What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338586 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5338586?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338586?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338586?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13754612-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338586 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5338586?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338586?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338586?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13754612-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 10, 25 Bangor Street, Christchurch Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5338586 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Eder and Ms Allison represented the landlord.
I heard evidence from Mr Mako and his witness Mr Healy (by phone).
Both parties provided documentary evidence and written submissions.
I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not refer to it directly. Background
This tenancy started on or about 16 March 2020, so has been in place a little over 6 years.
The parties have not had an amicable relationship. On 13 October 2022 the Tribunal heard an application by the tenant for various work orders, compensation, and exemplary damages. In its decision the Tribunal declined to make work orders, declined to award exemplary damages for any landlord breaches, and awarded a small amount of compensation for the loss of amenity due to dampness from a leaking window 1 .
On 11 October 2024, the Tribunal dismissed an application by the landlord for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and for threats of assault against the landlord’s agents.
On 1 September 2025, the tenant made the application now before the Tribunal.
On 17 October 2025, the Tribunal issued a directions order following a case conference with the parties. The Tribunal set out the tenant’s claims, and clarified what claims fell within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal also addressed any witness evidence.
I heard the application on 28 April 2026. The tenant withdrew one of his claims that related to the repair of paths outside the tenancy premises, the responsibility of the Council. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Has the landlord failed to maintain and repair the premises? •Should the Tribunal make a work order? •Did the landlord fail to ensure that the premises are compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)? •Should the tenant receive compensation for landlord breaches? •Should the tenant be awarded exemplary damages? •Should the tenant be reimbursed the amount he paid to use his neighbour’s laundry? •Should the tenant receive a full rent abatement? 1 See [2022] NZTT 4374941 •Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and if so did the breach amount to harassment? •Did the landlord discriminate against the tenant? •Did the landlord fail to ensure that the tenancy agreement was in writing and signed? •Did the landlord enter the premises when not authorised to? •Should the landlord be ordered to remove garden beds and replace them with concrete? Relevant law Statutory provisions
Section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord and that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
Section 12 RTA provides that discrimination is an unlawful act.
Section 13 RTA states that a tenancy agreement must be in writing and be signed.
Section 48 RTA sets out a landlord’s right of entry. Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party 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 2 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.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. Discussion

Has the landlord failed to repair and maintain the premises?

The tenant alleges that the landlord has failed to maintain the fences, the concrete paths and other surfaces, the carpet, the bathroom, the laundry, and the interior paintwork. As well, he seeks the removal of a gate exterior to the premises he says hinders his use of the garage.
The tenant wants the concrete replaced and re-laid, the fence removed and replaced, the carpet replaced (because he says there will be mould underneath it), a shower installed in the bathroom, and wall linings in the laundry and bathroom (and possibly other areas as well) removed so there can be an inspection to determine the presence of mould.
He seeks work orders for all the work to be done.
The tenant’s expectations are unrealistic. The fences and paths show normal and expected weathering with some green growth caused by weather. That is 2 [2020] NZDC 17667 not a landlord breach. Nor is the presence of dead leaves from neighbouring trees. That is part and parcel of urban living.
The evidence does not establish that the paths or the fence need replacing. Nor is there a demonstrated need for a shower to be installed. While that might benefit the tenant, the Tribunal cannot order a landlord to do work on that basis. The tenant produced letters from his ophthalmologist and his GP who support the installation of a shower. But their recommendation does not create a landlord obligation.
The suggestion that all the carpet must be replaced is also not supported by the evidence, nor that the premises require a complete re-paint.
The tenant said that based on his trade experience as a painter and decorator, the maximum life of paintwork is 4-5 years and in 7 years the premises have not been painted.
The timeframe the tenant referred to is not one the Tribunal would regard as reasonable (nor probably any homeowner). The tenant’s own opinion is not sufficient to prove that the premises require redecoration nor that the landlord has breached their responsibility to maintain the premises.
One fence paling requires a couple of nails to reattach it securely. Ms Eder said the landlord accepted that and was prepared to do it but was unable to due to the tenant’s refusal to allow access.

Should the Tribunal make a work order?

I decline to make work orders in this case. The tenant’s obstructive attitude means that it is unlikely that he will co-operate with any work orders made. He has a fixed view of what work is required and by whom. I can summarise his attitude as ‘I know best what is required, and I will not agree to anything else’. That is not how residential tenancy law operates.
The tenant said in evidence that on multiple occasions the landlord had tried to decontaminate the premises (remove and treat the mould) but he denied access because they did not have the correct protocols in place.
The landlord is entitled to have a contractor of its choosing first assess the premises and then provide an opinion about any work required regarding the treatment and prevention of mould, whether the bathroom and laundry wall linings need to be removed to treat mould spores, whether the carpet requires replacement due to mould underneath; and whether the interior requires full redecoration.
Currently, there are two opinions about the mould. Mr Healy, contracted by the tenant, has identified the presence of mould of the types described in his report. He effectively states that the premises are uninhabitable. Were the landlord to accept that opinion it could probably terminate the tenancy on short notice due to uninhabitability.
In his evidence Mr Healy said that during his initial inspection there were high moisture levels which have probably resulted in hidden mould behind the laundry wall. He acknowledged that the landlord’s assessor Mr Harrison said that when he inspected the premises, they were dry and there was no mould but that did not mean there was no hidden mould; Mr Harrison’s assessment was done in summer.
Both assessors are qualified to undertake such an assessment. Mr Healy described his qualifications in his evidence (and in his report) and Mr Harrison has detailed his in writing. So, currently, there are 2 competing reports.
While I am not prepared to make a work order, the Tribunal suggests that the landlord promptly arrange for an assessment of mould at the premises by a third appropriately qualified person The landlord should ensure that both Mr Healy’s and Mr Harrison’s reports are made available to the assessor. The assessor should be asked to firstly identify the cause of any mould present in the premises (necessary to determine whether there is any landlord breach) and secondly to advise on what remedies (if any) are required.
Unless the tenant is prepared to co-operate in allowing this assessment and let the landlord and their contractor have access to assess the problem and to identify necessary work, the landlord’s hands are tied. Preventing the landlord access to undertake this assessment will constitute a breach by the tenant that itself might result in an application for termination of the tenancy.
To put it more plainly, the tenant cannot at the same time allege that the premises are uninhabitable due to the presence of mould and also prevent the landlord from having access to carry out an assessment recommended by the Tribunal.
Making a work order, unless by consent, comes with a statutory requirement to make an alternate money order for non-compliance. In this case I am not satisfied that the tenant will co-operate to allow the work to be done. Other than the suggestion I have made, I make none of the work orders sought by the tenant. The need for the work is not established on the facts. I have suggested there be another mould assessment where the assessor can address both of the (conflicting) opinions already provided. It is a suggestion, not an order. Did the landlord fail to ensure that the premises are compliant with the

HHS?

The tenant produced no evidence that the premises fail to comply with the HHS. The landlord produced a HHS compliance report. I find that the premises are HHS compliant. That there might be mould present does not of itself establish a breach of the HHS.
It is not disputed that mould is caused by moisture. But the HHS are specific standards that address heating, ventilation, draught, and the proper removal of water from downpipes. The moisture that results in mould is not always due to any problem with the premises but can be caused by the way the premises are used.

Should the tenant receive compensation for landlord breaches?

The tenant has not established any landlord breach for which he should be awarded compensation. While there might be breaches by the landlord of its statutory responsibility to maintain and repair for example, it is largely the tenant’s obstructive attitude that has prevented work being done.
It would be objectively unjust to award the tenant compensation; it would act as a reward for poor behaviour. I dismiss this part of the application.

Should the tenant be awarded exemplary damages?

For the Tribunal to award exemplary damages, the tenant must firstly establish a breach by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities, secondly establish that the breach amounted to a defined unlawful act, and thirdly establish that the landlord acted with intent.
Even if the landlord has failed to maintain and repair the premises, I find that the tenant has contributed to the breach by not allowing access to the premises or by acting in a manner such that contractors are not able to (or prepared to) do the work.
In none of the instances referred to by the tenant would it be just to find that the landlord has breached its statutory responsibilities. And in none of the alleged instances has the tenant proved the necessary element of intent.
The landlord is prepared to assess the matters the tenant has complained about. But the tenant wants to dictate the terms, relying on Mr Healy’s report and evidence about the remediation work that is required.
The landlord can decide what work is required based on the opinion of its contractor. Once completed, and only then, would the tenant have a claim for deficient work. I will return to this later.
The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed. Should the tenant be reimbursed the amount he paid to use his neighbour’s laundry?
The tenant chose to use his neighbour’s laundry for a fee (he says $20.00 per time) because he maintains that his laundry is unsafe due to mould.
Until the laundry is assessed by the landlord’s assessor no breach is established. It was the tenant’s choice not to continue to use his own laundry. I dismiss this part of the application.

Should the tenant receive a full rent abatement?

Rent can only abate when premises are destroyed in whole or in part, so as to become uninhabitable 3 . Mr Healy said he thought that the premises when he inspected them in winter were uninhabitable. But when he inspected the premises in summer (27 March) things had changed. While the mould was not visible the mould was probably still hidden behind the laundry wall linings. He acknowledged the report that the landlord had obtained that said the premises were dry with no mould, but he said that did not mean there was no hidden mould. He said that air samples were required. That required an accredited remediator.
The evidence does not establish that these premises are uninhabitable now. Again, the tenant has formed a view of what is required based on Mr Healy’s opinion. But the landlord has obtained a contrary opinion. It must be given the opportunity to act on the advice it has received.
I make no order abating the rent. Nor do I award compensation in the form of a rent refund. The landlord is prepared to investigate the mould contamination issue further and must be given the opportunity to do so. It is the tenant’s intransigence that is preventing that. To award any compensation in the form of a rent refund would be to reward that unreasonable behaviour. 3 See section 59 RTA
The mould remediation issue requires genuine co-operation from the tenant. The landlord can issue a notice for its contractor to attend the premises to assess the remediation if required.
Mr Mako seems to consider that any contractor the landlord employs must be on a WorkSafe list of approved contractors. The landlord can engage any contractors it wishes. Should the tenant prevent that, the landlord can issue a breach notice, thereby putting his tenancy at risk. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and if so, did the breach amount to harassment?
I do not accept that the landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. The tenant has imposed communication restrictions. He will only accept communications by post, even though he has an email address. He will not accept phone calls. He claims that is because of harassment by the landlord.
Restricting communications in this way will inevitably mean that there are occasions when there is miscommunication – contractors might arrive that the tenant was not yet notified about. On one occasion the tenant had a physical altercation with one of the landlord’s contractors. Each made a police complaint.
There are limitations in postal delivery but that is the tenant’s chosen method of communication. He will need to accept that on occasions there will be delays in him receiving mail that mean he has not been notified of a contractor’s visit. That is not harassment, it is simply the end result of an (unreasonable in the Tribunal’s view) restriction of the way in which the landlord may contact him. Nor is it harassment that he received a phone call from one of the landlord’s staff after he had advised that he was not to be phoned. Mistakes happen.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for breaches of his quiet enjoyment and for harassment.

Did the landlord discriminate against the tenant?

Section 12 RTA defines discrimination as being discrimination against any person in respect of the grant, continuance, extension, variation, termination, or renewal of a tenancy agreement in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993.
Mr Mako did not specify the kind of discrimination he referred to. He simply referred to being ‘attacked by all sectors by different people to make their narrative stick’. He said several times that the landlord has been ‘disingenuous’ and had ‘gaslighted him’.
The statutory definition of discrimination is not met. Nothing the landlord did or is purported to have done, was in relation to the grant, continuance, extension, variation, termination, or renewal of the tenancy agreement.
I dismiss this part of the application. Did the landlord fail to ensure that the tenancy agreement was in writing and signed?
Ms Eder provided a signed copy of the tenancy agreement dated 18 February 2020 which is recorded as the start date. I note that in the Tribunal’s order dated 13 October 2024, the start date was recorded as 16 March 2020. In the tenant’s application the start date is recorded as 20 March 2023 which is probably an error.
For the purposes of this application nothing turns on the start date. While Mr Mako was suspicious of the signature on the tenancy agreement (he has approached a handwriting analyst) I find that there was a signed tenancy agreement between the parties. I dismiss this part of the application.

Did the landlord enter the premises when not authorised to?

I do not find proved any unlawful entry by the landlord. Mr Mako’s evidence on this issue was confusing. It is clear that Mr Mako has a high degree of suspicion towards the landlord. But an allegation of unlawful entry requires specific evidence to establish a breach. I note again my observation that by restricting the way in which the landlord may contact him, confusion about the notification of landlord or contractor entry can easily happen. Should the landlord be ordered to remove garden beds and replace them with concrete?
The tenant wants garden areas removed and replaced with concrete. Ms Eder said the landlord was not prepared to do that. There is no obligation on the landlord to do this work. It is not something the Tribunal could or would order. I dismiss this part of the application. Result
The application is dismissed. Comment
In its order dated 11 October 2024 4 , the Tribunal said this:
Although this application for termination has been unsuccessful, the tenant is now on clear notice that aggressive or intimidating behaviour is likely to lead to applications for termination either for anti-social behaviour or under other options available to the landlord under the Act.
There is no doubt that the tenant’s behaviour towards the landlord’s staff and contractors has been extremely poor
The landlord’s Operations Manager gave evidence that his staff have been traumatised by the tenant’s behaviour. This is clearly unacceptable, and the landlord’s staff should not have to suffer like this when engaged in their day-to-day mahi.
The Tribunal went on to express some confidence that there would be a change in the relationship listing 13 reasons why. Despite that optimism, things are no better, probably worse.
The tenant’s aggressive behaviour has continued. He freely admitted saying to Ms Allison for example The last time I looked you’re not my fucking mother: don’t tell me what to fucking do. If Mr Mako considers it appropriate to speak like that to one of the landlord’s staff, he is misguided. No matter the reason, that kind of abuse is unacceptable.
Mr Mako freely admitted to acting aggressively, but not to the extent the landlord portrayed (he says). He has forbidden the landlord from phoning or emailing him, only accepting communications by post. That alone indicates a broken landlord/tenant relationship.
I have not made any orders because firstly, there is no landlord application before the Tribunal, and secondly, because this relationship needs to be reset. It does not require work orders because Mr Mako has resisted the landlord’s efforts to assess what is required, instead dictating what he wants done.
If Mr Mako is not prepared to significantly change his attitude, the tenancy will inevitably end. His approach of ‘my way or no way’ must stop.
The landlord should continue its usual business, notifying inspections and arranging for maintenance assessments (including, the Tribunal hopes, the further mould assessment it has recommended) and repairs where needed by its contractors (not contractors Mr Mako dictates). If met with opposition from Mr 4 See [2024] NZTT 4948413 Mako, it has the options available to any landlord under the RTA and it should exercise them promptly. Just because an earlier application to terminate the tenancy failed, does not mean that another application soundly based will not succeed.
Separately, Mr Mako should ponder whether he is suited to this tenancy, or whether the time has come for him to find somewhere that better suits his needs. His degree of suspicion with the landlord, his aggression towards the landlord, its staff, and its contractors, and his determined resistance to what are ordinary landlord rights (meaning it cannot fulfil its statutory responsibilities) together mean that this tenancy is no longer viable, save a major change in attitude. Name suppression
Both parties when asked did not seek a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338586 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 10, 25 Bangor Street, Christchurch Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338586 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 10, 25 Bangor Street, Christchurch Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to repair and maintain the premises?

Should the Tribunal make a work order?

HHS?

Should the tenant receive compensation for landlord breaches?

Should the tenant be awarded exemplary damages?

Should the tenant receive a full rent abatement?

Did the landlord discriminate against the tenant?

Did the landlord enter the premises when not authorised to?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to repair and maintain the premises?

Should the Tribunal make a work order?

HHS?

Should the tenant receive compensation for landlord breaches?

Should the tenant be awarded exemplary damages?

Should the tenant receive a full rent abatement?

Did the landlord discriminate against the tenant?

Did the landlord enter the premises when not authorised to?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions