What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5350157 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 5350157?

The reconciled net award was $1,000.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5350157?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5350157?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13160225-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5350157 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 5350157?

The reconciled net award was $1,000.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5350157?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5350157?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13160225-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

135 Sunset Road, Totara Vale, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5350157 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 19 January 2026.

The tenant claimed for the premises being an unlawful premises and exemplary damages for the premises not meeting the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”), mould issues, failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre and for retaliatory notice.

The landlord had applied for rent arrears and termination of the tenancy, but the landlord withdrew the application.

Therefore, I only deal with the tenant’s claims. Background

On 9 February 2024, the parties entered into a “flat/external room – sharing agreement”. The premises was a two-level house with the landlord living on the top floor and the tenant on the bottom. Both levels are self-contained but the bottom floor was missing proper kitchen facilities. There was a fridge, microwave and a kettle only.

The tenant was called a “flatmate” in the flat/external room – sharing agreement and it specified that he was not allowed to use or bring into the room any cooking appliances which were not already provided. It specified no electric stove or air fryer were allowed.

The agreed rent was $250.00 per week which included water, internet and electricity.

In June 2025, the landlord approached the tenant and told him that they were planning to move to Australia. The landlord gave the tenant an advanced verbal notice that he would need to move out around the beginning of September 2025.

Around the end of July 2025, the landlord told the tenant that he needed to move out by 26 September 2025 as new tenants had been found to take over the whole house. The landlord confirmed this by letter on 18 September 2025.

Again, on 22 September 2025, the landlord gave formal notice to the tenant to vacate the premises on 13 October 2025.

On 26 September 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord stating that he had received legal advice and that they were in a proper tenancy subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and not in a flatmate situation. The tenant insisted on a 90 days’ notice as per the RTA as well as requesting the bond to be lodged with the Bond Centre, compliance confirmation with the HHS and asked for correct notice periods to be followed before any visits.

The tenant also stated that he had spoken to the new tenants who confirmed that they were happy for him to stay and alleged that the landlord gave the termination notice in retaliation of him using a hotplate and an air fryer.

On 14 October 2025, the tenant applied to the Tenancy Tribunal for the claims mentioned above.

The parties attended the Tenancy Tribunal hearing on 1 December 2025 via videoconference to determine whether the RTA applied to this tenancy or not. Adjudicator Manhire had found that the RTA applied to this tenancy.

The parties then appeared before me for adjudication on the substantive claims.

At the hearing, the tenant confirmed that he was moving out on 25 January 2026. Claims

The tenant claimed that the downstairs area was not built for residential use and did not have valid consent or Code Compliance Certificates (“CCC”). The tenant investigated and found that council records show only building consent for carport and retaining wall and not for a residential dwelling.

The tenant also said that the unit does not have a kitchenette but only a small fridge and a microwave were provided.

The tenant sought for 50 per cent of the rent to be refunded back to him.

The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises under section 77(2)(ac) RTA. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.

Where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful, it must not make an order for rent arrears or compensation against the tenant unless, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, it would be unjust not to make the order. The Tribunal may order the return of all rent paid by the tenant, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. The Tribunal may also make a work order requiring the landlord to remove any impediment to lawful occupation or to comply with any building, health or safety requirements. The Tribunal may make any of these orders on its own initiative, even if the tenant has not applied for a particular order. See sections 78A(3)(a), (4) and (5) RTA.

The landlord’s lawyer ultimately could not argue that the plumbing for the sleepout downstairs was not consented. Therefore, technically it was an unlawful premise. There was no evidence on whether consent or CCC were actually required for the downstairs area.

In relation to all other claims, I accept that the landlord would not have believed that they were subject to the RTA. The landlord had not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre or bother with getting the downstairs HHS compliant initially.

However, when they were notified of such possibility, the landlord went ahead and started making the downstairs area compliant with HHS.

The tenant also raised mould issues, but the tenant confirmed that mould issues started early winter. He confirmed that he did not run any dehumidifiers at the time. There was no evidence to suggest that the mould was due to any structural defects at the premises or the fact that it was not consented to.

From the photos, I could not see any obvious mould issues with the premises.

For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) RTA.

The tenant claimed that he was being asked to leave due to him having a hotplate and an air fryer. Having a full kitchen would be a right guaranteed under regulations 5 and 7 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947.

However, the landlord made it clear that the tenant was required to move out due to new tenants moving in. The new tenants actually did move in, and the landlord was stuck with not being able to rent out the house in its entirety because the tenant downstairs was refusing to move out. The new tenants could not rent out the downstairs to the tenant separately due to the same legal problem the landlord was facing. There is no problem with the landlord renting out the house in its entirety to the new tenant.

I do not find that the termination notice was given in retaliation at all.

For exemplary damages to be awarded, the Tribunal must first find that the landlord had has committed an unlawful act. Further to that, the Tribunal must find that the landlord had committed the unlawful act intentionally.

The Tribunal may then 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. See section 109(3) RTA.

I do not find that there was any intentional breach of the RTA by the landlord. I accept that the landlord genuinely believed that this was a flatmate situation by virtue of the landlord living upstairs and sharing the laundry facilities with him.

The landlord had done what they could once they realised that the RTA may be applicable.

I do not find that there is any public interest in ordering exemplary damages against the landlord in the circumstances.

However, I order the landlord to pay the tenant $1,000.00 in acknowledgment of the unlawfulness of the downstairs area. This acknowledges that the premises otherwise had no issues.

Reasons