What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5370641?

The tribunal order states: Russell Church must pay Luciana Palermo and Timothy James Way $7,824.00

How much money was awarded in case 5370641?

Compensation: $2,196.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5370641?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5370641?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13082305-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5370641?

The tribunal order states: Russell Church must pay Luciana Palermo and Timothy James Way $7,824.00

How much money was awarded in case 5370641?

Compensation: $2,196.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5370641?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5370641?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13082305-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

253 Pohutukawa Avenue, Ohope, Ohope 3121 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5370641 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5370641 — net $7,824.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation - report	$2,196.00	Compensation - report
Compensation - general damages	$2,000.00	Compensation - general damages
Exemplary damages – failure to maintain, Healthy Homes	$3,600.00	Exemplary damages – failure to maintain, Healthy Homes
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,824.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,824.00

Order

Russell Church must pay Luciana Palermo and Timothy James Way $7,824.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have been living at the premises since on 29 May 2020 until they left on 17 October 2025. The landlord lives above.
Luciana Palermo and Timothy James Way claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). They claim compensation they have assessed at $68,000.00 to include the cost of a mould report ($2,196.00), and exemplary damages.
The issues to be decided are as follows: -Did the landlord breach their obligations? -If so, what level of compensation and/or exemplary damages is appropriate in the circumstances?

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

Under section 45, a landlord must [of relevance here]: provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation, comply with the healthy homes standards, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Regulation 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 requires that every house shall be free from dampness.
Preventing the development of dampness and mould is a dual obligation of the tenant and landlord. Tenants must take preventative measures such as heating, ventilation (e.g. opening curtains and windows), using extractor fans, and wiping away daily condensation that arises from ordinary living. Landlord must provide a house that is not prone to mould, fix any defect creating mould, and comply with their obligations under RTA, Housing Improvement Regulations, and the Healthy Homes Standards.
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.
There is no dispute that the conservatory area at the premises leaked from the beginning, and for the duration of this tenancy. The tenants say they continually raised concerns to the landlord about excessive dampness, leaks, and mould needing to be cleaned down constantly. Ms Palermo says she began to have unexplained health issues in 2025, so they commissioned a mould inspection on 15 September 2025. The report found elevated levels of Aspergillus and Basidiomycete in the air samples taken in the master bedroom and living area. High contamination levels of mould spores (Aspergillus and Cladosporium) were found on the conservatory and bathroom ceilings which can cause health concerns. The humidity in the master bedroom (76.3%) was similar to the bathroom (79.2%), and both were higher than the recorded outside relative humidity level of 59.7%.
The tenants moved out around a month later and they say they had to get rid of a significant amount of their belongings as they were contaminated with mould.
The landlords say they have carried out a lot of repairs/renovations in an effort to stop the leaking, but they acknowledge the source was not found. The landlords do not dispute there are no extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom, but they say the mould problem has been exacerbated by a lack of cleaning by the tenants as the heat pump filter was dirty at the end of the tenancy.
I find that the landlord breached their obligations under section 45 RTA. I am satisfied the premises was leaky, damp, and prone to mould throughout this tenancy. Although the heat pump filter was dirty at the end of the tenancy, I do not find any evidence that the mould issues were exacerbated by a lack of cleaning. I also find that the landlord has failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. They were unable to provide any evidence of compliance (except insulation), there are no extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom as required, and there is clear evidence of moisture ingress. If so, what level of compensation and/or exemplary damages is appropriate in the circumstances?
The tenants suffer from a lack of evidence to prove their losses. The mould report refers to a guide for professional mould remediation. Only soft or fabric goods would need to be discarded, and clothes or linens may also need to be discarded due to staining, discolouration or physical damage. Cleaning and treatment is an appropriate option for settled spores but no active growth. The tenants did not give the landlord any opportunity to remediate.
The tenants agree that they panicked when they received the report and felt they had to get rid of most of their belongings. Although there are some photographs which show evidence of mould on some furniture and belongings, this is limited. A significant portion of their claim for compensation relates to technical gear used for the tenant’s photography business (around $26,000). These are not reasonably foreseeable losses in a residential setting and the tenants acknowledge that they are still using the equipment. I also question whether any of the tenant’s books were discarded, if there was any need to do so, and the valuation of $7,000 is disproportionate. Any costs claimed relating to medical issues are not recoverable as personal injury by accident is generally covered under the accident compensation regime.
The issue of appropriate compensation for the breach of maintenance obligations is not straightforward. Appellate courts have also emphasised that the assessment of the proper amount of compensation is a question of fact in each case; that it is not an exact science and that a common-sense approach is required. There are no general or absolute rules for calculating the amount of compensation, but the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.
I award the cost of the mould report ($2,196.00). However, the tenants have not provided any receipts/estimates/invoices to substantiate any actual loss except for their own list. In these circumstances, only an award of nominal or general damages is appropriate. This acknowledges the breach but also that there is a lack of evidence to substantiate the claim for the discarded items and the need to discard those items. Weighing the substantial merits and justice, I award $2,000.00 as fair, reasonable and proportionate compensation.
I also award exemplary damages as the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord was aware of the leaks throughout this tenancy. They were also aware of the lack of Healthy Homes compliance as they are experienced landlords. Their explanation that they always considered this tenancy to be an extension of an Airbnb arrangement is simply untenable. The effect on the tenants has been considerable and there is a high public interest in ensuring that landlords comply with their maintenance and Healthy Homes obligations as the health and safety of the tenants is paramount.
Taking into consideration all of these factors, I find it just to award $3,600.00 exemplary damages which is the mid-range of the scale.
Because the tenant has partly succeeded with the claim, the landlord must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5370641 — net $7,824.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation - report	$2,196.00	Compensation - report
Compensation - general damages	$2,000.00	Compensation - general damages
Exemplary damages – failure to maintain, Healthy Homes	$3,600.00	Exemplary damages – failure to maintain, Healthy Homes
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,824.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,824.00

Order

Russell Church must pay Luciana Palermo and Timothy James Way $7,824.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have been living at the premises since on 29 May 2020 until they left on 17 October 2025. The landlord lives above.
Luciana Palermo and Timothy James Way claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). They claim compensation they have assessed at $68,000.00 to include the cost of a mould report ($2,196.00), and exemplary damages.
The issues to be decided are as follows: -Did the landlord breach their obligations? -If so, what level of compensation and/or exemplary damages is appropriate in the circumstances?

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

Under section 45, a landlord must [of relevance here]: provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation, comply with the healthy homes standards, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Regulation 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 requires that every house shall be free from dampness.
Preventing the development of dampness and mould is a dual obligation of the tenant and landlord. Tenants must take preventative measures such as heating, ventilation (e.g. opening curtains and windows), using extractor fans, and wiping away daily condensation that arises from ordinary living. Landlord must provide a house that is not prone to mould, fix any defect creating mould, and comply with their obligations under RTA, Housing Improvement Regulations, and the Healthy Homes Standards.
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.
There is no dispute that the conservatory area at the premises leaked from the beginning, and for the duration of this tenancy. The tenants say they continually raised concerns to the landlord about excessive dampness, leaks, and mould needing to be cleaned down constantly. Ms Palermo says she began to have unexplained health issues in 2025, so they commissioned a mould inspection on 15 September 2025. The report found elevated levels of Aspergillus and Basidiomycete in the air samples taken in the master bedroom and living area. High contamination levels of mould spores (Aspergillus and Cladosporium) were found on the conservatory and bathroom ceilings which can cause health concerns. The humidity in the master bedroom (76.3%) was similar to the bathroom (79.2%), and both were higher than the recorded outside relative humidity level of 59.7%.
The tenants moved out around a month later and they say they had to get rid of a significant amount of their belongings as they were contaminated with mould.
The landlords say they have carried out a lot of repairs/renovations in an effort to stop the leaking, but they acknowledge the source was not found. The landlords do not dispute there are no extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom, but they say the mould problem has been exacerbated by a lack of cleaning by the tenants as the heat pump filter was dirty at the end of the tenancy.
I find that the landlord breached their obligations under section 45 RTA. I am satisfied the premises was leaky, damp, and prone to mould throughout this tenancy. Although the heat pump filter was dirty at the end of the tenancy, I do not find any evidence that the mould issues were exacerbated by a lack of cleaning. I also find that the landlord has failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. They were unable to provide any evidence of compliance (except insulation), there are no extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom as required, and there is clear evidence of moisture ingress. If so, what level of compensation and/or exemplary damages is appropriate in the circumstances?
The tenants suffer from a lack of evidence to prove their losses. The mould report refers to a guide for professional mould remediation. Only soft or fabric goods would need to be discarded, and clothes or linens may also need to be discarded due to staining, discolouration or physical damage. Cleaning and treatment is an appropriate option for settled spores but no active growth. The tenants did not give the landlord any opportunity to remediate.
The tenants agree that they panicked when they received the report and felt they had to get rid of most of their belongings. Although there are some photographs which show evidence of mould on some furniture and belongings, this is limited. A significant portion of their claim for compensation relates to technical gear used for the tenant’s photography business (around $26,000). These are not reasonably foreseeable losses in a residential setting and the tenants acknowledge that they are still using the equipment. I also question whether any of the tenant’s books were discarded, if there was any need to do so, and the valuation of $7,000 is disproportionate. Any costs claimed relating to medical issues are not recoverable as personal injury by accident is generally covered under the accident compensation regime.
The issue of appropriate compensation for the breach of maintenance obligations is not straightforward. Appellate courts have also emphasised that the assessment of the proper amount of compensation is a question of fact in each case; that it is not an exact science and that a common-sense approach is required. There are no general or absolute rules for calculating the amount of compensation, but the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.
I award the cost of the mould report ($2,196.00). However, the tenants have not provided any receipts/estimates/invoices to substantiate any actual loss except for their own list. In these circumstances, only an award of nominal or general damages is appropriate. This acknowledges the breach but also that there is a lack of evidence to substantiate the claim for the discarded items and the need to discard those items. Weighing the substantial merits and justice, I award $2,000.00 as fair, reasonable and proportionate compensation.
I also award exemplary damages as the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord was aware of the leaks throughout this tenancy. They were also aware of the lack of Healthy Homes compliance as they are experienced landlords. Their explanation that they always considered this tenancy to be an extension of an Airbnb arrangement is simply untenable. The effect on the tenants has been considerable and there is a high public interest in ensuring that landlords comply with their maintenance and Healthy Homes obligations as the health and safety of the tenants is paramount.
Taking into consideration all of these factors, I find it just to award $3,600.00 exemplary damages which is the mid-range of the scale.
Because the tenant has partly succeeded with the claim, the landlord must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5370641 — Healthy homes at 253 Pohutukawa Avenue, Ohope, Ohope 3121

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5370641 — Healthy homes at 253 Pohutukawa Avenue, Ohope, Ohope 3121

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions