What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356262 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 5356262?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356262?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356262?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13341948-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356262 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 5356262?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356262?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356262?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13341948-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5356262 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
Both Barfoot & Thompson Limited and [The tenants] are dismissed for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove them on the balance of probabilities.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 February 2026.
Esther Allan-Davis appeared for the landlord.
[Tenants names suppressed] all appeared for the tenants.
The landlord applied for compensation, general damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. During the hearing, the landlord withdrew its claims for $346.00 for the “tenants mistakenly reporting maintenance issues that caused the Property Manager to do lots of work”.
The tenants applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 9 September 2025.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. There is a statutory limitation on when the Tribunal can consider exemplary damage claims. Section 109(2)(b) of the RTA places a limitation on a party’s ability to apply for exemplary damages 12 months or more after the date of commission of the unlawful act. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS Are the tenants liable for the roof check cost of $330.05?
The landlord gave evidence it had arranged a roof inspection promptly, within 4 days of having received a complaint by the tenants that the roof was leaking.
The roofing contractor has confirmed it found no evidence of any leaks during this inspection, but it had found some loose screws that it tightened. It also found that some of the ceiling insulation had slightly moved in places, so it put that insulation back into place to ensure any gaps were well covered.
The landlord is seeking $330.05 compensation to cover the cost of the roofer being called out for no good reason when it was proven that there were no roof leaks.
A tenant is required under section 40(1)(d) of the RTA to notify the landlord as soon as possible after the discovery of any damage to the premise or the need for any repairs. The tenants have complied with this obligation by reporting potential ceiling leaks which may have been contributing to the dampness and mould issue. The tenants evidence shows they acted under a reasonable belief the roof may be leaking. The contractor found some screws missing. These missing screws may had led to some water ingress.
I am satisfied the tenants, in raising potential roof leaks were acting in accordance with their s40(1)(d) of the RTA obligations and the landlord had a s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligation to investigate the tenants’ concerns and to undertake remediation of any issues identified. The landlord invested $330.05 in discharging its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligation and cannot on charge this cost to the tenants.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is dismissed for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the RTA obligations to the tenant?

[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is 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”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Breaching either of these s45(1) obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. Failure to maintain
The tenants gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to her attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances.
The landlord confirmed this premise is a three-bedroom, one bathroom weatherboard house thought to have been built in the 1920’s. It has been renovated and maintained by its various owners over the years.
The landlord produced routine property inspection reports that prove regular routine inspections have been undertaken by the landlord and that it has identified and addressed repair and maintenance issues that were identified during these inspections. A. Dampness and Black Mould
The tenants confirmed that from May 2022, they raised issues with their various property managers about mould on the bedroom ceilings, windows, windowsills and in the kitchen and bathroom.
On 15 May 2025, the tenants sent Joe Cao (property manager) an email outlining their ongoing and serious concerns relating to mould growth, ventilation, moisture ingress and ventilation. In this email, the tenants claim that all the landlord has done to address the mould issue is to paint over it without remedying the cause of it.
Two of the tenants work for a [details suppressed] company and they engaged their [details suppressed] team to carry out a professional moisture and mould assessment. The tenants say they paid for this assessment but did not provide a receipt or invoice for the work undertaken by [contractor name suppressed] on 12 May 2025. This report: a. Provides pages of moisture meter readings that are not well explained in the report. The report states, “moisture tests showed moisture points but didn’t have my thermal camera to pinpoint all the wet spots” and “we marked the wet spots we found and listed them on moisture map with photos”; b. We suggest a roof inspection by a specialist as “I guess” these high moisture readings are “a sign of a roof leak but there is no way to inspect behind without cutting into the ceiling as there is no roof cavity to inspect”; c. States “on inspection there is mould growing in the corners and sticky orange substance on the ceiling”; and d. Sets out some general recommendations for mould remediation in plasterboard that is not specific to any specific areas identified by the unnamed assessor.
The report does contain some photographs that show, from a distance, some mildew on the ceiling in the kid’s bedroom, living room and bathroom and mildew on some of the tenants’ belongings.
I have not found the [contractor name suppressed] report very helpful as it has failed to provide any data that shows any information about the moisture meter reader, or the infrared imaging to show where the moisture is, information about the normal moisture ranges in a house, and the scale of what is a low, moderate or high moisture reading. The report records the house as being damp, mould growing on belongings, the occupants becoming ill and mould appearing on the bedroom and bathroom ceilings that does not resolve with regular cleaning. There are no photographs of the orange sticky substance on the ceiling, and only a few of the other mould complained of by the tenants.
