What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5372661 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 5372661?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5372661?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5372661?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13232683-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5372661 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 5372661?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5372661?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5372661?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13232683-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

76 Kennedy Road, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3112, Cottage Tenancy Tribunal Case 5372661 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
All claims in this application are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 March 2026 – the landlord in person and the tenant by telephone.
This order ought to be read together with the order dated 9 December 2025. In that order I set out a summary of the tenant’s claims against the landlord.
I will address each of the claims in turn and in the order they were addressed at the hearing on 4 March 2026. Standard of proof
Before addressing each of the claims made, I point out that as the applicant, it is the tenant’s task to prove their case on the balance of probabilities. This means that for each claim, the tenant is required to show that his version of events is more likely than the landlord’s version.
As explained at the hearing, in a disputed situation such as this, when one party says one thing and the other says another, then the only way of proving a case to the required standard is for the applicant to show some kind of objective evidence that supports their point of view. Failure to repair in a timely way
Ian Simpsonclaims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair.
He says that there were two parts to this claim: (a) Failing to repair a blocked downpipe and spouting at the front of the house; and (b) Failing to remedy water ingress in the kitchen.
With regard to 7(a) it was undisputed evidence that at the beginning of the tenancy the landlord was advised that there was algae on a downpipe and that the landlord removed a toy from the downpipe.
The tenant stated that over the next few years he noticed water running down the outside of the house and that as a result there was black mould on the main bedroom ceiling.
With regard to 7(b) it was also undisputed that 3-4 years into the tenancy the landlord was notified that water was dripping on to the kitchen window which the landlord fixed in a timely way by removing a rusted clout.
The tenant stated that when he left the tenancy he noticed that there was black mould on the kitchen ceiling.
I am dismissing both claims under this heading. The tenant admitted that at no stage during his tenancy after these repairs, which both parties thought had fixed the issue at the time, did he advise the landlord of further repairs needing to be done. While he says that he did not notify the landlord of the water running down the house because the landlord was short on time and money, no evidence was presented to support this point. Breach of tenancy agreement
The tenant claims that the landlord breached the tenancy agreement by failing to provide him with the use of two containers at the property, both of which were listed as chattels in the tenancy agreement. He said that the landlord used the front container for 3-4 years and then leased it to another tenant.
I am dismissing this part of the tenant’s claim. Although the tenancy agreement does indeed list both containers as chattels, the parties’ conduct throughout the tenancy indicates an acknowledgement that only 1 container was for the tenant’s use. Texts between the landlord and tenant also indicate that the tenant was aware that the front container was for the landlord’s use.
Further, the tenant did not question the landlord’s use of the container at any time throughout the tenancy and indeed the front container was fenced off from the tenant’s property, indicating again that it was not for the tenant’s use. Failure to give correct notice of entry
Ian Simpson claims the landlord has entered the premises without the required consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant points to several text messages which he says show that the landlord did not provide sufficient notice of coming on to the property.
The texts of 3/12/14 and 27/2/15 show the landlord advising the tenant that he was coming to the container “shortly”.
I do not consider these texts to be proof of insufficient notice given that I have already found that this container was not part of the tenant’s property.
The text of 15/3/18 at 4.56pm advises that the landlord is coming with the valuer the next morning so that he could make a report for financial purposes. The tenant’s responding text consents to this.
Section 48(3)(c) of the RTA provides that with the prior consent of the tenant the landlord may enter the premises at any reasonable time for the purposes of showing the premises to a registered valuer engaged in the preparation of a report on the premises.
Given that the tenant consented to the landlord and valuer’s visit, there has been no breach of the provisions relating to the landlord’s right of entry.
The text of 16/4/20 at 2.48pm advised the tenant that the landlord and Jason would be picking up the dishwasher the next morning at 9am.
I am again dismissing this part of the tenant’s claim. This is because 5 days previously the tenant had advised the landlord to pick up the dishwasher at his convenience from “any time now onwards.”
This text indicates to me that the tenant was aware that the dishwasher was to be picked up at any time, and no further notice was required.
The text of 16/8/14 advised the tenant that the landlord would be picking up the trailer and the mower “this morning”.
I am dismissing this part of the claim because the tenant has been unable to show that more likely than not the mower was being picked up from his property.
There was a dispute about where the mower was being left – either within the tenant’s property or outside of it. Without any objective evidence to support the tenant’s claim that the mower was being picked up from within his property, the tenant has not been able to prove his claim “on the balance of probabilities”.
The text of 17/2/25 from the landlord asks the tenant to meet him for a chat either at the packhouse, the firepile or at the tenant’s property.
I do not consider this to be a breach of the notice provisions because the tenant was given options about where to meet.
I note that the tenant advised the landlord that he was too busy to meet and so this meeting did not in fact take place. Breach of quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant states that the landlord has breached s38 because on 2 November 2022 the landlord came to his property and abused him. He says that the landlord was angry because he had offered to clear up part of the orchard after pruning.
I find that the tenant has not been able to show that more likely than not the landlord was abusive.
All the objective evidence in the form of text messages between the two at this time make no reference to any kind of discord. A text from the landlord shortly after that meeting says “thanks for the chat this morning” and then goes on to confirm whether or not the tenant wanted a heat pump or more insulation.
Emails and texts throughout the tenancy show that the landlord and tenant were on good terms and no reference was ever made, prior to this application, to this purported breach of s38.
While I note that the tenant states that he did not want to address it because he did not want to “rock the boat” and have the landlord terminate his tenancy, there is no indication in any of the documented evidence that the landlord would have done such a thing. Retaliatory notice
On 17 February 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy in May 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims that the notice was retaliatory because the tenant had refused to meet with the landlord on his terms. He also pointed to the landlord having accused him of being a week late in his rent, only to have that claim disproved.
The tenant also noted that no one had moved into the tenancy for some months after he had vacated it.
I find that the tenant has not been able to prove this part of his claim to the required standard.
There is no objective evidence indicating that the landlord was unhappy with the tenant not being able to meet with him.
The landlord has given plausible evidence that he wanted to meet with the tenant in person to give him the notice of termination, given that he considered the tenant to be a very good tenant with whom he was on friendly terms.
Further, the issue of the late rent was a couple of years earlier and I find it unlikely that this issue, which was not the tenant’s fault, would have played a part in the landlord deciding to terminate the tenancy.
Also, whether or not the premises were vacant after the tenant moved out is not evidence that the notice of termination was retaliatory. I accept that the landlord wanted the premises for his son and no evidence was presented to negate this. Failure to provide a rubbish bin
It was not disputed that in July 2021, when Council bins were supplied, a rubbish bin was shared between this tenant and another tenant.
The tenant claims that he ought to have been provided with a bin for his exclusive use and because he was not provided with one he had to make a trip/trips to a landfill.
I am dismissing this part of the tenant’s claim for reasons that include: (a) I am unable to see any kind of mandatory requirement that tenants are given exclusive use of a rubbish bin; and (b) In any case, even if there was such a requirement, the tenant has been unable to show any kind of monetary loss associated with having to share with another tenant; and (c) It was not until the tenant was given the notice of termination that the tenant advised the landlord that he did not have enough bin space. The landlord immediately advised him that the bin was now for his exclusive use; and (d) This indicates that when the tenant told him he wanted exclusive use of a bin, he received exclusive use of a bin. Clause 15 Housing Improvement Regulations 1947
Clause 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations provides that every house shall be free from dampness.
The tenant states that the landlord has breached this regulation because when he left the tenancy he discovered that the house had mould in the kitchen ceiling, the bedroom ceiling and the bedroom floor.
I am dismissing this part of the applicant’s claim because at no stage of the tenancy was the landlord advised that the house was damp. Further, as seen in the s45 claim, the landlord remedied issues in a timely way when he was notified of them. Suppression of names
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order 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 tenant has not been successful in his claim and does not seek suppression pursuant to s95A(1). His name is therefore not suppressed.
I am granting the landlord’s application for suppression of their name because they have been wholly successful in the defence to the tenant’s claim – s95A(3). C ter Haar 05 March 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5372661 — Mould & damp at 76 Kennedy Road, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3112, Cottage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5372661 — Mould & damp at 76 Kennedy Road, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3112, Cottage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions