What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5332959 about?

The tribunal order states: Bond Centre to pay the bond as follows:

How much money was awarded in case 5332959?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5332959?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5332959?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12394936-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5332959 about?

The tribunal order states: Bond Centre to pay the bond as follows:

How much money was awarded in case 5332959?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5332959?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5332959?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12394936-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

55B Bennetts Road, Koutu, Rotorua 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5332959 — Rent arrears

Order

Bond Centre to pay the bond as follows: a. To Amtos Realty Services Limited: $1,671.43 immediately, being rent arrears as claimed. b. To [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $128.57, immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tenant claims that the Landlord breached its obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and seeks compensation for building defects including water ingress, high moisture readings, and overflowing guttering.
The Tenant claims $2,518.00, made up of a refund of bond and rent ($2,250.00), cost of a private Healthy Homes report ($138.00), delivery costs ($130.00), power (unknown amount), and the Tribunal filing fee.
The Tenant maintains the property was not habitable and refused to accept the Landlord’s offer to terminate the tenancy, and it was a reasonable offer in the circumstances.
The Landlord relies on a 2024 Healthy Homes assessment showing compliance with the HHS, and claims the Tenant refused to return keys and declined repayment of bond and rent. The Landlord seeks $1,671.43 in rent arrears in its application, presumably to 31 July 2025.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy commenced on 28 June 2025. The Tenant paid a bond and rent in advance.
The Tenant visited the property on 27 June 2025 and, the next day, informed the Landlord she would not move into the premises because it was not habitable.
The Tenant moved into a motel and retained the keys. Despite the Landlord's efforts to terminate the tenancy and refund rent and bond, the Tenant refused.
The Landlord issued a 14-day notice for arrears on 16 July 2025.
On 21 July 2025, the Tenant stated she did not accept termination (by consent).
The Landlord filed its application on 31 July 2025, seeking rent up to that point. In fact, the Tenant remained in possession of the premises after that date.
I am satisfied the rent arrears total $1,671.43 as claimed. Has the Landlord breached the Healthy Homes (Moisture Ingress and Drainage)

Standards?

The Tenant claims that the Landlord breached section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA by failing to meet the Healthy Homes moisture ingress and drainage standards.
The relevant compliance date is 1 July 2025. As this tenancy commenced on 28 June 2025, the property was not yet required to meet the standard. However, the Landlord voluntarily commissioned a compliance report and statement in 2024, which found no issues.
The standard requires efficient systems to drain stormwater, surface water, and groundwater, including functional gutters and downpipes. A ground moisture barrier is required for enclosed subfloor spaces.
The Tenant obtained a private Healthy Homes report dated 3 July 2025. The report recorded high internal moisture readings (including one at 90.5) and noted overflowing guttering. However, the Landlord said gutter maintenance had recently occurred, and that seasonal debris was likely responsible for the temporary overflow. The Landlord also claimed to have addressed past moisture ingress, including repairs around the heat pump and roofline.
There is insufficient evidence to find a systemic or ongoing breach of the moisture ingress and drainage standard or the Housing Improvement Regulations 1987 (obligation to keep homes free of damp). There is no expert evidence to establish harmful mould.
The issues raised by the Tenant appear to have been minor or transient in nature. The private report does not establish that the premises were uninhabitable or non-compliant to the degree alleged. The Landlord acted promptly to investigate concerns raised on 30 June 2025, and this is despite the Tenant’s heavy-handed approach in declining to take possession and pay rent, work with the Landlord to address any issues with the premises or surrender the keys and possession.
I find the Landlord has not committed an unlawful act under section 45(1)(bb).
Accordingly, no compensation or exemplary damages are awarded in relation to the Healthy Homes claim.

Was the Tenant unreasonable in refusing termination and refusing to return the keys?

The evidence shows the Landlord attempted to reach a practical solution by offering to terminate the tenancy and refund bond and rent. The Tenant declined this offer. She retained possession of the keys and declined to return them. The Landlord reasonably relied on legal advice not to re-let the premises without formal possession. The Tenant’s conduct prolonged the tenancy and exposed the Landlord to further loss.
I find that the Tenant’s refusal to return possession was unreasonable, and that the Landlord is not in breach of its duty to mitigate loss in the circumstances.

Order

Bond Centre to pay the bond as follows: a. To Amtos Realty Services Limited: $1,671.43 immediately, being rent arrears as claimed. b. To [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $128.57, immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tenant claims that the Landlord breached its obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and seeks compensation for building defects including water ingress, high moisture readings, and overflowing guttering.
The Tenant claims $2,518.00, made up of a refund of bond and rent ($2,250.00), cost of a private Healthy Homes report ($138.00), delivery costs ($130.00), power (unknown amount), and the Tribunal filing fee.
The Tenant maintains the property was not habitable and refused to accept the Landlord’s offer to terminate the tenancy, and it was a reasonable offer in the circumstances.
The Landlord relies on a 2024 Healthy Homes assessment showing compliance with the HHS, and claims the Tenant refused to return keys and declined repayment of bond and rent. The Landlord seeks $1,671.43 in rent arrears in its application, presumably to 31 July 2025.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy commenced on 28 June 2025. The Tenant paid a bond and rent in advance.
The Tenant visited the property on 27 June 2025 and, the next day, informed the Landlord she would not move into the premises because it was not habitable.
The Tenant moved into a motel and retained the keys. Despite the Landlord's efforts to terminate the tenancy and refund rent and bond, the Tenant refused.
The Landlord issued a 14-day notice for arrears on 16 July 2025.
On 21 July 2025, the Tenant stated she did not accept termination (by consent).
The Landlord filed its application on 31 July 2025, seeking rent up to that point. In fact, the Tenant remained in possession of the premises after that date.
I am satisfied the rent arrears total $1,671.43 as claimed. Has the Landlord breached the Healthy Homes (Moisture Ingress and Drainage)

Standards?

The Tenant claims that the Landlord breached section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA by failing to meet the Healthy Homes moisture ingress and drainage standards.
The relevant compliance date is 1 July 2025. As this tenancy commenced on 28 June 2025, the property was not yet required to meet the standard. However, the Landlord voluntarily commissioned a compliance report and statement in 2024, which found no issues.
The standard requires efficient systems to drain stormwater, surface water, and groundwater, including functional gutters and downpipes. A ground moisture barrier is required for enclosed subfloor spaces.
The Tenant obtained a private Healthy Homes report dated 3 July 2025. The report recorded high internal moisture readings (including one at 90.5) and noted overflowing guttering. However, the Landlord said gutter maintenance had recently occurred, and that seasonal debris was likely responsible for the temporary overflow. The Landlord also claimed to have addressed past moisture ingress, including repairs around the heat pump and roofline.
There is insufficient evidence to find a systemic or ongoing breach of the moisture ingress and drainage standard or the Housing Improvement Regulations 1987 (obligation to keep homes free of damp). There is no expert evidence to establish harmful mould.
The issues raised by the Tenant appear to have been minor or transient in nature. The private report does not establish that the premises were uninhabitable or non-compliant to the degree alleged. The Landlord acted promptly to investigate concerns raised on 30 June 2025, and this is despite the Tenant’s heavy-handed approach in declining to take possession and pay rent, work with the Landlord to address any issues with the premises or surrender the keys and possession.
I find the Landlord has not committed an unlawful act under section 45(1)(bb).
Accordingly, no compensation or exemplary damages are awarded in relation to the Healthy Homes claim.

Was the Tenant unreasonable in refusing termination and refusing to return the keys?

The evidence shows the Landlord attempted to reach a practical solution by offering to terminate the tenancy and refund bond and rent. The Tenant declined this offer. She retained possession of the keys and declined to return them. The Landlord reasonably relied on legal advice not to re-let the premises without formal possession. The Tenant’s conduct prolonged the tenancy and exposed the Landlord to further loss.
I find that the Tenant’s refusal to return possession was unreasonable, and that the Landlord is not in breach of its duty to mitigate loss in the circumstances.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5332959 — Rent arrears at 55B Bennetts Road, Koutu, Rotorua 3010

Tenancy Tribunal case 5332959 — Rent arrears at 55B Bennetts Road, Koutu, Rotorua 3010

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Standards?

Was the Tenant unreasonable in refusing termination and refusing to return the keys?

Property management

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Standards?

Was the Tenant unreasonable in refusing termination and refusing to return the keys?

Property management

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.