The tenants have interpreted this report as proving: a. Visible mould growth in the bathroom and bedrooms, particularly on ceilings and corners; b. A sticky orange substance on the bedroom ceiling; c. Moisture readings across multiple areas that suggest possible roof leaks; d. Thermal imaging that revealed wet spots, indicating roof leaks that are ongoing historical leaks; e. Fascia boards and ceiling cavities that are suspected of being compromised by water ingress, likely due to overflowing gutters and poor insulation; f. Mould contamination of personal items.
As a result of this [contractor name suppressed] report, the tenants required the landlord to: a. Engage a qualified roof specialist to investigate the roof for leaks; b. Remove and replace all affected ceiling panels, with proper decontamination of underlying framing; c. Installation and upgrade of a complaint ventilation system through the house; d. An assessment of the property’s insulation and heating, with necessary upgrades to ensure full compliance.
The 29 September 2022 property inspection report records no visible signs of mould or dampness in the bedrooms and there being some mould behind the fee standing bath and the wall the tenant does not feel comfortable cleaning. The photographs from this inspection do not suggest there is a significant dampness and mould issue throughout the house but does indicate a potential leak in the bathroom.
The 11 May 2023 property inspection report records no visible signs of mould or dampness in the house but does mention the need for better ventilation of the premise by the tenants in the bedrooms and bathroom, particularly opening curtains and blinds. The photographs from this inspection do not suggest there is a significant dampness and mould issue throughout the house but does show closed blinds in bedrooms and some slight mildew on the bathroom wall and corner of the ceiling.
The 8 August 2023 property inspection report records some gutters that require clearing as they are blocked with debris, no visible signs of mould or dampness in the house, except the bathroom ceiling, which the tenants have tried to clean but the mould returns, and no visible leaks. The photographs from this inspection do not suggest there is a significant dampness and mould issue throughout the house but does show closed blinds in lounge.
The 6 August 2024 property inspection report records no obvious leaks or mould or dampness. The photographs from this inspection do not suggest there is a significant dampness and mould issue throughout the house but does show closed blinds in the bedrooms and lounge. An email dated 23 January 2024, shows the tenants were reluctant to open their bedroom windows due to a broken garage bin lid of a bin that was located outside the window.
On 27 June 2024, the property manager sent the tenants an email that confirms he has done an inspection and there is some slight mould that has resulted from the room not being adequately ventilated.
The 21 July 2025 property inspection report again does not record any evident dampness, moisture, mould or leak issues, nor do the inspection photographs.
The tenants produced evidence they: a. Commissioned a cleaner to undertake a full deep clean of the house to remove all the mould, including sanitizing the walls in May 2025; and b. Engaged a technician from [contractor name suppressed] in July 2025 to clean the mould in the bathroom. This contractor informed the tenants “the paint used on the ceiling is the wrong type for the bathroom lacking a semi- gloss finish. The mould is penetrating and staining the paint. I would recommend sanding off the existing paint and using a semi-gloss finish so the mould can be wiped off easier until the mould problem is remedied”.
Lastly, the tenants produced photographic evidence of mildew that has grown over their belongings, in cupboards, on window glass and frames, on furniture (including on a new bed purchased in June 2025) and on food jars.
The landlord had produced evidence that: a. It arranged to have a contractor come to clean the mould off the bathroom ceiling on around 20 October 2022, after the tenants confirmed, at the 29 September 2022 inspection, they did not want to undertake that work as they were concerned about potential health implications if they were to do so. The landlord confirmed to the tenants that thereafter cleaning any mould that regrew would be their responsibility to address; b. On 1 March 2023, the landlord had the bathroom leak investigated and remediated after the tenants’ raised concerns; c. After the 8 August 2023 routine inspection, it had the blocked gutters cleaned and cleared by the 15 August 2023 and repainted the ceilings by 21 August 2023 (including sanding the ceiling and painting it with mould resistant paint); d. No roof leaks were identified, and the roof was found by the contractors to be in reasonable condition, bar a few loose screws that were replaced; e. The insulation was largely intact when the roofers investigated the potential roof leak and when they found a few pieces of insulation had moved slightly, they re-positioned them to cover any gaps; f. The premise had a compliant ground moisture barrier that ensured moisture from the ground could not rise into the premise; and g. The premise had healthy homes compliant externally venting extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen.
Additionally, the landlord claims that it is well established in other Tenancy Tribunal cases that a tenant and the landlord both have an obligation to take steps to prevent mould developing in the premise. It states the tenant’s obligation falls under the s40(1)(a) of the RTA obligation to keep the property reasonably clean and tidy, which it says includes keeping the property ventilated by opening windows, avoiding draying washing inside, wiping down walls and window from condensation, and cleaning off mould that appears during the tenancy. It also notes that clause [12] of the tenancy agreement provides an express requirement the tenants ventilate the premise.
The landlord claims the tenants were reminded several times to ventilate premise by opening the windows as it had observed during routine property inspections that the windows were always closed. Further, it states a detailed email was sent to the tenants in May 2025 about ways to prevent mould, following the tenants’ complaint about roof leaks being proven to have no substance.
The landlord claims the mould is nothing more than mildew that has grown on curtains, windows and ceilings because of the premise being kept shut up and not ventilated, in addition to the tenants not regularly cleaning any mildew that starts to form on these surfaces. The landlord notes that it advised the tenants to ventilate on 16 May 2025 and provided written instructions on how to minimise condensation and clean curtains.
The landlord also raised in its defence to the tenants’ repair and maintenance claims, section 45(4) of the RTA. This section of the RTA provides that a landlord has no obligation to repair any damage, or compensate the tenant for any want of repair, arising from any breach by the tenant of any obligations imposed on the tenants by s40 of the RTA.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves there was mildew in the house, rather than toxic black mould or black mould. The photographs provided by the parties shows a white/grey/brown powdery mildew growing on the surface of the ceiling, windowsills, bathroom wall and on the tenants’ belongings and furniture. The food container shows a fuzzy white/grey surface mould growing around the lid, that is not typical of mildew. These types of moulds generally grow in conditions where the surfaces are damp due to lack of regular ventilation by the opening of curtains, blinds, windows and doors and failing to use appliances like a dehumidifier or heater to clear the condensation that develops in a house just from normal day to day use. Condensation on windows often makes blinds and curtains damp and mildew then grows on the blinds/curtains and leaves stains when the curtains are washed.
I have not seen any evidence that proves there was black, red or green mould growing throughout the house or that there was evidence of toxic black mould anywhere in the house.
The landlord has provided evidence that proves it took all reasonable steps in a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances to investigate and try to remediate the tenants mildew issues. The evidence had not proven on the balance of probabilities that there were identified and un-remediated leaks that were causing an ongoing dampness and mould issue throughout the house. Any identified issues, such as the leak in the bathroom were fixed, and both parties engaged professional cleaners to clean the mildew in the bathroom at different times.
The property inspection reports do not show a pattern of ongoing dampness and mould issues. They do show an ongoing pattern of failure to properly clean the mildew and ventilate the house sufficiently to stop mildew forming.
I dismiss the tenants claim for compensation and exemplary damages for alleged breach of the landlord’s s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations, because the tenants have not provided sufficient evidence to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities. The landlord has disproven the claim by proving it took steps in a reasonable timeframe to investigate and remediate any repair and maintenance issues raised by the tenants and that no such breach(es) have occurred. Failure to meet healthy homes standards
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 25 March 2022. Therefore, the landlord had 90 days from the commencement date to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards, being Thursday, 23 June 2022.
The landlord provided a healthy homes assessment report, dated 1 December 2020 that shows the premise was not complaint with the heating, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage standards. It proved it had the recommended remediation work completed by 1 January 2021 and from that date it was heathy homes complaint. The landlord installed additional heating, the bathroom fan was vented to outside, a ground moisture barrier was installed and all windows and door gaps were addressed. It relied on this assessment as proof the premise was still healthy homes compliant on 23 June 2022. Additionally, the landlord’s evidence proves the gutters were cleared in August 2023, after the 8 August 2023 routine property inspection showed the gutters needed to be cleaned to ensure ongoing compliance with the moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The tenants say the healthy homes assessment was not accurate as healthy homes inspections only look at surface issues and are not invasive when determining if the premise meets insulation and moisture and drainage standards. They maintain the premise did not comply with four of the healthy homes’ standards, being ventilation, insulation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping as at the compliance date.
The landlord provided evidence it commissioned a new healthy homes assessment on 19 May 2025, after the tenants emailed it about mould at the property to check whether the premise was still compliant with standards such as ventilation, draught stopping and insulation, being areas that could potentially be linked to mould. The healthy homes assessment report, dated 19 May 2025, indicated there was some draught stopping required but otherwise the premise was compliant. The reassessment, dated 4 July 2025, shows the premise is certified as compliant again after these draught stopping issues (in bedroom 1 and 2, living room, kitchen and dining room) had been addressed by the landlord’s contractors by the end of May 2025. The landlord also provided proof it had engaged contractors to add webbing to hold down the ceiling insulation, ensure any ceiling insulation that had moved was back in place and secure. The photographs provided by the contractor, on 4 July 2025 ,shows no signs of mould or dampness in the ceiling cavity or in the insulation material and that all the gaps in windows have been addressed. The close-up insulation photographs appear to show dirt and dust rather than mould.
The landlord has also provided reports that prove the house complies with the smoke alarm regulations and has done since the tenancy commenced. A. Insulation
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has failed to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
The tenants claim the 19 May 2025 healthy homes assessment report incorrectly records the premise as being compliant with this standard when it was not.
The landlord confirmed: a. The premise was certified as fully compliant with the insulation standard on 1 December 2020; b. Insulation can move overtime and when the landlord had the premise reassessed on 19 May 2025, some of the insulation had moved. The landlord produced evidence that proves the moved insulation was put back into place on 20 May 2025 and on 4 July 2025 the reassessment passed the premise against this standard. This work was completed in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances.
There has been no evidence that proves the insulation standard was not met on 23 June 2022, being the compliance date for this tenancy. After any healthy homes assessment, a landlord is required to ensure it undertakes necessary repairs and maintenance to ensure the premise remains compliant. Most healthy homes assessors recommend a new healthy homes assessment be undertaken every two years to ensure standards, that do not fall within those that are routinely assessed during routine property inspections, are investigated and any issues remediated. The landlord has proven it had a reassessment completed in May 2025, as soon as the tenants’ raised concerns about ongoing mould, and it has also proven it undertook regular routine inspections where it took note of the premise’s ongoing compliance against as many healthy homes standard as practicable.
I dismiss the tenants claim for exemplary damages for breach of the insulation standard, for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. The landlord has disproven the claim by proving the premise complied with this standard in January 2021 and again in July 2025. There was no evidence produced to show the premise did not comply with this standard on 23 June 2022. B. Ventilation
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the ventilation standard.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The landlord confirmed the 1 December 2020 healthy homes assessment report, the 19 May 2025 healthy homes reassessment and the 4 July 2025 healthy homes reassessment report prove: a. All habitable rooms in a rental property had at least one window, door or skylight which opens to the outside and can be fixed in the open position. b. In each room, the size of the openable windows, doors and skylights together were at least 5% of the floor area of that room. c. Each window door, window or skylight was openable and able to remain fixed in an open position. d. The kitchen and bathrooms has compliant externally venting extractor fans.
I dismiss the tenants claim for exemplary damages for breach of the ventilation standard, for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. The landlord has disproven the claim by proving the premise complied with this standard in January 2021 and again in July 2025. There was no evidence produced to show the premise did not comply with this standard on 23 June 2022. C. .Draught Stopping
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the draught stopping standard.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The landlord confirmed the 1 December 2020 healthy homes assessment report, the 1 January 2021 reassessment report and the 4 July 2025 healthy homes reassessment report prove the premise complied with the draught stopping standard.
The landlord accepts the 19 May 2025 healthy homes re-assessment report showed there were some draught stopping issues that had developed since the last assessment. It is not unusual for door or windows to move or for draught stopping tape to wear over time. Checking for draughts and addressing any draughts found is part of the routine property inspections and ongoing maintenance requirements of a premise. The landlord proved these draughts were addressed in May 2025 and the healthy homes reassessment report dated 4 July 2025 proves these draught stopping issues had been resolved and the premise was fully compliant with the standard again.
I dismiss the tenants claim for exemplary damages for breach of the draught stopping standard, for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. The landlord has disproven the claim by proving the premise complied with this standard in January 2021 and again in July 2025. There was no evidence produced to show the premise did not comply with this standard on 23 June 2022. D. Moisture Ingress and Drainage
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space if it is reasonably practical to do so.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The landlord confirmed the 1 December 2020 healthy homes assessment report, the 1 January 2021 reassessment report and the 4 July 2025 healthy homes reassessment report prove the premise complied with the moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The landlord also confirmed that it had the gutters cleaned in August 2023 after a routine inspection on 8 August 2023 showed some debris had built up in the guttering.
I dismiss the tenants claim for exemplary damages for breach of the moisture ingress and drainage standard, for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. The landlord has disproven the claim by proving the premise complied with this standard in January 2021 and again in July 2025. There was no evidence produced to prove the premise did not comply with this standard on 23 June 2022. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because neither the landlord nor the tenants have been wholly or substantially successful with their claims, I dismiss both parties’ application for reimbursement of their filing fees. Name Suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants have not wholly or substantially succeeded in these proceedings. However, I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356262 — 14-day notice

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356262 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions