What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5362704?

The tribunal order states: Carla Marie Maxted must pay Shaun Barry Mackness $578.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5362704?

Compensation: Removal Of Fallen Tree: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5362704?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5362704?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13606204-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5362704?

The tribunal order states: Carla Marie Maxted must pay Shaun Barry Mackness $578.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5362704?

Compensation: Removal Of Fallen Tree: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5362704?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5362704?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13606204-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

537D Kerikeri Road, RD 3, Kerikeri 0293 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5362704 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5362704 — net $578.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide healthy homes information	$400.00	The claim for exemplary damages for failure to provide healthy homes information upon request is proven.
Compensation: Removal of fallen tree	$150.00	Removal of fallen tree
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	101. Mr Mackness has been partially successful in his application, and I will award him the filing fee of $28.00.
Net award	$578.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$578.00

The tenancy began on 19 December 2024. It was a one-year fixed term tenancy.

Mr Mackness sought a release from the fixed term tenancy the grounds that that the premises were damp and mouldy which was affecting children’s health.

The landlord released Mr Mackness from the tenancy on 4 October 2025.

Mr Mackness’ application seeks compensation / exemplary in respect of the following issues: a. Failure to meet the healthy homes standards (draught stopping). b. Failure to provide healthy homes documentation upon request. c. Dampness / mould. d. Rodents. e. Cracked beam in lounge. f. Rent reduction (lawns and gardens).

The hearing took place in Kaikohe on 14 May 2026. Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Downie represented the landlord. Healthy homes standards

Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards. 1

The healthy homes compliance date for this tenancy was 18 April 2025. 2

Mr Mackness said that the premises did not meet the healthy homes standard for draught stopping.

The draught stopping standard states that landlords must ensure that the rental property does not have any unreasonable gaps or holes in walls, ceilings, windows, skylights, floors, and doors which cause noticeable draughts.

Mr Mackness said that: a. There were three broken window latches at the start of the tenancy. The landlord replaced two of these, but the third was not replaced until the near the end of the tenancy. b. There was an unreasonable gap around the front door. Near the end of the tenancy, the repairman who replaced the third latch added a strip to the door to try to eliminate the draught.

Ms Downie said that: a. The landlord obtained a healthy homes report at the start of the tenancy. The report identified two broken window latches, not three. The two broken latches were replaced promptly. 1 Section 45(1)(bb) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 120 days from the commencement date b. The tenant did not inform them that there was another broken latch until near the end of the tenancy. When they were told about that latch, they had it replaced promptly.

There is not sufficient evidence to prove that there was a third broken latch at the start of the tenancy. It seems likely that if it was present, it would have been picked up in the healthy homes report. If it was not picked up in the report, it seems likely that Mr Mackness would have informed Property Scouts about it.

The landlord promptly addressed the broken latches that were brought to their attention.

My finding is that there is no proven breach of the healthy homes standard in respect of this issue.

There is also no evidence that Mr Mackness raised a concern about the gap around the front door during the tenancy. Mr Mackness did not provide any photographs to Propertyscouts or to the Tribunal showing the gap.

The healthy homes report did not identify any unreasonable draughts in the property.

There is no evidence to show that the premises did not meet the healthy homes standard for draughts. This part of Mr Mackness’ claim is dismissed. Providing healthy homes information

If a tenant asks the landlord to provide information relating to healthy homes compliance, the landlord must provide that information within 21-days of the request. 3

A breach of this duty is an unlawful act, and the Tribunal may award exemplary damages of up to $750.

The information that the landlord is obliged to disclosed is the records or other documents that relate to the landlord’s compliance that are prescribed by regulations. 4

The relevant regulation is within the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. Regulation 40 states that landlords must retain “sufficient relevant records or documents as reasonably provide evidence of the landlord’s compliance with the healthy homes standards”. The definition of “relevant records or documents” includes “reports or other records of inspections of the premises”.

On 21 August 2025 Mr Mackness sent Ms Downie an email asking: 3 Section 45(1AC) RTA 4 Section 123A(1)(e) RTA Can you please provide me with documentation that this property has been signed off under the healthy homes act and complies with regulations that came into effect on the 1 st of June 2025

On 28 August Ms Downie replied: In response to your request, please find attached the Healthy Homes Compliance Statement for the property. The statement is generated from our records and is based on an independent healthy homes assessment carried out by a qualified provided.

Propertyscouts provided Mr Mackness with the compliance statement but not the healthy homes report assessment report prepared by Ticketyboo.

Having regard to the relevant sections of the RTA and the Regulations, my finding is that the landlord was obliged to provide Mr Mackness with a copy of the assessment report. The report formed part of the “relevant records or documents” that the landlord was obliged to retain and was obliged to disclose to Mr Mackness upon request.

Mr Mackness also commented that the landlord failed to provide him with a copy of the moisture / mould assessment report prepared by All Clear, which is discussed in more detail below. Again, Propertyscouts provided a summary, but declined to provide the full report.

My finding is that the All Clear report is not within definition of records / documents that are relevant to the landlord’s compliance with the healthy homes standards. The report related to investigation of a specific problem with mould / dampness. It is not a healthy homes assessment, and it is not intended to address the question of whether the property meets the healthy homes standard.

Therefore, the landlord’s reluctance to release that report to Mr Mackness, whilst puzzling and unhelpful, was not a breach of a legal obligation.

I have made a finding that the landlord’s failure to provide the healthy homes report was an unlawful act.

The Tribunal may make an award of exemplary damages if the Tribunal is satisfied that an unlawful act was committed intentionally. In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to: 5 a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest. 5 Section 109 RTA

In this instance: a. The landlord did not simply ignore or flatly refuse the tenant’s request for healthy homes information, but the landlord made an intentional decision to not provide the complete report. b. At the time, Mr Mackness had legitimate concerns about dampness and mould. c. There is a legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords keep records relating to healthy homes compliance and that the tenant has access to those records upon request.

Having regard to those factors I will award exemplary damages of $400.00. Dampness, mould

Mr Mackness said that: a. When they moved into the house in December 2024 they noticed a musty smell. b. His children were sick for most of the tenancy with symptoms consistent with damp living conditions. c. There was visible mould on some surfaces (windowsills etc) and excessive condensation on windows. The problems were worst in the bedrooms and in the lounge. d. He consistently told Propertyscouts about the problems, but the condition of the property did not improve during his tenancy. e. Propertyscouts eventually commissioned a report which confirmed that there is excessive moisture and humidity in the property.

Ms Downie said that: a. No dampness or mould was noted at the entry inspection. b. Mr Mackness first raised the issue at an inspection on 29 April 2025. c. The landlord arranged for a building inspection on 14 May. The report included moisture meter testing. d. Work was carried out on the roof and on the flashing around a window in June & July. e. She met with Mr Mackness on 8 July and he raised concerns about his children’s health. The next day, she commissioned the mould and air quality assessment report (“the All Clear report”). f. The landlord acted promptly and appropriately in response to Mr Mackness’ concerns and there is no proven defect The All Clear report

All Clear’s assessment involved a visual inspection, a moisture assessment, and airborne mould sampling.

The visual inspection noted no visible issues in the master bedroom but issues in the child’s bedroom as follows: a. “Strong musty odour”. b. Condensation on all windowpanes. c. Microbial growth and water staining on back of curtain. d. Suspected microbial growth on exterior gable ends and soffits.

Moisture testing was carried out on 21 locations. Of those, 6 showed readings at “slightly elevated” levels. The rest were within normal range. Of those elevated readings, 3 were in the master bedroom, and three were in the child’s bedroom.

The moisture testing section of the report also gives the humidity level readings – 79.8% in the master bedroom, 81.6% in the child’s bedroom, and 79.2% in the hallway.

The airborne mould sample testing showed significantly elevated levels of aspergillus / penicillium in the master bedroom and child’s bedroom. The levels of other types of mould were within normal range.

The report makes some observations about the high humidity and high mould levels found. The report recommends: a. That the landlord service the heat pumps and consider installing an HRV system. b. That the tenants take steps to ventilate the premises, keep the indoor temperature at 18 degrees minimum, and remove condensation and mould when they form. Discussion

Landlords must: a. Comply with the healthy homes standards. 6 b. Maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 7 6 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA 7 Section 45(1)(b) RTA c. Comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment. 8

The property has two heat pumps - one in the lounge and one in the master bedroom. Both are operational. The property also has a woodburner in the lounge. The woodburner is operational. The property does not have an HRV system.

The evidence provided to the Tribunal shows that there was excessive moisture in the premises, in particular in the child’s bedroom and master bedroom, during this tenancy.

However, the evidence is inconclusive about the cause of the moisture problem.

Per my finding above, I am satisfied that the premises met the healthy homes standards.

The landlord’s maintenance obligation is not a warranty that tenanted premises will not have any problems / issues during the tenancy. Rather, it is a duty on the landlord to respond promptly and appropriately to repair issues that are brought to the landlord’s attention during the tenancy.

In response to the tenant’s initial complaint in late April 2025, Propertyscouts arranged for the roof to be inspected, and some minor repairs were carried out. There were then follow up repairs on a flashing around a window.

Mr Mackness said that the house was always well aired. There was someone at home during the day most of the time. They used the heat pumps and the extractor fans.

This is a difficult situation where the tenant clearly suffered a loss of amenity during the tenancy, but the evidence provided to the Tribunal does not establish that the landlord breached any legal duty.

My finding is that the appropriate outcome was that the landlord release the tenant from the fixed term tenancies without any penalties, which the landlord did.

However, because there are no proven breaches of any of the landlord’s legal duties, my finding is that there is no basis for an award of exemplary damages or compensation to the tenant. The landlord did not breach their maintenance duty or healthy homes obligations. The cause of the moisture / dampness problems that Mr Mackness experienced is unclear. Rodents 8 Section 45(1)(c) RTA

Mr Mackness said that they had issues with a rodent infestation beginning in autumn. He set traps and laid bait.

He raised the issue with the Propertyscouts. Propertyscouts replied that the owner was willing to instigate an on-going professional pest management plan, but Mr Mackness was asked to pay half of the cost.

Mr Mackness considered that he had paid for trapping and bait himself up to that point, and it was now the landlord’s turn to pay. He therefore rejected the landlord’s offer.

Mr Mackness said that on one occasion a poisoned rat died in the ceiling space in the lounge, which resulted a bad smell, then maggots (some of which dropped from the lounge ceiling) and eventually blowflies.

Ms Downie said that the owner was willing to share half of the cost of on-going professional pest management. Even after the tenant refused this offer, the landlord paid for a professional pest assessment and treatment of the dead rat in the ceiling space.

The RTA does not have any specific provisions relating to pest management at tenanted premises.

Unless the rodent issue is a consequence of a landlord breach (such as the obligation to maintain the premises) or a tenant breach (such as a failure to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy), the basic position is that tenants must manage ‘normal’ levels of pests, but if an unexplained infestation occurs, landlords and tenants have a joint responsibility to address it.

It is inherently difficult for a tenant to evidence that they experienced an “infestation” rather than “normal levels of pest activity”.

This is a rural property situated on 3.5 acres of land with fruit trees. There is a kiwifruit orchard next door. The ‘normal’ level of rodents for a property such as this is high compared with properties that do not have those environmental factors.

My finding is that: a. There are no landlord breaches or tenant breaches that caused or contributed to high levels of rodents during this tenancy. b. The property has high rodent activity due to environmental factors. c. The landlord responded promptly and appropriately when the tenant raised the issue. The offer of professional pest management with the cost shared between landlord and tenant is in line with the landlord’s obligation in respect of pests. d. There is no proven breach of a legal duty by the landlord and therefore no basis for an award of compensation or exemplary damages under this heading. Cracked beam in lounge

On 29 May 2025, Mr Mackness noticed a crack in a structural beam in the lounge. He informed Propertyscouts.

On 30 June Mr Mackness sent a further message because he was concerned that the crack was getting worse.

A “prop” was installed underneath the beam in the location of the crack.

An engineer came to site on 8 July, and a second prop was installed shortly after that visit.

Remedial work was carried out on 27 August 2025. The remedial work involved installing a steel sleeve / support around the crack. The props were removed.

Mr Mackness said that: a. The issue took too long to resolve. The repair was simple and should have been done sooner. b. The props were inconvenient. They created a hazard in the lounge. c. The ultimate ‘repair’ is unsatisfactory and makeshift.

Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. As noted above, this is not a warranty that the premises will be free from defects or problems during the period of the tenancy. The landlord’s obligation is to address issues promptly and appropriately when they arise.

My finding is that: a. The timeframe from notification to repair is not excessive or unreasonable given the nature of the repair issue. Mr Mackness’ argument that the repair was ultimately (relatively) quick and simple fails to take into account the need for investigation and thinking through alternatives, which in this instance required engineers and careful consideration. One possible outcome was that the beam had to be replaced. That would obviously be a very costly and hugely disruptive job. The alternative was significantly less costly and disruptive, but the engineers had to be satisfied that the repair was structurally sound. That process understandably took several months. b. The props were inconvenient for the tenant, but they were an appropriate and necessary part of the repair process. c. Mr Mackness’ view about the repair is apparently based on a comment made by the engineer at the beginning of the investigation process. It is a speculative and incomplete view in that it fails to take into account the fact that after that initial inspection there was far more careful and analytical consideration of the different options.

There is no proven breach of the landlord’s legal duty and no basis for an award of compensation or exemplary damages under this heading. Hot water cylinder

The property had a 180l hot water cylinder. It is a four-bedroom house. There were (ultimately) 7 occupants during Mr Mackness’ tenancy.

Mr Mackness said that there was not enough hot water for his household.

He raised the issue with Propertyscouts at an inspection in January 2025. Ms Downie sent Mr Mackness an email after that inspection addressing several issues including the hot water cylinder: While there are no immediate plans to upgrade the hot water cylinder the landlord is exploring options and may consider this in the future

In July 2025 the landlord installed a second hot water cylinder.

Mr Mackness said that the second cylinder solved the hot water shortage problem, although it was (in his view) an over-engineered solution.

Ms Downie argued that this was not a maintenance issue but an upgrade.

The RTA does not have any specific provisions about hot water cylinders.

The RTA does have a specific provision about the supply of household water where the premises are not on a reticulated supply. Section 45(1)(ca) RTA states that if the premises are not on a reticulated supply, the landlord must provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water.

In general, landlords must provide premises that are habitable.

Drawing together those principles it is reasonable, in my view, to consider it an implied terms in any tenancy that the premises will have reasonable hot water storage systems, sufficient to provide hot water to the intended number of occupants.

The 180l cylinder is at the low end of the spectrum for a four-bedroom house. It was not sufficient for the 7 occupants during this tenancy.

The addition of a second cylinder in July was not merely a voluntary upgrade or good will gesture by the landlord. It was a necessary step to meet the implied term set out above.

On balance, however, I do not think that it is appropriate to make an award of compensation or exemplary damages under this heading. The 180l tank was at the low end, but it was not manifestly inadequate. The tenant added another occupant (with the landlord’s consent) in February 2025. The landlord did not ignore or reject the tenant’s complaint about hot water. They took steps and incurred a reasonably significant cost in adding a second cylinder in July 2025. Lawns and gardens

The property is on 3.5 acres of lawns and terraced gardens.

Mr Mackness lived out of the area, and he did not view the property before accepting the tenancy. He viewed photographs provided by Propertyscouts.

Mr Mackness had a landscaping business and he told Propertyscouts that he was willing to take care of the lawns and gardens.

It was only after moving in that Mr Mackness realised the amount of work involved in keeping the lawns and gardens tidy.

He asked Propertyscouts whether the landlord was willing to reduce the rent to reflect the time and effort he was putting into the lawns and gardens.

The landlord offered a $40/wk rent reduction, which Mr Mackness accepted. The reduction took effect on 3 February 2025.

Mr Mackness said that this reduction did not adequately reflect the value of his work on the lawns and gardens. He asked the landlord for a further reduction, but this was refused.

Mr Mackness seeks compensation (effectively a retrospective rent reduction) for his work on the lawns and gardens.

I accept that the market value of Mr Mackness’ work on the lawns and gardens exceeds the $40/wk that he received from the landlord.

However, a tenancy agreement is a contract and fundamental principles of contract apply, including that parties are free to strike whatever deal they see fit. 9 A bad deal is just as binding as a good deal.

Mr Mackness struck a bad deal. He volunteered to do the lawns and gardens without understanding the scope of the job. He was then forced to negotiate from a weak position and was able to obtain a $40/week reduction, but no more. The terms of that agreement are binding.

Mr Mackness said that a tree came down in a storm during the tenancy. Mr Mackness told Propertyscouts that he could tidy up and remove the tree if the landlord wanted. Ms Downie agreed, and asked Mr Mackness to give a price. 9 Subject to section 11 RTA, which prohibits a landlord from contracting out of their mandatory obligations under the RTA

Mr Mackness failed to give a price but went ahead and removed the tree. He subsequently asked for payment of $150 for his work but the landlord declined.

I understand that the landlord declined because Mr Mackness did not give a price before going ahead. Obviously, it would have been preferable if Mr Mackness had given a price to allow the owner to make an informed decision.

However, the amount sought by Mr Mackness is very fair and reasonable, and considerably less than the owner would have paid a contractor. The owner has received a benefit at Mr Mackness’s cost. My finding is that it is appropriate to require the owner to pay Mr Mackness for his work. Summary

The claim for exemplary damages for failure to provide healthy homes information upon request is proven.

Mr Mackness is also entitled to payment for removal of the fallen tree.

Mr Mackness has been partially successful in his application, and I will award him the filing fee of $28.00. 10

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5362704 — net $578.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide healthy homes information	$400.00	The claim for exemplary damages for failure to provide healthy homes information upon request is proven.
Compensation: Removal of fallen tree	$150.00	Removal of fallen tree
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	101. Mr Mackness has been partially successful in his application, and I will award him the filing fee of $28.00.
Net award	$578.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$578.00