What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5357270?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5357270?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5357270?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5357270?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13322383-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5357270?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5357270?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5357270?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5357270?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13322383-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

19 Mamaku Street, Paraparaumu, Paraparaumu 5032 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5357270 — Mould

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the ‘in person’ hearing.
The applicants claim that: a. The landlord provided premises that breached Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and failed to maintain the property. b. The landlord failed to provide a signed statement regarding HHS compliance c. The landlord’s agent unlawfully entered the premises without the correct notice. d. The landlord breached the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 regarding the DVS system. e. The landlord breached the tenants’ privacy regarding photos taken during an inspection. f. The mould in the premises was due to the premises being defective. g. The tenants were paying for hot water/electricity used by the other apartment in the building.
The applicants are required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Did the landlord provide premises that breached Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and fail to maintain the property?
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to comply with HHS.
To determine whether there was a breach of HHS, it is important to distinguish between HHS obligations and the requirement for landlords to maintain premises during a tenancy.
Where premises meet HHS at the start of a tenancy, but HHS work needs to be carried out because a fault occurs during the tenancy, that fault is not a breach of HHS. The fault is a maintenance issue for the landlord to remedy. A breach of the landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises occurs where a landlord does not remedy the fault within a reasonable time.
In 2021 the landlord contracted Sustainability Trust to provide a HHS Report for 19 Mamaku Street, Paraparaumu. That Report found that the premises complied with HHS in every respect. The tenants began their tenancy on 12 January 2025 and the Tenancy Agreement records that the landlord will comply with HHS.
About nine months after the tenancy began, the landlord contracted a HHS assessor, trading name ‘Oncore’, to carry out a Healthy Homes assessment. That assessment took place on 23 September 2025. The Report indicated that there were two windows which required repair, the living room heater’s heating capacity was inadequate and a bedroom smoke alarm was missing.
The landlord immediately arranged for repair of window catches.
Oncore mistakenly identified that the heat pump’s 5.1kw capacity was inadequate. Oncore had not taken into account that the heater was installed before 1 July 2019 and therefore the heater needed to be only 80% of the HHS standard for the volume of the living area.
Regarding the smoke alarm, there had been some communication between the landlord and tenants about the placement of a smoke alarm in the proximity of a bedroom however the alarm was moved back to where it needed to be. This was not a breach that warrants further comment.
The tenants stated that the bathroom extractor fan had an intermittent fault. They stated that the property manager turned the fan switch on during an inspection and the fan did not work. The landlord contracted an electrician to inspect the fan. The electrician’s invoice states that all connections were checked, and the fan was running. The invoice recorded the tenants’ statement that the fan didn’t run sometimes. The electrician did not find a fault but indicated it would be replaced if a problem persists.
The landlord stated that the new tenants have not reported a fault with the bathroom fan.
The tenants provided photos and a video showing a gutter overflowing when it was raining. They claimed this was a breach of HHS. However, both HHS reports stated that the drainage met HHS. The gutter overflowed because it could not handle the significant volume of water caused by extremely heavy rain that has been experienced in the Wellington area recently. The volume of rain also led to flooding and slips.
I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the property was HHS compliant but during the tenancy there were maintenance issues identified that related to HHS.
The tenants’ claim that the property failed HHS has not been proved. I am also satisfied that the landlord met its obligations to maintain the property during the tenancy.

Did the landlord fail to provide a signed statement regarding HHS compliance?

A stated above, the Tenancy Agreement signed by the parties contained a HHS compliance statement. A landlord is not required to provide a HHS Report to tenants at the commencement of the tenancy. Did the landlord’s agent unlawfully enter the premises without the correct notice?
The tenants claim that the landlord unlawfully entered the premises. They provided email evidence showing that a contractor gave 1 hour of notice to carry out work at the premises. They believe this was breach of the requirement to give 24 hours notice. When the tradesman arrived to carry out work, one of the tenants consented to him entering the premises to carry out the work.
Section 48(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides: The landlord shall not enter the premises during the currency of the tenancy agreement, except— with the consent of the tenant freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry;
The tenant gave consent to the contractor entering the property. The claim that there was unlawful entry must be dismissed. Did the landlord breach the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) regarding the

DVS system?

The tenants claim that the DVS system was did not function efficiently. The RTA and HHS do not require home to have a DVS system installed. There is therefore no regulation that sets a standard for the efficiency of DVS systems in rental properties. The landlord does have an obligation to maintain an system that is provided as part of a rental. However the tenants did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the DVS system was faulty and required repair.
The tenants’ claim regarding the DVS must therefore be dismissed. Did the landlord breached the tenants’ privacy regarding photos taken during an inspection?
The tenants claim that the landlord breached their privacy by taking photos during an inspection which included their personal possessions.
There is a photo of bedroom 3 which includes some small bottles on a dresser. It is not possible to read the labels on the bottles.
The photos were not for publication. They were not photos that were used to advertise the property.
In summary: i. The photos in the inspection document do not identify the tenants, ii. The bottles do not identify the tenants or the content of the bottles, iii. The photos were not for publication.
The photos taken are not a breach of the tenants’ privacy.

Was mould in the premises due to the premises being defective?

The tenants claimed that the landlord provided premises that were defective because there was mould in the premises. The witness they provided for the hearing supported their position.
Mould occurs in premises that are leaking. It can also appear in ‘healthy homes’ due to moisture and condensation from normal living.
The tenants gave their opinions about the cause of mould but did not provide scientific evidence to prove that the walls had a high moisture content or that mould spores in the building were abnormal. The level of mould in the premises was not sufficiently serious that it must be from water entering a defective building.
There is insufficient evidence that mould occurred because the premises was defective. Were the tenants paying for hot water/electricity used by the other apartment in the building?
The tenants provided photos which they believed showed that they may be paying for hot water in the other apartment. It is not possible to determine from the photos what the hot water system was at the property. The landlord stated that the properties were completely separate regarding water and power.
It is the tenants’ burden to prove their claim. They have not provided sufficient information to prove that they were paying for the other apartment’s hot water. The claim must be dismissed for lack of evidence. Conclusion
I have considered all matters raised by the tenants during the hearing and in their written evidence. I have also considered the landlord’s response. I am satisfied that there are no grounds for compensation regarding any of the matters raised by the tenants in their application. There are no grounds for any orders for exemplary damages. Filing Fee
The tenants have requested the Tribunal to order the filing fee be paid by the respondent.
The filing fee is only ordered to be paid by the other party where a party has been successful with their claim. The tenants have not been successful with the claim.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the ‘in person’ hearing.
The applicants claim that: a. The landlord provided premises that breached Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and failed to maintain the property. b. The landlord failed to provide a signed statement regarding HHS compliance c. The landlord’s agent unlawfully entered the premises without the correct notice. d. The landlord breached the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 regarding the DVS system. e. The landlord breached the tenants’ privacy regarding photos taken during an inspection. f. The mould in the premises was due to the premises being defective. g. The tenants were paying for hot water/electricity used by the other apartment in the building.
The applicants are required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Did the landlord provide premises that breached Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and fail to maintain the property?
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to comply with HHS.
To determine whether there was a breach of HHS, it is important to distinguish between HHS obligations and the requirement for landlords to maintain premises during a tenancy.
Where premises meet HHS at the start of a tenancy, but HHS work needs to be carried out because a fault occurs during the tenancy, that fault is not a breach of HHS. The fault is a maintenance issue for the landlord to remedy. A breach of the landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises occurs where a landlord does not remedy the fault within a reasonable time.
In 2021 the landlord contracted Sustainability Trust to provide a HHS Report for 19 Mamaku Street, Paraparaumu. That Report found that the premises complied with HHS in every respect. The tenants began their tenancy on 12 January 2025 and the Tenancy Agreement records that the landlord will comply with HHS.
About nine months after the tenancy began, the landlord contracted a HHS assessor, trading name ‘Oncore’, to carry out a Healthy Homes assessment. That assessment took place on 23 September 2025. The Report indicated that there were two windows which required repair, the living room heater’s heating capacity was inadequate and a bedroom smoke alarm was missing.
The landlord immediately arranged for repair of window catches.
Oncore mistakenly identified that the heat pump’s 5.1kw capacity was inadequate. Oncore had not taken into account that the heater was installed before 1 July 2019 and therefore the heater needed to be only 80% of the HHS standard for the volume of the living area.
Regarding the smoke alarm, there had been some communication between the landlord and tenants about the placement of a smoke alarm in the proximity of a bedroom however the alarm was moved back to where it needed to be. This was not a breach that warrants further comment.
The tenants stated that the bathroom extractor fan had an intermittent fault. They stated that the property manager turned the fan switch on during an inspection and the fan did not work. The landlord contracted an electrician to inspect the fan. The electrician’s invoice states that all connections were checked, and the fan was running. The invoice recorded the tenants’ statement that the fan didn’t run sometimes. The electrician did not find a fault but indicated it would be replaced if a problem persists.
The landlord stated that the new tenants have not reported a fault with the bathroom fan.
The tenants provided photos and a video showing a gutter overflowing when it was raining. They claimed this was a breach of HHS. However, both HHS reports stated that the drainage met HHS. The gutter overflowed because it could not handle the significant volume of water caused by extremely heavy rain that has been experienced in the Wellington area recently. The volume of rain also led to flooding and slips.
I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the property was HHS compliant but during the tenancy there were maintenance issues identified that related to HHS.
The tenants’ claim that the property failed HHS has not been proved. I am also satisfied that the landlord met its obligations to maintain the property during the tenancy.

Did the landlord fail to provide a signed statement regarding HHS compliance?

A stated above, the Tenancy Agreement signed by the parties contained a HHS compliance statement. A landlord is not required to provide a HHS Report to tenants at the commencement of the tenancy. Did the landlord’s agent unlawfully enter the premises without the correct notice?
The tenants claim that the landlord unlawfully entered the premises. They provided email evidence showing that a contractor gave 1 hour of notice to carry out work at the premises. They believe this was breach of the requirement to give 24 hours notice. When the tradesman arrived to carry out work, one of the tenants consented to him entering the premises to carry out the work.
Section 48(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides: The landlord shall not enter the premises during the currency of the tenancy agreement, except— with the consent of the tenant freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry;
The tenant gave consent to the contractor entering the property. The claim that there was unlawful entry must be dismissed. Did the landlord breach the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) regarding the

DVS system?

The tenants claim that the DVS system was did not function efficiently. The RTA and HHS do not require home to have a DVS system installed. There is therefore no regulation that sets a standard for the efficiency of DVS systems in rental properties. The landlord does have an obligation to maintain an system that is provided as part of a rental. However the tenants did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the DVS system was faulty and required repair.
The tenants’ claim regarding the DVS must therefore be dismissed. Did the landlord breached the tenants’ privacy regarding photos taken during an inspection?
The tenants claim that the landlord breached their privacy by taking photos during an inspection which included their personal possessions.
There is a photo of bedroom 3 which includes some small bottles on a dresser. It is not possible to read the labels on the bottles.
The photos were not for publication. They were not photos that were used to advertise the property.
In summary: i. The photos in the inspection document do not identify the tenants, ii. The bottles do not identify the tenants or the content of the bottles, iii. The photos were not for publication.
The photos taken are not a breach of the tenants’ privacy.

Was mould in the premises due to the premises being defective?

The tenants claimed that the landlord provided premises that were defective because there was mould in the premises. The witness they provided for the hearing supported their position.
Mould occurs in premises that are leaking. It can also appear in ‘healthy homes’ due to moisture and condensation from normal living.
The tenants gave their opinions about the cause of mould but did not provide scientific evidence to prove that the walls had a high moisture content or that mould spores in the building were abnormal. The level of mould in the premises was not sufficiently serious that it must be from water entering a defective building.
There is insufficient evidence that mould occurred because the premises was defective. Were the tenants paying for hot water/electricity used by the other apartment in the building?
The tenants provided photos which they believed showed that they may be paying for hot water in the other apartment. It is not possible to determine from the photos what the hot water system was at the property. The landlord stated that the properties were completely separate regarding water and power.
It is the tenants’ burden to prove their claim. They have not provided sufficient information to prove that they were paying for the other apartment’s hot water. The claim must be dismissed for lack of evidence. Conclusion
I have considered all matters raised by the tenants during the hearing and in their written evidence. I have also considered the landlord’s response. I am satisfied that there are no grounds for compensation regarding any of the matters raised by the tenants in their application. There are no grounds for any orders for exemplary damages. Filing Fee
The tenants have requested the Tribunal to order the filing fee be paid by the respondent.
The filing fee is only ordered to be paid by the other party where a party has been successful with their claim. The tenants have not been successful with the claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5357270 — Mould at 19 Mamaku Street, Paraparaumu, Paraparaumu 5032

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5357270 — Mould at 19 Mamaku Street, Paraparaumu, Paraparaumu 5032

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to provide a signed statement regarding HHS compliance?

DVS system?

Was mould in the premises due to the premises being defective?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to provide a signed statement regarding HHS compliance?

DVS system?

Was mould in the premises due to the premises being defective?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions