Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5339629 — Tenancy dispute at 160 Guys Road, East Tamaki, Auckland 2013
Decided 28 Oct 2025 · Published 28 Oct 2025 · Application 5339629
- Healthy homes
- Leaks
- Mould & damp
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
- Greenmount Property Management Limited As Agent For Yu Ting Lan And Lang Shu must pay [The tenant/s] $605.52 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
- The landlord must arrange an independent building inspector to inspect the bedroom currently under repair and provide a written report to the landlord.
- The report must be completed by Friday 7 November 2025.
- The building inspector must be registered with the New Zealand Institute of Building Inspectors.
- The report must set out how the bedroom should be repaired to make sure mould and rot are not ongoing safety issues for the tenants.
- The landlord must give 24 hours notice of the inspection to the tenants.
- The tenants must allow access to the tenancy premises so the inspection can be carried out. They can attend the inspection or not attend the inspection.
- The landlord must pay for the report.
- A copy of the written report must be emailed to the tenants and to the Tenancy Tribunal at remote.tenancy@justice.govt.nz and this must be done as soon as the report is received by the landlord.
- If the landlord fails to comply with orders 3 – 6 above, then the tenant may arrange the inspection and charge the landlord the costs of the inspection up to $1,500. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
- The order for compensation does not prevent the tenants from filing another application for compensation from the date of the hearing.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The tenants moved into the house in July and thought their children would have their own bedrooms. When they moved in there was a leak in the bedroom set aside for their baby. They were not happy with the way the room was being repaired so they wrote an email stopping the builder from having access. They have filed an application for a work order. They also want compensation because they have not been able to use the room. The landlord said the tenants should not have the right to interfere with decisions made by the landlord and the licensed building practitioner hired to carry out the repairs. The questions I have to decide include: • Should I make a workorder? • Should I allow compensation?
Should I make a workorder?
- Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the landlord has an obligation to repair and carry out other work. Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) RTA.
- The landlord made an insurance claim and an assessor visited the premises. The tenants said the assessor’s advice was that a significant amount of gib in the walls and ceiling would need to be removed, mould and rotten timber framing removed, and everything, including the carpet, repaired or replaced. My understanding is that a builder from Chemdry recommended the same extensive repairs. The landlord then employed a builder who has installed a metal support and covered up the mould and rot with new gib. It was at this point the tenants sent an email refusing access, which I note is not a right they have under the RTA.
- It is the tenants who have to prove that a work order is needed. They have provided me with photos showing the missing gib, damaged carpet, and what might be rotten and mouldy framing and insulation. The landlord could have provided me with copies of the reports from the insurer or Chemdry if she did not agree the tenants’ evidence was accurate. I find the tenants have proved repairs are needed.
- The tenants are concerned that the landlord has engaged a builder who may not be carrying out the safest repair for them. The landlord could have provided me with a written report from the builder confirming he is a licensed building practitioner and that the repair process is sound. Instead the landlord gave me hearsay evidence based on what she said the builder had told her. She did not even have a quote detailing the current work that she could send me during the hearing. I am more persuaded by the tenants’ submission that the landlord’s builder could be compromised.
- In situations like this it is helpful to have an independent person inspect the damage and the proposed repair and write a report. I have ordered that an independent inspector look at the bedroom and give recommendations about how the room should be repaired to make sure mould and rot are not ongoing safety issues for the tenants. I would expect the landlord and the tenants to abide by the recommendations for repair as set out in the building inspector’s report. I expect the landlord to pay for the report and to make it available to me and to the tenants as soon as it is written.
- I have not made a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This is because there are safety concerns. I have allowed for the tenants to arrange the inspection if the landlord refuses to comply with my order. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) and 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) RTA.
Should I allow compensation?
- The tenants have claimed compensation because they cannot use the bedroom. Their baby is unsettled having to sleep in a portacot in their room, and this is not satisfactory. The bedroom has needed repair since they moved in, so the tenants have been paying rent for a room they cannot use at all. There are eight rooms in the house plus a garage plus a section. I find a reasonable amount of compensation for the room to be $65 a week, based on a total value of $77 a week. I find the tenants are responsible for some of the delay so I have allowed compensation until they refused access, which was just under seven weeks into the tenancy. The amount allowed for the loss of amenity seems reasonable, based on the evidence provided.
- I have also allowed the amounts proposed by the landlord as compensation for the extra power to run fans and heaters because these were not disputed by the tenants.
- I note this is issue is not resolved and the order for compensation does not prevent the tenants from filing another application for compensation from the date of the hearing, should they have an ongoing loss of amenity. Other orders
- Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
- The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. The landlord did not make an application for suppression. See section 95A RTA.