What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5349282 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5349282?

Compensation: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Immediately, Being: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5349282?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5349282?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12829770-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5349282 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5349282?

Compensation: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Immediately, Being: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5349282?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5349282?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12829770-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

21 Portsmouth Street, Aranui, Christchurch 8061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5349282 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5349282. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
immediately, being	$1,500.00		immediately, being
compensation and	$28.00		compensation and

All parties attended the hearing.

The tenants claim compensation and exemplary damages for breaches of the landlord’s obligations relating to the condition of premises and interference with their goods. Background

The tenancy of 21 Portsmouth Street began in September 2023.

In April 2025 the tenants were moved to premises at 11a Meon Street while the landlord refurbished 21 Portsmouth Street. They moved back to 21 Portsmouth Street in September. I will call 11a Meon Street the premises because this application concerns that property.

There is a separate single garage at the premises and when the tenants moved there. They stored some of their belongings in the garage. They had stored some of their belongings in the garage at Portsmouth Street as well, and they had more need to use the garage at the premises because the premises were smaller.

In August, they discovered that many of their belongings in the garage were damaged by mould. They informed the landlord and told them that they were holding them responsible for the damage. The landlord denied responsibility.

In September, the landlord informed the tenants that Portsmouth Street would be ready for reoccupation, and they were given some information about when and how that would occur.

On 18 September, movers arranged by the landlord moved most of the tenants’ belongings from the premises to Portsmouth Street. On 19 September the tenants returned to the premises to collect the last of their belongings and clean and tidy the premises. When they arrived, they found the landlord’s contractors there, and most of their remaining belongings put into wool sacks, apparently destined for disposal. Some of their belongings appeared to have been set aside by the contractors for their own use.

The tenants now claim $4,669.64 being the depreciated value of their damaged belongings, up to $15,000 compensation for unlawful entry on 19 September, up to $20,000 for emotional distress, up to $6,000 compensation for interference with their goods, and compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises. The tenants also claim exemplary damages unspecified in amount. Law

Under s45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), a landlord must, relevantly, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety and comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.

A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00.

Sections 60 and 60A of the Act impose certain obligations on a landlord who finds a tenant’s belongings left at the premises after the tenant has vacated. The landlord must first contact the tenant to arrange a time for them to collect the belongings. If that fails, they must store anything that has a saleable value. Discussion and Decision Maintenance

The tenants’ claim relating to the landlord’s maintenance obligations concerns the garage at the premises. Garages are not habitable spaces and the landlord’s obligations relating to them differ from those relating to dwellings generally.

The landlord has an obligation to maintain them in a reasonable state of repair having regard to their age and character. Generally, that obligation requires the landlord to keep garages watertight and useable for the purposes that garages are ordinarily used for. The HHS do not apply to garages because they are not habitable spaces. The relevant regulations refer to “domestic living space” or “habitable space” or relate specifically to areas of a dwelling.

There is no evidence that the garage was not watertight. The garage was not in perfect condition, but it was in a reasonable state of repair for a garage of its age and character.

Garages are ordinarily used for parking a vehicle. They are also used as a work area and for storage. There are other uses to which they can be put depending on their suitability. The garage in this case is a typical older style single garage separate from the house. Such a garage is not, in my view, suitable for storing clothing or other items that are vulnerable to damage from dampness.

People do store clothing and other items vulnerable to dampness in garages and basements but when they do so, they are, or should be, aware of the risk that they could be suffer the effects of dampness. That risk can be mitigated by protecting the items by storing them in containers or otherwise protecting them from the effects of dampness and by checking on them at frequent intervals for signs that dampness is affecting them.

In this case, the tenants have stored clothing and other vulnerable items without considering the possibility that they could be affected by dampness. That was their evidence.

The tenants said that they had stored their belongings in the garage at Portsmouth Street without any adverse effects, but that does not mean that they could assume that the garage at the premises would provide the same protection.

The tenants took a risk storing their belongings in the garage at the premises and they did not take any precautions. The landlord’s obligations regarding the garage were limited, and they did not include ensuring that it was free of damp.

The tenants have not identified any breach of the landlord’s obligations regarding the garage and so their claim for compensation for damage to their belongings must be dismissed. Events of 19 September

The tenants were moved to the premises temporarily while Portsmouth Street was being renovated. The accommodation changed, but the parties’ obligations under the Act and the tenancy agreement did not. The tenant’s obligation to pay rent continued as did their other obligations. The landlord’s obligations also continued, including their obligations relating to entry to the premises and in relation to the tenants’ goods on the premises.

On 9 September the landlord sent the tenants a letter stating that • their time at the premises was coming to an end and that the movers were booked for 18 September. • the writer would “reach out to you prior to the relocation to exchange keys”. • “When you leave the temporary accommodation, make sure all rubbish is removed and the property clean and tidy”.

The tenants said that they did not receive the letter, and I accept that. Whether they received the letter is not relevant to my decision.

On 16 September the landlord texted the tenants to say that the move was booked for 18 September, and they would get the keys the day before. It confirmed that a letter was dropped into their letter box the previous week. The tenants said that they did not see the text. That too is not relevant.

One of the tenants gave evidence that she received a call from the landlord on 17 September and during the conversation the landlord agreed that they could have until Monday 22 September to vacate the premises and return the keys.

The landlord’s employee who made the call said that she could not recall the content of the conversation. The tenants produced evidence of the call, and plainly it took place. I also accept the tenant’s evidence that they were given until 22 September to vacate the premises. I have no reason not to. They had a clear recollection of the conversation, their conduct on and after 19 September was entirely consistent with their evidence and it makes sense that they would want more time after the movers had been and gone to remove rubbish and clean and tidy the premises. I also found the tenants to be reliable and credible witnesses generally.

The key point here is that there is no evidence that the landlords informed the tenants as to when they were required to vacate the premises and return the keys. There was no “reaching out” prior to the relocation to exchange keys as stated in the 9 September letter. I have accepted the tenant’s evidence about the conversation on 17 September, but even if that conversation had not occurred, I would have found that the tenants remained in lawful occupation of the premises until there was an agreement or at least a clearly communicated expectation that they would vacate by a certain date.

It follows that the entry to the premises by the landlord’s agents on 19 September was unlawful. The landlord should not have instructed them to enter. When they did enter, I find that as the landlord’s agents, they were required to comply with the landlord’s obligations under ss60 and 60A. Before doing anything with the tenant’s belongings, they were required to contact the tenants (and there would have been no difficulty doing so) and arranged a time for the tenants to collect their belongings.

Instead, they interfered with the tenant’s belongings and apparently intended to make off with some of them. I don’t blame them for that. The blame lies with the landlord. Their process was inadequate, and their communication was lacking. Remedy

The entry to the premises by the landlord’s agents on 19 September was an unlawful act under s48 of the Act. I find that it was not intentional. I accept that the landlord acted on the assumption that the tenants had vacated. Therefore, there is no basis on which to award exemplary damages. As I have said, there was a failure of process and communication.

The tenants are entitled to compensation. The tenants were shocked and distressed to find the landlord’s agents in the premises when they rightly believed that they still in lawful possession of them. Their distress was exacerbated by the way in which the agents were treating their belongings and the realisation that had they not arrived when they did, their belongings would have been disposed of.

I must also consider the fact that the tenants were not living at the premises at the time. They had largely moved out. The agents were, rightly, apologetic.

Taking all things into consideration I find that compensation in the sum of $1,500 to be appropriate. The tenants have had some success and so I have awarded them the filing fee. For the same reason I have granted them name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5349282. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
immediately, being	$1,500.00		immediately, being
compensation and	$28.00		compensation and