What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341749 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 5341749?

Property Damage: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341749?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12755919-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341749 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 5341749?

Property Damage: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341749?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12755919-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5341749 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341749 — net $748.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages as detailed below	$720.00	Exemplary damages as detailed below
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$748.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$748.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
must pay immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 25 April 2024 and ended on 12 September 2025.
The tenant’s application raises issues relating to dampness / mould, healthy homes compliance, and a leak underneath the house.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 21 November 2025. Both parties attended the hearing. Mr O’Connor represented the landlord. Law
Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards. 1
The healthy homes compliance date for this tenancy was 23 August 2024. 2
The healthy homes standard for moisture and drainage states that if the premises has an enclosed sub-floor, a ground moisture barrier must be installed if it is practical to do so.
The healthy homes standard for insulation states that tenanted premises must have ceiling and underfloor insulation (unless it is impractical or unsafe to install it). The insulation material must be of an approved type, meet the minimum R- value 3 , be in good condition, and be installed with no visible gaps.
Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. 4 This means that landlords must respond promptly and appropriately to any need for repairs that comes to their attention. 5
Landlords must, upon receiving a request from the tenant, provide to the tenant all information that they hold in respect of healthy homes compliance for the property. 6

What happened?

[Tenant 1] said that: a. They noticed mould on the wall in the main bedroom soon after moving in. b. There was also mould on the wall in the second bedroom. c. [Tenant 2] suffered respiratory problems and a sore chest, d. They told Mr O’Connor about the mould / dampness and he gave them a ‘window vac’ to assist with removing condensation from the windows. e. In July 2025 she checked under the house and discovered: i. A leak from a pipe underneath the shower; and ii. That there was no insulation in this part of the sub-floor (below the shower); and iii. There was no ground moisture barrier. 1 Section 45(1)(bb) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 120 days from the start of the tenancy. 3 In the Northland area the requirement is R2.9 for ceiling and R1.3 for underfloor 4 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 5 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431 6 Section 45(1AC) RTA f. On 21 July 2025 she sent Mr O’Connor a 14-day breach notice listing 7 issues including the shower leak, missing underfloor insulation, and missing moisture barrier. g. Mr O’Connor promptly installed the moisture barrier but did not repair the leak, so water pooled on top of the sheet. h. On 14 July she sent Mr O’Connor a text message asking him to provide a “healthy homes certificate and report” to her within 21 days. Mr O’Connor replied “the report is attached with the tenancy agreement”. She responded “But the certificate isn’t. I am requesting that too”. Mr O’Connor did not reply.
Mr O’Connor said that: a. Most properties have some amount of moisture / dampness in the environment, which is unavoidable. b. Tenants must take reasonable steps to ventilate the premises. c. The tenants may not have used the heat pump in the property to maximum advantage. d. He was not aware of the leak, the area that was missing insulation, or the absence of a moisture barrier until he received the breach notice in July 2025. e. When he received the notice, he promptly installed a moisture barrier and put appropriate insulation in the missing area. f. He decided to not repair the leak immediately. He determined that it was not a leak from the pipe or any of the fittings. The water was dripping down the exterior of the pipe because of some failed silicon around the drain in the base of the shower. He considered that the leak was minimal, and the repair could be quite disruptive. He carried out the repair after the tenants vacated. g. He completed the healthy homes statement in the tenancy agreement. He does not have a report or certificate. Findings
The landlord failed to meet the healthy homes standard in respect of moisture and drainage, and insulation.
The landlord’s failure to repair the leak during the period of this tenancy was a breach of the landlord’s maintenance duty. Although the leak was minor in terms of the volume of water, Mr O’Connor was aware of the tenant’s concerns about moisture and dampness and he was aware that, having installed the moisture barrier, the leaking water would pool on top. Mr O’Connor decided that he would not do the repair unless or until some other plumbing problem developed to justify involving a plumber. That decision could have meant that the leak would persist for months. It was chance that the tenants gave notice the following month to terminate the tenancy.
It is an unlawful act for a landlord to fail to meet the healthy homes standards and to fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 can apply.
In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to: 7 a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In this instance: a. Mr O’Connor acted promptly when the healthy homes non-compliance issues were brought to his attention. However, the error / oversight was Mr O’Connor’s responsibility. He carried out his own healthy homes assessment on the property, he did not involve a contractor. He completed the healthy homes statement in the tenancy agreement which failed to disclose that there was no moisture barrier in place. b. There is not sufficient evidence to show that the non-compliance caused or contributed to any dampness / mould problems at this property. However it is not controversial to state that the purpose of the healthy homes standards is to provide tenants with warm, dry, healthy homes. c. There is a strong and legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords comply with the healthy homes standards and meet their duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. d. There are significant mitigating factors present. Mr O’Connor remedied the non-compliance issues promptly. He was genuinely unaware of them prior to July 2025. Mr O’Connor did not ignore the leak problem, he made a considered decision to defer repairing it.
The Tribunal may only make one ‘global’ award of exemplary damages for all breaches of section 45 RTA. 8 7 Section 109 RTA 8 MBIE v Hillis Shearing Ltd [2024] NZDC 27583
Having regard to the factors detailed above, I will award exemplary damages of $720.00 (one-tenth of the maximum) for the proven healthy homes and maintenance breaches.
Mr O’Connor did not breach any legal duty in terms of his disclosure of healthy homes information. Landlords are not obliged to have a healthy homes report or certificate. If they do have such documents, they are obliged to keep them and provide them to tenants upon request. Filing fee, name suppression
The tenants sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted on the grounds that the tenants have been substantially successful in the proceedings. 9
On the same grounds I will also award the tenants the filing fee for this application. 10

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341749 — net $748.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages as detailed below	$720.00	Exemplary damages as detailed below
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$748.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$748.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
must pay immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 25 April 2024 and ended on 12 September 2025.
The tenant’s application raises issues relating to dampness / mould, healthy homes compliance, and a leak underneath the house.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 21 November 2025. Both parties attended the hearing. Mr O’Connor represented the landlord. Law
Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards. 1
The healthy homes compliance date for this tenancy was 23 August 2024. 2
The healthy homes standard for moisture and drainage states that if the premises has an enclosed sub-floor, a ground moisture barrier must be installed if it is practical to do so.
The healthy homes standard for insulation states that tenanted premises must have ceiling and underfloor insulation (unless it is impractical or unsafe to install it). The insulation material must be of an approved type, meet the minimum R- value 3 , be in good condition, and be installed with no visible gaps.
Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. 4 This means that landlords must respond promptly and appropriately to any need for repairs that comes to their attention. 5
Landlords must, upon receiving a request from the tenant, provide to the tenant all information that they hold in respect of healthy homes compliance for the property. 6

What happened?

[Tenant 1] said that: a. They noticed mould on the wall in the main bedroom soon after moving in. b. There was also mould on the wall in the second bedroom. c. [Tenant 2] suffered respiratory problems and a sore chest, d. They told Mr O’Connor about the mould / dampness and he gave them a ‘window vac’ to assist with removing condensation from the windows. e. In July 2025 she checked under the house and discovered: i. A leak from a pipe underneath the shower; and ii. That there was no insulation in this part of the sub-floor (below the shower); and iii. There was no ground moisture barrier. 1 Section 45(1)(bb) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 120 days from the start of the tenancy. 3 In the Northland area the requirement is R2.9 for ceiling and R1.3 for underfloor 4 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 5 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431 6 Section 45(1AC) RTA f. On 21 July 2025 she sent Mr O’Connor a 14-day breach notice listing 7 issues including the shower leak, missing underfloor insulation, and missing moisture barrier. g. Mr O’Connor promptly installed the moisture barrier but did not repair the leak, so water pooled on top of the sheet. h. On 14 July she sent Mr O’Connor a text message asking him to provide a “healthy homes certificate and report” to her within 21 days. Mr O’Connor replied “the report is attached with the tenancy agreement”. She responded “But the certificate isn’t. I am requesting that too”. Mr O’Connor did not reply.
Mr O’Connor said that: a. Most properties have some amount of moisture / dampness in the environment, which is unavoidable. b. Tenants must take reasonable steps to ventilate the premises. c. The tenants may not have used the heat pump in the property to maximum advantage. d. He was not aware of the leak, the area that was missing insulation, or the absence of a moisture barrier until he received the breach notice in July 2025. e. When he received the notice, he promptly installed a moisture barrier and put appropriate insulation in the missing area. f. He decided to not repair the leak immediately. He determined that it was not a leak from the pipe or any of the fittings. The water was dripping down the exterior of the pipe because of some failed silicon around the drain in the base of the shower. He considered that the leak was minimal, and the repair could be quite disruptive. He carried out the repair after the tenants vacated. g. He completed the healthy homes statement in the tenancy agreement. He does not have a report or certificate. Findings
The landlord failed to meet the healthy homes standard in respect of moisture and drainage, and insulation.
The landlord’s failure to repair the leak during the period of this tenancy was a breach of the landlord’s maintenance duty. Although the leak was minor in terms of the volume of water, Mr O’Connor was aware of the tenant’s concerns about moisture and dampness and he was aware that, having installed the moisture barrier, the leaking water would pool on top. Mr O’Connor decided that he would not do the repair unless or until some other plumbing problem developed to justify involving a plumber. That decision could have meant that the leak would persist for months. It was chance that the tenants gave notice the following month to terminate the tenancy.
It is an unlawful act for a landlord to fail to meet the healthy homes standards and to fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 can apply.
In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to: 7 a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In this instance: a. Mr O’Connor acted promptly when the healthy homes non-compliance issues were brought to his attention. However, the error / oversight was Mr O’Connor’s responsibility. He carried out his own healthy homes assessment on the property, he did not involve a contractor. He completed the healthy homes statement in the tenancy agreement which failed to disclose that there was no moisture barrier in place. b. There is not sufficient evidence to show that the non-compliance caused or contributed to any dampness / mould problems at this property. However it is not controversial to state that the purpose of the healthy homes standards is to provide tenants with warm, dry, healthy homes. c. There is a strong and legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords comply with the healthy homes standards and meet their duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. d. There are significant mitigating factors present. Mr O’Connor remedied the non-compliance issues promptly. He was genuinely unaware of them prior to July 2025. Mr O’Connor did not ignore the leak problem, he made a considered decision to defer repairing it.
The Tribunal may only make one ‘global’ award of exemplary damages for all breaches of section 45 RTA. 8 7 Section 109 RTA 8 MBIE v Hillis Shearing Ltd [2024] NZDC 27583
Having regard to the factors detailed above, I will award exemplary damages of $720.00 (one-tenth of the maximum) for the proven healthy homes and maintenance breaches.
Mr O’Connor did not breach any legal duty in terms of his disclosure of healthy homes information. Landlords are not obliged to have a healthy homes report or certificate. If they do have such documents, they are obliged to keep them and provide them to tenants upon request. Filing fee, name suppression
The tenants sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted on the grounds that the tenants have been substantially successful in the proceedings. 9
On the same grounds I will also award the tenants the filing fee for this application. 10

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341749 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341749 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What happened?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What happened?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions