What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5362823 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5362823?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5362823?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Leaks, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5362823?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12958972-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5362823 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5362823?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5362823?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Leaks, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5362823?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12958972-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 6, 7 Greensboro Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton Tenancy Tribunal Case 5362823 — Mould & damp

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

On 10 October 2025, the tenant filed an application with the Tribunal seeking . a. Compensation and exemplary damages for breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) relating to insulation, ventilation, and moisture ingress and drainage. b. Compensation and exemplary damages for breach of the Building Code relating to sound proofing. c. Compensation for breach of the tenant’s right to peace, comfort and privacy. d. An order setting aside the 90-day notice terminating the tenancy on the basis it was retaliatory. e. Compensation and exemplary damages for retaliatory notice.
Ms McCurdy and Mr Gosai, Property Managers, appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
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. Exemplary Damages
The Tribunal must consider a claim for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA. Background
The tenancy commenced on 9 January 2015 and is periodic.
The property consists of a garage converted into a residential unit with two bedrooms each with ensuite bathroom and shared use of a small kitchen. The tenant has shared the communal kitchen with up to two other tenants since she moved into the property.

Did the landlord breach their obligations under the HHS for insulation?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Act by failing 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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) of the Act.
The tenant states the property is cold and damp due to a lack of insulation in the walls and the lack of insulation in the floor. The tenant said that the floor of the property is a concrete slab that extends out to a courtyard/patio area. Photographs of the outside concreted area were provided. The photographs show the area to be damp and weathered. The tenant said that moisture build up on the exterior concrete floor leads to the interior of her property feeling cold and damp unless she runs a dehumidifier.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with the following documents: a. A Healthy Homes Inspection Report dated 1 October 2020 from Eco Insulation. b. A Healthy Homes Assessment Remedial Statement of Insulation dated 29 September 2021. c. A building Code of Compliance (CoC) Certificate for building consent number 2013/30166. The CoC certificate was issued on 19 June 2014 by the building Control Manager on behalf of the Hamilton City Council in respect of “bathroom alterations & convert garage into residential unit” at the premises and states that: “the building consent authority named below is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that- a) The building work complied with the building consent.”
The landlord stated: a. The property complies with the requirements of the HHS in respect of insulation. b. The property has insulation in the ceiling with an R-value of 3.2 as evidenced by the Eco Insulation report dated 1 October 2020. c. The property is exempt from having underfloor insulation due to having a concrete base. d. The HHS does not require the property to have insulation in the walls. e. The property was built to code as evidenced by the CoC certificate. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant has proved the property fails to comply with the HHS insulation standard.
The evidence provided documents the condition and thickness of the ceiling insulation which the Tribunal finds complies with the HHS insulation standard. This evidence was accepted by the tenant.
The landlord accepted the property does not have wall insulation. However, the HHS insulation standard does not require properties to have wall insulation.
The landlord acknowledged the property does not have a ground vapour barrier and is unable to specify what, if any, underfloor insulation is in place. The Tribunal finds that the property is exempt under the HHS insulation standards for underfloor insulation.
The Tribunal finds that it is not reasonably practicable for the landlord to access and assess the condition of any insulation, or install any insulation, in the area under the floor of the property as it has a concrete base.
The CoC certificate records that the building was first constructed in the 1970s. The properties garage was converted to a unit in accordance with the requirements of building consent number 2013/30166, and a CoC certificate was issued on 19 June 2014 stipulating that the building work complied with that consent.
For those reasons the tenant’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages for breach of the HHS insulation standard is dismissed.

Has the landlord breached the HHS ventilation standard?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Act, which requires compliance with the HHS ventilation standard.
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 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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenant states the property does not have adequate ventilation and stated that after showering moisture in the air can build up and get stuck in the property. The tenant also complained of cooking smells permeating her room, bedding and clothing.
The landlord stated the property fully complies with the HHS for ventilation and relied on the report completed by Eco Insulation, the Healthy Homes Assessment Remedial Statement of Insulation, and an Electrical Certificate of Compliance and Electrical Safety Certificate issued by Alpha Electrical on 20 December 2021.
The landlord states their evidence shows the following: a. The property passed the ventilation standard because it has the ratio of openable window space to floor area as required. In addition to this the window in the tenant’s bedroom is fitted with safety stays to allow it to be left open to assist with secure ventilation of the property. b. The landlord acknowledged the mechanical ventilation in the kitchen initially failed the HHS inspection as documented in the Eco insulation report. However, this was later remedied when a Manrose Contour Kitchen extractor fan with external ducting was installed, tested, and certified as compliant by Alpha Electrical on 20 December 2021. c. The Eco Insulation report found the bathroom in the property complied with the HHS for ventilation as it had been fitted with an externally ducted extraction fan. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant has proved the property failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
The property was required to comply with the HHS ventilation standard by 1 July 2025. Based on the available evidence the property fully complied with the ventilation standard by 29 September 2021
The property was fitted with appropriate mechanical ventilation in the kitchen and the bathroom, and the properties habitable spaces have been assessed as having the required ratio of openable window space to floor area.
On that basis the tenant’s claims for compensation and exemplary damages for breach of the HHS for ventilation is dismissed.

Has the landlord breached the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Act, which requires compliance with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS are discussed above.
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.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) of the Act.
The tenant states that the concrete slab inside the property extends to the outside concrete courtyard/patio area. The tenant said she believes that at the time the garage was converted into a residential unit no moisture barrier treatment, waterproof membrane or ground vapour barrier was installed. The tenant said that as moisture builds up in the exterior concrete pad the interior concrete pad feels wet and cold causing the carpet to stretch. The tenant told the Tribunal that she is worried the moisture on the exterior concrete pad may seep through into her property. As a result, the tenant said she uses a dehumidifier inside the property to prevent moisture build up.
The landlord disputes the tenant’s claims the property does not comply with the HHS for moisture ingress and drainage. The landlord states: a. The garage conversion was built to code as evidence by the CoC certificate. The tenant has not provided any evidence to prove the garage conversion build was defective, did not comply with the building consent, or that the CoC certificate was improperly issued. b. No evidence has been provided to prove the property suffers from a moisture ingress or drainage problem, such as photographs showing water seeping into the property from the outside concrete pad. c. The tenant has not notified the landlord of any issues with water ingress or drainage issues. No 14-day breach notice has been issued in accordance with section 56 of the Act. d. The landlord accepted that the original Eco Insulation report failed the property for not having a ground vapour barrier. The Tribunal was told that this defect related to the main dwelling, which has an underfloor cavity, and not the garage conversion (the tenant’s property) which has a concrete base. The landlord stated that this defect was remedied by the installation of a ground vapour barrier, as evidenced by the Healthy Homes Assessment Remedial Statement of Insulation issued on 29 September 2021. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenant has not proved the property failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The property was required to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard by 1 July 2025. The Tribunal finds that the property, after remedial action was taken, complied with the HHS standards by 29 September 2021. The property was properly fitted with functioning gutters and downpipes, a ground vapour barrier was installed in the accessible subfloor on the main dwelling, and there was appropriate ground surface water drainage.
The tenant took issue with the CoC certificate, stating it failed to specify what work was completed during the garage conversion and on that basis invited the Tribunal to conclude that no ground vapour barrier, waterproof membrane or moisture barrier treatment of the concrete floor had been completed. On the evidence before it the Tribunal is unable to reach that conclusion. The CoC certificate was issued stating that building work complied with the requirements of building consent. The tenant did not provide the Tribunal with a copy of the building consent. The tenant has not provided any evidence to prove the garage conversion build was defective, did not comply with the building consent, or that the CoC certificate was improperly issued. In addition, the Tribunal finds the property was exempt from being fitted with a ground vapour barrier because it was not reasonably practicable for the landlord to access the area because it has a concrete base.
On that basis the tenant’s claims for compensation and exemplary damages for breach of the HHS for moisture ingress and drainage is dismissed Did the landlord breach their obligations under the Building Code in relation to sound proofing?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45(1)(c), a landlord must comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these 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.
The tenant states the landlord has breached the building code by failing to provide sound proofing in the property. The tenant states that lack of sound proofing in the property has resulted in a lack of privacy and caused her significant health issues including headaches and muscle tension, poor concentration, hypervigilance, anxiety and stress. The tenant stated that had the property been properly insulated, with insulation in the walls, this would have assisted with dampening intrusive noise from neighbouring tenants.
The landlord stated that the property was built to code as is evidenced by the CoC certificate. With regards to the noise, the landlord stated that the noise complained of is normal for properties of this type where tenants live in close proximity. Analysis and decision
The Building Regulations 1992, clause 6G, sets out the minimum requirement for building elements to prevent undue noise being transmitted between abutting occupancies. These requirements generally apply at the time of construction or when significant alterations are made.
There is no requirement in the Building Code to retrofit or upgrade sound insulation in an existing building unless a major renovation or a change of use triggers new compliance.
The Tribunal has heard that there was a change in use of the property when it was renovated from a garage to a residential two-bedroom unit. At the time the work was undertaken a building consent was issued requiring the renovation to comply with the current building regulations. At the completion of the renovation the property was issued with a CoC certificate as the Building Consent Authority was satisfied on reasonable ground that the building works complied with the building consent.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the evidence before it that the landlord has breached the requirements of the Building Code or the provisions of the Act relating to sound proofing and the claim for compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed. Was there a breach of the tenant’s right to peace, comfort, and privacy?
The tenant seeks compensation for a breach of her peace, comfort and privacy caused by noise coming from abutting occupancies. The tenant claims that the lack of sound proofing and insulation caused noise to travel between the properties causing her significant health issues including headaches and muscle tension, poor concentration, hypervigilance, anxiety and stress. The tenant complained that the noise consisted of overhearing other tenants: a. Snoring b. Engaging in intimate acts c. Talking and conversations d. Doors banging or being slammed e. Cooking noises and banging kitchen cupboards f. Banging on walls or hearing plugs being pushed into electrical sockets
The landlord stated that the noise is consistent with living in close proximity to other people and is not excessive or unreasonable. Analysis and decision
Section 38(2) of the Act confirms that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”
Section 40 of the Act sets out the tenant’s responsibilities which include an obligation that the tenant shall not: Cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
Section 45 of the Act sets out the landlord’s responsibilities, which include at 40(1)(e) that the landlord must: Take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants cause or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
Compensation may be awarded if the tenant’s right to use and enjoy the premises has been substantially interfered with by excessive or unreasonable noise. The Tribunal must consider whether the noise is beyond what would be expected in normal residential living.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied that the noise complained of is beyond what would be expected in normal residential living. As stated above, the property was built to code and complied with all relevant building regulations. The noise the tenant complained of was consistent with everyday living, in close proximity of other people, and could not be considered as excessive or unreasonable. The tenant’s claim for compensation for breach of her right to peace, comfort and privacy is dismissed.

Is the 90-day notice retaliatory?

On 11 September 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 18 December 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
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) of the Act.
The test to be applied is summarised in the High Court Decision of Whakatihi v Rent Assured NZ Limited [2019] NZHC 2873: “On the balance of probabilities was the landlord motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power authority or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.”`
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The tenant said she was issued with a 90-day notice terminating the tenancy after making multiple complaints and requests to the landlord over the duration of her tenancy. The tenant said that her most recent request was made on 30 June 2025 when she sent an e-mail asking for the shared kitchen to be cleaned. The tenant told the Tribunal the landlord failed to respond to her request. The tenant did not issue the landlord with a 14-day notice under section 56 of the Act.
The tenant said she also believes the landlord terminated her tenancy following a dispute between herself and the partner of the tenant in the adjoining property. The tenant said that this person threatened to get her out of the property after she asked them to stop banging in the kitchen.
The landlord told the Tribunal that the 90-day notice terminating the tenancy was not retaliatory and was issued as the landlord simply seeks possession of the property. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that by terminating the tenancy the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or the Act or by any complaint against the landlord.
The tenant asked for the communal kitchen to be cleaned following the end of the adjoining tenancy and before the new tenant moved in. The tenant states the landlord failed to do so. Landlords have an obligation to provide properties in a reasonable state of cleanliness, see section 45(1)(a) of the Act. Any claim in respect of a breach of this section is for the new tenant to make. Ms Pycke, as a tenant of the property, has a duty to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy, see section 40(1)(c) of the Act.
The 90-day notice terminating the tenancy was not proximate to the tenant’s request for the kitchen to be cleaned.
There was no evidence provided to the Tribunal showing that the previous tenants in anyway influenced the landlord’s decision to terminate Ms Pycke’s tenancy.
The Tribunal was not provided with any evidence showing the tenant had served the landlord with a 14-day breach notice requiring the landlord to fulfil an obligation under the tenancy agreement or the Act.
The Tribunal finds that the 90-day notice terminating the tenancy was not retaliatory and the Tribunal declines to set it aside. The tenant’s claims for compensation for retaliatory notice is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5362823 — Mould & damp at Room 6, 7 Greensboro Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5362823 — Mould & damp at Room 6, 7 Greensboro Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach their obligations under the HHS for insulation?

Has the landlord breached the HHS ventilation standard?

Has the landlord breached the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard?

Is the 90-day notice retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach their obligations under the HHS for insulation?

Has the landlord breached the HHS ventilation standard?

Has the landlord breached the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard?

Is the 90-day notice retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions