What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5349031 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 5349031?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5349031?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5349031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13056482-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5349031 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 5349031?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5349031?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5349031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13056482-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5349031 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant appeared. [ Suppressed representatives] appeared for the landlord.
The tenancy commenced on 12 September 2025 for a fixed term ending 12 September 2026. Shortly after the commencement, the tenant expressed concerns that the property had defects rendering it uninhabitable. On 23 September 2025, the tenant filed a claim that the landlord had failed to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards, and sought to reduce the fixed term. On what appears to be a without prejudice basis, while the landlord did not accept that any defects rendered the property uninhabitable, the parties agreed to bring the fixed term to an end, and the tenancy ended on 5 October 2025. There were no break lease fees, and the bond was refunded to the tenant in full.
The tenant’s claims are that the landlord has failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards in relation to insulation, moisture ingress and drainage, ventilation, and draught stopping. The tenant also claims that the Healthy Homes Statement provided with the tenancy agreement was false. Further, the tenant claims that the landlord has failed to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable condition. The tenant is seeking compensation for loss of amenity equal to a full rent refund and, where applicable, exemplary damages.
The onus in proofing these claims rests with the tenant. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. The tenant must establish more likely than not that the landlord has breached the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act).
The Tribunal has considered the material provided, which includes photographs, and has heard oral evidence from both parties. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it.
Both parties have also provided letters from builders. The Tribunal heard oral evidence from the landlord’s builder, and the tenant provided video footage of the property. Healthy Homes Standards Insulation
The tenant has produced a photograph taken under the house, showing a section of underfloor insulation missing beneath the kitchen. The tenant states that the photographs also show the insulation is in a generally poor condition. There is also no ground moisture barrier. The tenant claims that one of the photographs shows what the tenant describes as rotten floorboards and a roughly circular hole about 7 cm in diameter in the floor above one of the missing insulation panels.
The landlord states that when their builder visited the property on 18 September 2025 to inspect the piles, they did not notice any missing insulation. The landlord accepts that one of the photographs shows a small section of a panel of insulation slightly sagging in one corner.
The landlord states that a moisture barrier is not required, as the subfloor space under the house is not enclosed and has sufficient ventilation to be exempt. The landlord states that there are no holes in the kitchen floor and that any holes had been patched.
The tenant denies that they removed insulation to take the photographs. Moisture ingress and drainage
The tenant claims that a section of guttering at the back door is not connected to a drainpipe, and that a section of guttering along the side of a shed is severely degraded.
The landlord states that when the matter was raised by the tenant, they contacted the contractor who completed the Healthy Homes report in 2021 and questioned whether there was a requirement to provide guttering on the shed, which is not deemed a habitable space, and were advised that they did not. Regardless, the landlord states that on 23 September 2025 they created a work order to repair the guttering, which was completed shortly after the end of the tenancy. The landlord denies that there is any issue with the drainage by the back door, noting that there are two downpipes: one is redundant, and the other is connected to the guttering. Ventilation
The tenant states that some of the windows were unable to be opened. The landlord states that the property had been recently painted and that some of the windows were sticking. Draught stopping
The tenant produced a series of photographs of the interior windows and window frames taken on 19 September 2025, which they state show unacceptable gaps resulting in draughts. The tenant also stated that some of the window frames show signs of black mould. The tenant states that they raised the issues with the landlord on 15 September 2025, and that despite a contractor visiting the property on 18 September 2025 and completing additional draught stopping, the draughts remained unresolved and rendered some of the bedrooms unusable.
The landlord stated that draught stopping work had been completed in June 2025, prior to the commencement of the tenancy. When the matter was raised by the tenant, they responded by sending a contractor who carried out further draught stopping where required. The landlord submitted that none of the gaps showed daylight and that given the age of the property, and the nature of the joinery, an accurate assessment required observing the windows from the exterior as well as the interior.
Neither builder commented on draught stopping in their letters. The landlord’s builder gave evidence that he had visited the property on 18 September 2025, and completed additional draught stopping, and freed windows that had become stuck by recent painting. He stated that, in his view, none of the remaining gaps created a draught issue.
He explained that due to the age of the property and as the joinery was wooden, the windows did not seal in the same way as modern windows and required space allowing for expansion and contraction. He further explained that apparent gaps had to be viewed from the outside, noting that any apparent from the inside did not necessarily indicate gaps visible from the exterior. Law
Section 45(1) (bb) requires the landlord to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS), which set out the minimum requirements for heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping for residential rental properties. The HHS standards for this tenancy applied at the commencement of the tenancy. The HHS is in addition to the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR), which also set out requirements for residential properties. The obligations created under the HHS are greater than those under the HIR.
The Healthy Homes Standards require all rental properties to have adequate ceiling and underfloor insulation meeting minimum R-values. Exemptions for underfloor insulation apply in situations where it is not reasonably practicable to install insulation. The insulation must be maintained in a reasonable condition.
The property must have effective drainage systems to remove storm and ground water from the tenancy building, and a ground moisture barrier if there is an enclosed subfloor space, unless it is not reasonably practicable to install one. A subfloor space is considered enclosed if the space is obstructed by any permanent or semi-permanent structure that significantly restricts airflow to the area beneath the house. The purpose of a ground moisture barrier is to reduce moisture rising from the ground into the home, which can contribute to dampness and mould. Under Regulation 3 of the HHS a "tenancy building" refers to the building or part of a building that is subject to a residential tenancy.
Ventilation must be provided through openable windows or doors in all habitable rooms, and extractor fans vented to the outside. Landlords must also ensure there are no unreasonable gaps or holes in walls, ceilings, windows, floors, or doors that cause noticeable draughts.
Section 13A(1CA) of the Act requires that every tenancy agreement must include a statement by the landlord about the property’s compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards.
Under section 13A(1F) (b) the landlord commits an unlawful act if the statement includes anything that the landlord knows to be false or misleading. Analysis and decision Insulation
The landlord’s builder stated that their inspection on 18 September 2025 had primarily been to investigate the condition of the piles and underfloor structure. That they had crawled a few metres under the house and shone their torch on the area beneath the kitchen which was partially obscured by plumbing and other pipes. They stated that the insulation appeared to be okay but could not comment definitively on the presence or condition of insulation beneath the kitchen.
Both parties questioned the qualifications of the other party’s builder. The tenant’s builder has signed their letter quoting their licenced builder registration number. The landlord states that the tenant’s builder is not currently and should not be using the reference. The tenant believes that their builder’s registration is in the process of being renewed, although they were unable to contact the builder to give oral evidence. The tenant notes that the landlord’s builder is not licenced. The landlord’s builder stated that they had over 22 years’ experience as a builder and did not personally hold a licence as it was not required as they were employed by other builders who had certification. There is no evidence that either builder is unqualified to make observations although I have had the benefit of hearing from the landlord’s builder.
I accept that the tenant did not remove the insulation to take the photograph. I am satisfied that more likely than not the section of insulation beneath the kitchen was missing at the commencement of the tenancy.
Neither builder took photographs during their respective inspections. The tenant’s builder states there was signs of rot. There is a doubt as to whether the landlord’s builder sufficiently investigated that particular area. It falls to the Tribunal to make an objective assessment. Although the tenant’s photographs show degradation in the area concerned, there is insufficient evidence for me to be satisfied that this degradation is affecting the structural integrity of the floor above. While there is a hole in the floor, it appears to be covered from the top, it is difficult to determine whether it has been patched or is covered by the vinyl flooring above.
I am satisfied that there has been a breach of the insulation standard as far as a section is missing. I am not satisfied that the remainder of the insulation is not in a reasonable condition. Moisture ingress and drainage
The property is a bungalow built in 1923 and consists of four bedrooms, conservatory, toilet, bathroom, kitchen / dining room, and laundry.
The house sits on piles approximately 500cm above the ground. The subfloor space is enclosed by slatted trellis, typical for a property of its age. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the trellis allows airflow beneath the house and does not significantly restrict ventilation to the subfloor space.
Accordingly, I find that the subfloor space is not enclosed for the purposes of the HHS that therefore a ground moisture barrier is not required.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that while there are two downpipes at the back door one is redundant as it is not connected to any guttering. The photographs clearly show the relevant section of guttering is connected to a downpipe.
The shed, described in the pre-tenancy checklist as an old shed, and not a habitable space, nevertheless forms part of the tenancy and therefore falls within the definition of a tenancy building. As such, it is required to have an effective drainage system.
I am not satisfied there is a breach of the drainage standard in relation to the guttering by the back door. However, the guttering along the shed is in very poor condition, is rusted, and has large holes in it. In my assessment it is not an effective drainage system. Ventilation
There was insufficient evidence before me to establish that the landlord had failed to comply with the ventilation standards. I am not satisfied that a breach has occurred, and the claim is dismissed. Draught stopping
No daylight can be seen through gaps. The tenant’s builder does not comment on draught stopping. I accept the evidence of the landlord and the landlord’s builder that making a proper, objective assessment involves viewing the windows from the outside as well. The onus is on the tenant to establish that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations. There was insufficient evidence before me to establish that the landlord had failed to comply with the draught stopping standards. I am not satisfied that a breach has occurred, and the claim is dismissed. False HHS statement
The tenant claims that as the property has failed to comply with the insulation standard, that the HHS compliance statement provided with the tenancy agreement was false.
An unlawful act requires proof that the landlord knew that the statement was false or misleading. Based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that this occurred. It is more likely that the insulation was removed without the landlord’s knowledge, likely by a contractor on a previous occasion. Compensation and exemplary damages
The established breach relates to the underfloor insulation only. The tenant seeks compensation for loss of amenity, no financial loss has been proven. The tenancy lasted only for 25 days during the spring period. I am not satisfied that the missing section of insulation located under the kitchen resulted in a loss of amenity sufficient to justify an award of compensation.
A breach of section 45(1)(b) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded under section 109(3).
The Tribunal must consider the following factors before awarding exemplary damages: • Whether the unlawful act was committed intentionally. • The effect of the unlawful act. • The interests of the party harmed by the act. • The public interest. • Whether it is just to make the award.
In this case I decline to award exemplary damages. I am not satisfied that the breach was committed intentionally, that it resulted in a loss of amenity having a significant impact on the tenant, or that an award would be just in the circumstances. Failure to maintain.
The tenant claims that: • The piles and subfloor structure were damaged and unsafe, • There was an exposed pipe next to the toilet. • There was a bird nest in the roof cavity. • The storage shed stank of cat urine and was unusable. Piles and subfloor
The tenant states that during their initial inspection of the property they noticed that the rooms at the rear of the property were sloping. They accepted that this was not uncommon for a property of its age. The tenant states that upon moving into the property they discovered the issue was more significant than anticipated, affecting some internal doors. They raised the issue in an email to the landlord on 17 September 2025.
On the same date the tenant took photographs of the beneath the house, which have been produced. The tenant states the photographs show the piles and subfloor structure to be damaged and dangerous. The landlord sent their builder to investigate. On 19 September 2025, the landlord provided oral feedback to the tenant that there was nothing wrong with the piles.
On 20 September 2025, the tenant arranged for their own builder to conduct an inspection. The tenant’s builder reported that the house was structurally unsound due to sinking concrete piles, deteriorated timber piles, and subfloor elements. The builder formed the opinion that these issues posed safety and structural hazards. They suggested that piles should be replaced, and the damaged flooring repaired before the house was considered safe for continued occupation.
The tenant produced several short videos showing a ball placed on the floor rolling unaided, demonstrating the degree of slope, and of doors self-closing.
The tenant stated that they had spoken with the landlord’s builder who advised that the piles would need attention.
The landlord’s builder stated that they had visited the house and spoke briefly with the male tenant who was upstairs at the time. They stated that they entered beneath the house and inspected the piles and subfloor, paying particular attention to the area of the house where the internal slope was most noticeable. They disputed the tenant’s builder’s claim that the property was unsafe. They stated that the house was supported by wooden piles resting on concrete footings. They also noted that the ground in the area consisted of peat and clay. They advised that it was not uncommon for older properties to experience settlement of concrete footings, resulting in a gap where the wooden pile meets the subfloor structure. They stated that although some footings had settled and some of the wooden piles and subfloor showed signs of water staining and splitting, this was consistent with fair wear and tear and did not compromise the structural integrity of the property. They added that the settling could have occurred at any time over the property’s 100-year-plus lifetime and did not appear recent. They stated that after inspecting under the house, they did not speak with the male tenant before leaving. Exposed pipe next to toilet
The tenant produced a photograph showing a pipe protruding about 300mm from the floor. In the toilet, located in the corner next to the cistern. The pipe formed part of the original toilet system, which has long since been removed and replaced. The tenant stated this posed a health and safety risk.
The landlord stated that the matter was raised on 17 September 2025, included in the work order of 23 September 2025, and that the pipe was removed on 30 September 2025. Birds nest.
The tenant produced a photograph showing a bird’s nest in the roof cavity. The tenant advised the landlord of this issue on 17 September 2025.
The landlord stated that the matter was included in the work order dated 23 September 2025, and that on 30 September 2025 the nest was removed and the gap allowing the birds to enter was sealed. Shed
The tenant states that soon after the commencement of the tenancy they raised concerns about the shed. They state that the shed was unclean and smelt strongly of cat urine. The tenant states that the shed was described as being suitable for storage but was not. The tenant produced photographs of the interior and exterior of the shed.
The landlord states that soon after the issue was raised, they visited the property and sprayed a chemical designed to discourage cats from urinating in the area. The chemical reacts when it comes into contact with urine, which can be seen in the photographs. The landlord states the shed was described as suitable for storing bikes, lawn mowers, and gardening tools, but not much else, and that it did not have power. The landlord states that a gap through which cats had been entering the shed was identified and sealed shortly afterward. The landlord denies that the shed was not provided in a reasonably clean condition suitable for its intended use. Law
Section 45(1)(b) of the Act requires landlords to 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. A landlords should conduct regular inspections and must keep the property in good repair throughout the tenancy, considering its age and condition.
In Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV 2009 085-001431, 24 February 2010 the Court stated: “I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair the 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”.
Whether the landlord has failed to meet their obligations will involve an objective assessment of the evidence. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considered the evidence, I accept the evidence of the landlord and the landlord’s builder that, while there is evidence of deterioration to the piles and subfloor, this is consistent with a property of its age and does not pose an unacceptable risk to the property or its occupants. The foundations of older houses such as this often experience some degree of settlement, which may have occurred some time ago and did not necessarily pose an ongoing risk, even where it results in floors sloping or doors sticking.
The other alleged defects were not matters clearly obvious to the landlord prior to being notified. The protruding pipe in the toilet was located in the corner and had evidently been present for some time without causing incident. Having been advised of the issue relating to the pipe, the bird’s nest, and the shed, I am satisfied that the landlord has responded within a reasonable timeframe and acted appropriately in the circumstances. The claims that the landlord has failed to maintain the property in a reasonable condition are dismissed. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been substantially successful in defending the claims and is granted name suppression. There are no grounds on which to suppress the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5349031 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5349031 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions