed on 15 February 2025, well before the 10 May requirement. The landlords are therefore not in breach of the Healthy Homes Standards and this claim is dismissed. Did the landlords fail to comply with their obligation to repair and maintain the premises?
Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. What is a reasonable state of repair is to be assessed according to the age and character of the premises.
Section 40(1)(d) of the Act is also relevant. It requires the tenant to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage or of the need for repairs to the premises. Thus, once the tenant notified the landlords or the landlords otherwise became aware of the need for repairs, the obligation in section 45(1)(b) requires those repairs to be attended to in a timely manner. What time frame is reasonable 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 may be.
A failure to comply with section 45(1)(b) may entitle the tenant to compensation. It is also declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be payable: section 45(1A) of the Act. The heat pump
As mentioned, the heat pump made a loud noise when in use and the landlords were aware of this issue before the tenancy commenced. The property manager had obtained a quote for the installation of a new heat pump and the landlords instructed a contractor to install the new heat pump on 15 January (five days after the tenancy commenced). It seems that 17 February was the earliest date that the contractor could complete the installation.
I am satisfied that the landlords attended to the replacement of the heat pump within a reasonable time frame, particularly given that it was summer at the time and therefore the heat pump was less likely to be required.
This claim is therefore dismissed. Windows
In or about May 2025, Ms Brougham told the property manager that she was concerned about draughts coming from windows in the premises. Ms Prichard instructed a contractor to “do whatever is necessary” to remedy any draughts. Some hinges were adjusted, and window seals were applied. However, Ms Brougham said that the issue with the window glass dropping from the top of the frame in two of the bedrooms leaving an approximately 4 cm gap was not remedied and remained an issue throughout the remainder of the tenancy.
Ms Prichard said she was unaware of any issue with the glass dropping from the top of the window frames. She said that when Ms Brougham first mentioned it to her she spoke to the contractor who did the window repairs, and he told her that he was not aware of any issue with the glass dropping from the top of the frame.
Ms Brougham’s witness (her mother, Ms Saunders) also did not support Ms Brougham’s evidence. Ms Saunders thought that the whole window frame had dropped on the outside of the house, but she made no mention of the glass dropping from the frame. The photographs provided by Ms Brougham also did not support her claim in this regard.
I am not satisfied that Ms Brougham has provided sufficient evidence to support that the glass in windows in the bedrooms had dropped from the frames leaving a gap as claimed by her and her claim is therefore dismissed. Floor coverings
Ms Brougham said that she could feel air beneath her feet when walking on the vinyl flooring and she therefore claims that it was bubbling.
However, I accept Ms Prichard’s evidence that she was unaware of the issue and therefore is not in breach of any obligation to have it remedied. I also consider that it is a minor matter that was unlikely to have any effect on Ms Brougham’s use of the premises.
This claim is therefore also dismissed. Bathroom extractor fan
Ms Brougham claims that, despite the extractor fan being ducted to the outside and complying with the Healthy Homes Standards, it did not work effectively because the bathroom would still steam up.
This claim is dismissed because Ms Brougham did not provide sufficient evidence to support that there was any issue with the fan that required remedying, other than her belief that it did not work effectively because it did not remove all steam when the bathroom was in use. Mould in laundry cupboard, on walls and window frames
There had been a slow unnoticed leak from the laundry tub which had caused mould damage on the back wall of the cupboard beneath the tub. Ms Prichard said that the issue was remedied in July 2025, after Ms Brougham mentioned it to her.
However, I am satisfied that the landlord was aware of the issue with the mould inside the laundry cupboard at the tenancy commencement because it is recorded in the pre-tenancy inspection report. Given this I do not consider that the time to remedy the mould was reasonable in the circumstances and Ms Brougham is entitled to damages for the unreasonable delay in having the matter remedied. In the circumstances I consider the sum of $200.00 reasonable.
I dismiss the claim for exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are different to compensatory damages. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine and are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. The threshold requirement for the award of exemplary damages is that the unlawful act was committed ‘intentionally’. This means that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
I am not satisfied that the threshold requirement of intention is satisfied here. The landlord was proactive and timely in addressing other repair or maintenance issues after becoming aware of the need to do so, and I accept that that it is more likely than not that the delay in remedying the mould issue was due to an oversight rather than an intention to delay the repair.
The claim for mould on walls and window frames is dismissed because the evidence does not support that any issue with mould in those areas was made known to the landlord until this application was filed. Moreover, it is not established that any mould in those areas was due to any fault on the part of the landlord.
The landlord had a humidity and moisture test completed at the premises on 13 October 2025 by Informed Property Inspections. In a report dated the same day the inspector records that humidity levels were normal and while there were localised areas of elevated moisture at the kitchen window frame and in the bathroom and laundry areas, these “elevations are considered minor and do not indicate widespread moisture ingress”. The report concludes that “the findings suggest that the primary cause of mould and mildew observed within the property is likely due to insufficient ventilation practices rather than abnormal humidity or active leaks.” Proper ventilation practices are considered to be the responsibility of a tenant, not the landlord. Is the landlord in breach of any obligation by bringing another person to an inspection?
Ms Prichard brought the landlord and owner of the property to one of the regular property inspections she conducted. Ms Brougham did not raise any concerns about the owner coming with Ms Prichard at the time and let them both in. However, she claims that Ms Prichard ought to have told her before she came that she intended to bring someone with her.
While I accept that it may have been better to have given Ms Brougham prior notice of the intention to bring the landlord/owner of the premises to the inspection, it is not a requirement in the Act for a landlord to do so. The owner or landlord is entitled to enter the premises, provided the required notice is given of the intention to enter or the tenant consents to the entry at the time.
This claim is therefore also dismissed. Tribunal application fee
Ms Brougham has been mostly unsuccessful in her claims and I do not consider this an appropriate case to award her payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression
Ms Brougham applied, in her application, for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
However, Ms Brougham has been mostly unsuccessful in her claims. Her application for name suppression is therefore not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5332640 — Mould at 232A Harewood Road, Bishopdale, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5332640 — Mould at 232A Harewood Road, Bishopdale, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions