What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5339529 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 5339529?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,885.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5339529?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5339529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12918628-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5339529 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 5339529?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,885.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5339529?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5339529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12918628-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

17 Rona Avenue, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5339529 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5339529 — net $513.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15 December 2025	$3,885.71	Rent arrears to 15 December 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$513.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$513.71

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5339529 — net $513.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15 December 2025	$3,885.71	Rent arrears to 15 December 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$513.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$513.71

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name.
The tenancy of Uzma Siddiqui and Ayaz Siddiqui at 17 Rona Avenue, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 terminated on 15 December 2025.
Uzma Siddiqui and Ayaz Siddiqui must pay [The landlord/s] $485.71 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The tenant’s application that the landlord breached its obligations under section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. Mr R and Mr M, of the landlord’s agent, attended the hearing for the landlord. An interpreter attended the hearing to assist the Tribunal.
This is a cross application. The tenant had applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy which was due to end on 26 January 2026 and claims that the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition, failed to maintain the premises and breached the Healthy Homes Standards - Moisture Ingress, Draughts and Insulation.
The landlord had applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
Since filing the applications, the tenant vacated the premises on 15 December 2025.
At the hearing, the tenant asked, and the landlord agreed, for a further claim to be added being that the landlord had misrepresented the length of the tenancy. Towards the end of the hearing, the landlord agreed to a termination date of 15 December 2025 and withdrew the claim for rent arrears past that date. The tenant withdrew their claim that the landlord had misrepresented the length of the tenancy.
As the parties agreed on the end date of the tenancy, it was not necessary for me to determine the tenant’s claim that the fixed term of the tenancy be reduced and the landlord’s claim for termination of the tenancy for rent arrears.
The tenant is seeking: exemplary damages; a rent rebate of 50% of rent paid; $16,575 for compensation for their children’s health issues, medical costs and discomfort; $5000 in general damages for mental distress; $6500.00 for emotional distress; $1,904 as compensation for missed work, transport to medical visits and other out-of-pocket expenses; and the filing fee. A. RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. THE LANLDORD’S CLAIMS:

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. This claim is proved. B. THE TENANT’S CLAIMS: Was the premises infested with fleas and/or other insects and, if so, was this a result of the landlord failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and/or failing to maintain the premises?
The tenant claims that the premises were invested with fleas and/or other insects from the start of the tenancy.
There is no specific provision dealing with insects or pests in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Under section 45 of the RTA, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to its age and character.
Where a tenant claims that a landlord is responsible for a pest infestation, the Tribunal will usually consider whether that infestation has been caused by, or contributed to by, a breach of the landlord’s obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness or whether there is an underlying maintenance issue which is contributing to the pests.
In this instance there is also a clause in the Tenancy Agreement on the signature page (the “Vermin Clause”). This clause states: Vermin - The Landlord will ensure the Property remains free from the presence of fleas, rats, mice, cockroaches, ants and flies (“vermin”) for a period of one month after the Tenant takes possession. The Tenant agrees to contact the Landlord in writing to advise the presence of vermin within the first 30 days of occupation. At the expiry of the 30 days, the Tenant accepts liability for the presence of vermin and agrees to take steps to remove the vermin from the Property. Where the Tenant can show that they have taken all reasonable steps to maintain cleanliness and the presence of vermin was beyond their control, then the Landlord and Tenant may share the liability of eradication.
That provision is more onerous than the general requirement to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition. Section 11(2) of the RTA recognises that a landlord may voluntarily incur more extensive obligations than those imposed by the RTA. The tenant’s evidence:
The tenant moved into the premises on 24 November 2024 with their three young children.
At the start of the tenancy, the tenant did not have any furniture, and they were sleeping on the floor. Approximately two weeks after the tenancy started, the tenant purchased mattresses from a friend which were placed on the floor. The tenant said the mattresses were used but in good condition.
The tenant said that within one week of the start of the tenancy they noticed that the family was suffering from insect bites. The tenant said they believed the premises was infested with three types of insects: one that caused a boil; one that caused a rash; and a type of worm that they said they could see coming out of holes in the skirting boards.
On 28 November 2024, the tenant sent an email to Mr M saying: ... in this home fly in the carpets and owner of the house can not contact us. Flies bite all of my family members we are so tired ... Pls ... clean the carpets urgently u can see me and my family members bites spots on our body thanks.
The tenant said he also visited Mr M to discuss the issue around the time of the email.
On the same day, Mr M responded to the tenant’s email saying “you can use a flea bomb and that should resolve it”.
The tenant said they did so, but it did not work.
The tenant said that they raised the issue again after approximately 45 days and were told again to use the flea bomb and spray. The tenant said that the landlord said the infestation was in their furniture.
The tenant said that they contacted the landlord throughout the tenancy approximately 10 to 12 times about the issue.
From August 2025, there was a number of emails and text messages between the landlord and the tenant regarding the alleged insect infestation. In that correspondence, the tenant asked the landlord to fix it and said the treatment recommended by the landlord was not working. The landlord’s response was that the issue was caused by the tenant’s furniture and providing advice on using flea bombs and sprays.
The tenant provided a letter from their GP of 28 August 2025 saying that their child and the family had been “... experiencing a persistent 9-month history of recurrent insect-type bites and itching affecting all members of the family”. The doctor said the tenant suspected the issue was the carpet in the premises and asked for the premises to be professionally cleaned.
The tenant says the issue is not with their furniture because: a. The issue was resolved after they left the premises, and they are using the same furniture at their new residence; and b. The children would get bitten when they were sitting playing on the carpet.
The tenant provided photographs showing bites on family members, mainly on the upper body. One photograph shows bites to the leg and ankle.
The tenant said they believed that the children were bitten on their upper bodies because they would play on the carpets in the evenings.
When asked to comment on the landlord’s evidence that the people who attended the premises shortly before the tenancy started did not notice any evidence of insects, the tenant said they believed the insects were more active at night and that if you visited the premises during the day, the insects were not active and could not be seen.
The tenant’s 12-year-old daughter gave evidence at the hearing. Her evidence was consistent with the tenant’s evidence. She said that she had been bitten, seen fleas at the premises and witnessed her parents using flea bombs in the premises. The landlord’s evidence:
The landlord’s agent Mr M says that he visited the premises prior to the start of the tenancy and during the tenancy and says there was no evidence of any flea or other insect infestation during those visits.
Mr M said that in addition to the email referred to above, he told the tenant to provide them with the invoice for the flea bomb and he would reimburse them.
Mr M said he visited the tenant and sat on his couch with him in February or March 2024 for approximately 30-45 minutes. He said that during this visit he did not notice any insects and that if there was a flea infestation, he would have expected to see the fleas on the carpet which is light grey. The tenant said he recalls Mr M visiting the premises, walking around and taking photographs but denies that Mr M sat with him on the couch.
Mr M says that after this meeting, he did not hear from the tenant on this issue until August 2025. The tenant denies this and says that they were in regular contact with the landlord on this issue. The tenant referred to messages but said that as he has changed phones, he cannot provide copies of them.
Mr M says he believes that if there was an infestation it was bed bugs in the mattresses. To support this, Mr M provided an email from a pest specialist dated 26 August 2025 saying that where the issue was fleas, bites tended to be “... on the lower half of your body or in warm, moist areas like the bends of elbows and knees and legs.” The specialist said that bed bugs tend to be “... on the upper half of your body, around the face, neck and arms, chest and back”.
Two witnesses attended the hearing for the landlord via telephone. One of these was Mr Shaidd from AH Electrical Ltd. Mr Shahid said that he was at the premises in the days before the tenancy started to install a range hood and check other electrical fittings. He said that he did not notice any fleas or other insects despite being at the premises for 2-3 hours. He also said that he was not bitten during his visit.
The second witness was Ms Harford. Ms Harford is from the commercial cleaning company which provided cleaners to clean premises on the day before the tenancy started. Ms Harford said that the cleaning of the premises took approximately 2 hours. Ms Harford said she did not clean the premises personally and had not spoken to the employees who did so as they are no longer employed by the company. Ms Harford explained that staff are trained to notify the company of any issues with the premises such as damage to the premises or vermin so that the company can advise the landlord and make appropriate recommendations for treatment.
Ms Harford said that while she had not spoken to the cleaners who cleaned the premises, she believed that had they noticed fleas or other insects they would have included this information in their written report. Analysis:
The tenancy started on 24 November 2024. The tenant sent the email to Mr M reporting “flies” on 28 November 2024. This was within the period of one month from the start of the tenancy.
The landlord said that they satisfied the Vermin Clause by advising the tenant to obtain a flea bomb (in writing) and verbally advising them that they would reimburse this cost. There was a visit to the premises in February / March when the issue was raised again and the landlord said since that time, they did not hear from the tenant again on this issue until August 2025. The tenant disputes this, however, the documentary evidence supports the landlord’s assertion that the matter was not raised until August 2025.
I consider that the landlord has complied with the Vermin Clause. Had I been satisfied that the tenant went back to the landlord about the issue within the 30 days, then due to the landlord’s additional obligations under the Vermin Clause, I would have expected additional steps to investigate the issue. That is not the case, and I find that the landlord did not breach the Vermin Clause.
The tenant’s evidence was consistent and persuasive. I was particularly impressed with the evidence provided by the tenant’s 12-year-old daughter. Her evidence was consistent with her parents.
The tenant’s documentary evidence including photographs and the letter from their GP showed that the tenant and the family had been bitten by some sort of insect(s). It is clear that the family have been bitten and the landlord does not dispute this. However, there were no photographs of the insects at the premises and the tenant did not have a report from a specialist confirming the infestation and that it was caused by a failure of the landlord’s obligations under section 45 of the RTA. The tenant did provide a photograph showing small pin type holes in the skirting boards. The tenant says that this allowed the insects to enter. The landlord says that the holes were consistent with the wood.
The difficulty that I have is that the explanation provided by the landlord was just as plausible as the tenant. The landlord says that despite visiting the premises prior to and during the tenancy there was no evidence of an insect infestation and that if there were insects then they were most likely attributable to the landlord’s furniture.
This is the tenant’s claim, and the tenant has the burden of proof. Given that both explanations were plausible, I cannot conclude that the premises was infested with fleas and/or other insects at the start of the tenancy and/or that the landlord was liable for this under either the Vermin Clause or its obligations under section 45(1) of the RTA.
The tenant’s claim that the landlord has breached section 45(1) of the RTA by failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and/or failing to maintain the premises is dismissed. Did the landlord breach section 45(1) of the RTA by failing to maintain the premises and / or failing to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards –

Moisture Ingress resulting in mould in the premises?

Uzma Siddiqui and Ayaz Siddiqui claims that the landlord has: a. Breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) including the Moisture Ingress Standard; and/or b. Breached section 45(1)(c) of the RTA by failing to maintain the premises, which has resulted in a significant amount of mould in the premises. The law:
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For private rentals that are not boarding houses: a. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or b. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; c. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The tenancy started on 22 November 2024. Therefore, the date for compliance with the HHS for this tenancy was 22 March 2025.
The Moisture Ingress and Drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space. There are exceptions to this standard.
In addition to being subject to the HHS from 22 March 2025, section 45 of the RTA provides that the landlord shall: (b) 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 (c) comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises; and ...
Regulation 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 provides that “every house shall be free of dampness”. Who is responsible for mould – the tenant or the landlord?
On a number of occasions, the Tribunal, along with the District Court, have recognised that mould and condensation are difficult issues and that it is often not easy to point to a single cause or allocate responsibility to one party only when mould is present.
In Warwick Todd Ltd v Tapper TT1381/02, Christchurch, 14/089/2002, the Tribunal found that a tenant can be responsible for mould problems if they fail to air and heat premises sufficiently, and a landlord can be responsible if they do not provide sufficient means to air and heat the premises or if the premises are damp.
In Repia v Walsh Trust DC Waitakere, CIV-2011-090-00056, 27 April 2011, the District Court recognised that the presence of mould in a property can be caused by the state of the premises or a lack of ventilation. The fact that some mould was in the house is not enough to show that it was not in a reasonable state of repair.
Where there is a need for repair, the tenant also has obligations under the RTA. Section 40(1)(d) of the RTA provides that the tenant must: Notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises or of the need for any repairs.
The landlord cannot be expected to carry out repairs if the landlord is not reasonably aware of the issue. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010, the District Court held: ... the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, I think, 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 might be. The tenant’s evidence:
The tenant says that in late July 2025, they noticed a significant amount of mould in their son’s bedrooms, on some curtains and in other areas of the premises.
In August 2025, the tenant took a video of the mould in their son’s bedroom and emailed it to the landlord.
The video was presented at the hearing and showed black mould on the windowsills and on the windows in one of the bedrooms. There was no video or photographic evidence of the mould on the curtains or in the other areas of the house.
The landlord responded to the tenant’s email that day with instructions on how to prevent and clean mould.
The tenant said they cleaned the mould using Exit Mould.
The tenant said they stopped using the heat pump in the living area in July 2025, the same time that the mould started to appear.
The tenant said they could not leave the windows open as suggested by the landlord as it was too cold. While some windows / doors in the living areas were opened regularly, the tenant said they opened the windows in the children’s room once per week. The landlord’s evidence:
The landlord says that the mould was caused by the tenant’s failing to wipe condensation from the windows and insufficient opening of windows to ventilate the premises.
The landlord said that when he visited the premises, the windows and the curtains would be closed.
The landlord said that at the inspection of the premises on 11 August 2025, he asked the tenant if they had noticed any leaks in the premises and the tenant said no.
The landlord provided a Healthy Homes Compliance Certificate and Report dated 24 October 2024 which states that the premises complied with the Healthy Homes Standard – Moisture Ingress and Drainage and that at the time of the inspection there was no visible mould in the premises.
While I cannot say for certain what was causing the mould, on the evidence presented to me, including a Healthy Homes Report dated 24 October 2024, which states that the premises complies with the Healthy Homes Standards, I consider that Mr M’s response to the tenant’s concerns about the mould (providing detailed information on how to prevent and clean mould) was a reasonable response.
I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to repair the premises or that the landlord breached the Healthy Homes Standard – Moisture and Drainage.
This claim is dismissed. Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards – Draughts or Insulation in respect of the draught coming from the floor?
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS Draught Stopping standard and or failed to comply with the Insulation standard and/or failed to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
The Draught Stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. The standard that applies depends on when the installation was installed. There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
The tenant said there was a draught coming from the floor.
The landlord referred to the Healthy Homes Report of 24 October 2024 which provides that the premises meets the Healthy Homes Standards – Insulation and Draughts.
The landlord said that as the tenant’s had newly arrived in New Zealand, this may have been the first house with a suspended floor that they had lived in. The landlord said he would expect it to be draughtier than a home with a concrete floor.
While I cannot say for certain what was causing the draughts, on the evidence presented to me, particularly the Healthy Homes Report, it is unlikely that the landlord had failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards – Insulation and Draughts.
This claim is dismissed. C. FILING FEE AND SUPPRESSION:
The landlord has been substantially successful with their claims. For this reason, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee and suppression of the landlord’s name.
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful with their claims. The tenant’s claim for suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5339529 — Rent arrears at 17 Rona Avenue, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5339529 — Rent arrears at 17 Rona Avenue, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Moisture Ingress resulting in mould in the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Moisture Ingress resulting in mould in the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions