What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343662 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5343662?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343662?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343662?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12785096-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343662 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5343662?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343662?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343662?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12785096-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

135 Mt Pleasant Road, Mount Pleasant, Christchurch 8081 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5343662 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in person on 27 November 2025. The tenants now reside overseas. I agreed to their suggestion that they provide written submissions for the hearing which they have done. I have taken into account everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it.

The application named [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and his company Wongeoon Vast Limited as the landlord parties, However, the landlord named in the tenancy agreement is [The tenant/s] landlord/s] so I have amended the proceedings to reflect that. Background

The tenancy started on 30 August 2025 and ended on 13 September, so it lasted just 2 weeks. The landlord took a bond equivalent to 4 weeks’ rent but has paid almost all of it back to the tenants.

The tenancy agreement is unusual. The tenancy was for a room in a house, with shared use of communal areas. It is not a boarding-house; there are only 4 bedrooms. Tenancies such as this are often problematic given the shared use of facilities.

The tenancy agreement referred to a flatmate agreement, with the Disputes Tribunal being the forum for dispute resolution. I clarified with Mr Wongeoon that this was in fact a residential tenancy agreement that falls under the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal. He accepted that.

The tenants considered that the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean condition. They both experienced health problems which they attribute to that. They also allege non-compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and other breaches arising from the nature of the tenancy agreement.

The tenants’ written submissions appear to have been written with assistance from AI. While there is nothing wrong with that, the submissions have taken something of a ‘scatter gun’ approach that is not especially helpful, even addressing the Evidence Act 2006 and an alleged improper influence of a witness.

Some of the orders sought are not orders the Tribunal can or would make such as a ‘no-contact’ direction between the landlord and other tenants.

I have tried to isolate the relevant issues as best I can. I have not addressed issues raised that are not directly relevant. Issues

The Tribunal must determine these issues: •Have the tenants proved any breaches by the landlord that amount to unlawful acts? •If so, should the Tribunal award the tenants exemplary damages? •Have the tenants proved a claim for compensation arising from breaches by the landlord? Relevant law

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 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 13A RTA sets out what must be contained in a tenancy agreement. 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 Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust 1 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.

In Birch, the Court said this: 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Discussion Have the tenants proved any breaches by the landlord that amount to unlawful acts?

I do not find proved any unlawful acts by the landlord failing to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition or failing to comply with the HHS – section 45 RTA breaches.

Mr Wongeoon provided photos that show the room the tenants rented was reasonably clean (a landlord’s section 45 RTA responsibility is no higher than that). While the tenants’ photos show other areas that appear to require cleaning, those areas were a joint tenant responsibility. And what the tenants have referred to as mould on a window frame, is more likely just discolouration due to condensation over time.

Mr Wongeoon gave evidence that the premises were HHS compliant. He said there is a wood burner and a heat pump in the living area which comply with the heating standard. That the tenants did not use the wood burner is not a breach by the landlord.

The RTA does not require a landlord to have the premises professionally assessed for HHS compliance; it is for the tenants to prove non-compliance. Their statement that the premises did not comply is not sufficient. They produced no objective evidence that the premises were not compliant with the HHS.

While the tenancy agreement was deficient, this is not a case where the Tribunal need intervene. Mr Wongeoon gave evidence that he purchased the premises with the intention of using one room for himself as an office, so he thought a flatmate agreement was appropriate.

The tenants have not suffered any loss as a consequence of the tenancy agreement being headed as a flatmate agreement. The agreement incorporated many of the usual terms of a residential tenancy agreement and included most of the required information.

Should the Tribunal award the tenants exemplary damages?

Because the tenants have not proved any unlawful acts by the landlord, the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages. And even if the landlord was negligent in the drafting of the tenancy agreement, that is not sufficient. I do not find that he acted intentionally. I dismiss the application for exemplary damages. Have the tenants proved a claim for compensation arising from breaches by the landlord?

The tenants have sought compensation of between $4,156.00 and $5,956.00 from the landlord for various alleged breaches such as a breach of their quiet enjoyment, an unlawful notice to end the tenancy, and for stress, abusive conduct, cleaning costs, loss of income, and a rent rebate.

Their claim is unrealistic in the context of a tenancy for one room that lasted only 2 weeks.

The tenants produced photos in evidence of parts of the common areas. The responsibility for cleaning those areas rested with the tenants generally. Mr Wongeoon gave evidence that when he inspected the premises on 17 August 2025 the common areas were generally clean. He said he had not received any complaints from the other tenants about any rat infestation or the smell of rat urine.

That there were mouse traps at the premises does not establish any landlord breach (the parties referred to these as ‘rat catchers’). Many homes have mouse traps set as a precautionary measure.

The landlord produced photos of the room the tenants rented after he had cleaned it. He gave evidence that Mr Vandas told him he was satisfied with the condition of the room. Perhaps the tenants were susceptible to dust or other allergens. The evidence does not establish on the balance of probabilities that they suffered ill health (and therefore lost time from work) as a consequence of any landlord breach.

Sometimes, tenancies simply do not work, and this appears to be such a case. As I have noted, room-by-room tenancies can be problematic. That some of the landlord’s text messages were unprofessional and rude does establish a claim for compensation. The landlord clearly believed that the tenants were after what he called a ‘ransom’; in other words, they wanted to make money from him. That is not a conclusion the Tribunal would draw. However, hurt feelings do not attract compensation.

I find no breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment. The landlord was simply replying to their communications, albeit at times in a manner that was inflammatory. That he offered to release them from the tenancy at short notice was to their advantage; it cannot be misconstrued as an unlawful termination notice. That is what they wanted and what they got.

The tenants sought orders as a means of protecting other tenants. The landlord gave evidence that he has not received any complaints from the other tenants. The Tribunal does not make declarations or orders of a general nature for the benefit of persons who are not parties to the application. Result

The application is dismissed. Name suppression

The tenants sought a name suppression order. I make no order as application is not successful 2 .

Reasons