What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5379974 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5379974?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379974?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379974?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14046439-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5379974 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5379974?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379974?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379974?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14046439-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Anglesea Street, Freemans Bay, Auckland 1011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5379974 — Mould & damp

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing held on 13 August 2026.
A pre-hearing case conference was held on 8 May 2026.
The tenancy commenced on 2 May 2024 and ended on 6 October 2025.
The tenant applied for a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards in relation to underfloor insulation and a ground moisture barrier. The law
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Under section 45, a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
In relation to underfloor insulation the law provides that if a domestic living space in the premises has a suspended floor, that floor must be fully covered by qualifying underfloor insulation 1 .
There is an exemption to this requirement contained in regulation 19(2) which states: A floor need not comply with regulation 15 if, at the commencement of the tenancy,— (a) the floor does not comply with that regulation; and (b) it is not reasonably practicable to install insulation so as to comply with that regulation.
In relation to ground moisture barriers the law provides that if the tenancy building has a suspended floor and the subfloor space is enclosed, the subfloor space must have a ground moisture barrier 2 .
There is an exemption to this requirement contained in regulation 29(1) which states: A tenancy building need not comply with regulation 28 if, at the commencement of the tenancy,— (a) the building does not comply with that regulation; and (b) it is not reasonably practicable to install a ground moisture barrier so as to comply with regulation 28(2)(a).
Regulation 4 sets out the meaning of “not reasonably practicable to install” as follows: It is not reasonably practicable to install something at any premises or tenancy building if, because of the way the premises or tenancy building is designed or built,— (a) a professional installer cannot access the relevant area of the premises or tenancy building to install the thing without— (i)carrying out substantial building work; or (ii)causing substantial damage to the premises or tenancy building; or (b) a professional installer cannot install the thing without creating greater risks to the health or safety of any person than are normally acceptable when something of that kind is being installed by a professional installer; or (c) it is otherwise not reasonably practicable for a professional installer to install the thing. 1 Regulation 15, Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 2 Regulation 28, Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019
The law requires that every tenancy agreement must include a statement made and signed by the landlord that on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the Healthy Homes standards 3 .
In the evidence produced to the Tribunal there is a document titled “Healthy Homes Standards – Current Level of Compliance”. That document was signed by the landlord on 29 April 2024. The document records that in relation to the underfloor insulation it is exempt due to the floor being a concrete slab and in relation to the ground moisture barrier there is no enclosed subfloor space. Tenant case
The tenant submits that part of the premises has a wooden suspended floor where the bedrooms and kitchen are located. He says that installing insulation and a ground moisture barrier would not be easy but there is subfloor access. The tenant had previously worked as a structural engineer, and he said that he had provided the landlord with a quote to install underfloor insulation and a ground moisture barrier for around $22,000.00. He said he would employ contractors to carry out the work which was expensive because it would involve some excavation of part of the ground under the house.
The tenant said that the premises were represented as complying with the Healthy Homes Standards, but the reality was that it was exempt from the Healthy Homes standards in relation to underfloor insulation and the ground moisture barrier.
The tenant did not provide any independent evidence to support his application.
The tenant said that this was not a warm house. He referred to returning home from being away to find a mushroom growing between the floorboards. The tenant produced photographs of the mushroom. Landlord case
The landlord submitted that there was a Healthy Homes Assessment carried out by Greenside Energy Solutions dated 19 July 2021.
That assessment records that an exemption applies in relation to the underfloor insulation and the ground moisture barrier. The assessment further records in relation to both the underfloor insulation and the ground 3 Section 13A(1CA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 moisture barrier that the “exemption applies due to underfloor is a concrete pad/no access.”
The landlord obtained an updated assessment from Greenside Energy Solutions on 9 October 2025. The email from Jamie Keoghan states: •I found an internal entry point in the cupboard in the hallway by the bathroom. •I can confirm it is not possible to install underfloor insulation or a ground moisture barrier due to insufficient working heights and health and safety. •The underfloor and ground moisture barrier is exempt.
The landlord produced an email dated 12 May 2026 from Hunter Rush of BSpoke Projects. That email records that he agreed with Greenside’s recommendation that an exemption would apply for the ground moisture barrier at the property. Analysis
Part of this property was built on a concrete pad and part had a suspended floor. The exemption in relation to both the underfloor insulation and the ground moisture barrier applies in relation to the concrete pad part of the premises.
In relation to the part of the premises which has a suspended floor it is necessary to consider whether the installation of the underfloor insulation and the ground moisture barrier is reasonably practicable.
While the tenant says that the work could be carried out following some excavation (300 mm of soil removed) that is not the evidence of a professional installer. It must be reasonably practicable for a professional installer to install.
In addition, it is not reasonably practicable where a professional installer cannot access the area without carrying out extensive building work or causing substantial damage to the premises. The evidence from BSpoke states that the option of removing the floorboards is not feasible. I also consider that the tenant suggestion of excavating under the subfloor is not reasonably practicable.
The landlord has produced evidence from two professional installers who state that it is not reasonably practicable to install the underfloor insulation and ground moisture barrier.
The Healthy Homes statement said that the underfloor insulation was exempt due to the concrete pad but that was only part of the house. While the statement should have said the exemption applied due to both the concrete pad and access issues, I do not consider that this is a significant issue. The statement confirms that the exemption applies and that is supported by the expert evidence.
The statement also said that there were no subfloor spaces, which is not accurate but again, the exemption applies.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant claimed that the property was not compliant with the Healthy Homes standards, however it is, because in relation to the underfloor insulation and the ground moisture barrier, exemptions apply.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing held on 13 August 2026.
A pre-hearing case conference was held on 8 May 2026.
The tenancy commenced on 2 May 2024 and ended on 6 October 2025.
The tenant applied for a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards in relation to underfloor insulation and a ground moisture barrier. The law
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Under section 45, a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
In relation to underfloor insulation the law provides that if a domestic living space in the premises has a suspended floor, that floor must be fully covered by qualifying underfloor insulation 1 .
There is an exemption to this requirement contained in regulation 19(2) which states: A floor need not comply with regulation 15 if, at the commencement of the tenancy,— (a) the floor does not comply with that regulation; and (b) it is not reasonably practicable to install insulation so as to comply with that regulation.
In relation to ground moisture barriers the law provides that if the tenancy building has a suspended floor and the subfloor space is enclosed, the subfloor space must have a ground moisture barrier 2 .
There is an exemption to this requirement contained in regulation 29(1) which states: A tenancy building need not comply with regulation 28 if, at the commencement of the tenancy,— (a) the building does not comply with that regulation; and (b) it is not reasonably practicable to install a ground moisture barrier so as to comply with regulation 28(2)(a).
Regulation 4 sets out the meaning of “not reasonably practicable to install” as follows: It is not reasonably practicable to install something at any premises or tenancy building if, because of the way the premises or tenancy building is designed or built,— (a) a professional installer cannot access the relevant area of the premises or tenancy building to install the thing without— (i)carrying out substantial building work; or (ii)causing substantial damage to the premises or tenancy building; or (b) a professional installer cannot install the thing without creating greater risks to the health or safety of any person than are normally acceptable when something of that kind is being installed by a professional installer; or (c) it is otherwise not reasonably practicable for a professional installer to install the thing. 1 Regulation 15, Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 2 Regulation 28, Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019
The law requires that every tenancy agreement must include a statement made and signed by the landlord that on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the Healthy Homes standards 3 .
In the evidence produced to the Tribunal there is a document titled “Healthy Homes Standards – Current Level of Compliance”. That document was signed by the landlord on 29 April 2024. The document records that in relation to the underfloor insulation it is exempt due to the floor being a concrete slab and in relation to the ground moisture barrier there is no enclosed subfloor space. Tenant case
The tenant submits that part of the premises has a wooden suspended floor where the bedrooms and kitchen are located. He says that installing insulation and a ground moisture barrier would not be easy but there is subfloor access. The tenant had previously worked as a structural engineer, and he said that he had provided the landlord with a quote to install underfloor insulation and a ground moisture barrier for around $22,000.00. He said he would employ contractors to carry out the work which was expensive because it would involve some excavation of part of the ground under the house.
The tenant said that the premises were represented as complying with the Healthy Homes Standards, but the reality was that it was exempt from the Healthy Homes standards in relation to underfloor insulation and the ground moisture barrier.
The tenant did not provide any independent evidence to support his application.
The tenant said that this was not a warm house. He referred to returning home from being away to find a mushroom growing between the floorboards. The tenant produced photographs of the mushroom. Landlord case
The landlord submitted that there was a Healthy Homes Assessment carried out by Greenside Energy Solutions dated 19 July 2021.
That assessment records that an exemption applies in relation to the underfloor insulation and the ground moisture barrier. The assessment further records in relation to both the underfloor insulation and the ground 3 Section 13A(1CA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 moisture barrier that the “exemption applies due to underfloor is a concrete pad/no access.”
The landlord obtained an updated assessment from Greenside Energy Solutions on 9 October 2025. The email from Jamie Keoghan states: •I found an internal entry point in the cupboard in the hallway by the bathroom. •I can confirm it is not possible to install underfloor insulation or a ground moisture barrier due to insufficient working heights and health and safety. •The underfloor and ground moisture barrier is exempt.
The landlord produced an email dated 12 May 2026 from Hunter Rush of BSpoke Projects. That email records that he agreed with Greenside’s recommendation that an exemption would apply for the ground moisture barrier at the property. Analysis
Part of this property was built on a concrete pad and part had a suspended floor. The exemption in relation to both the underfloor insulation and the ground moisture barrier applies in relation to the concrete pad part of the premises.
In relation to the part of the premises which has a suspended floor it is necessary to consider whether the installation of the underfloor insulation and the ground moisture barrier is reasonably practicable.
While the tenant says that the work could be carried out following some excavation (300 mm of soil removed) that is not the evidence of a professional installer. It must be reasonably practicable for a professional installer to install.
In addition, it is not reasonably practicable where a professional installer cannot access the area without carrying out extensive building work or causing substantial damage to the premises. The evidence from BSpoke states that the option of removing the floorboards is not feasible. I also consider that the tenant suggestion of excavating under the subfloor is not reasonably practicable.
The landlord has produced evidence from two professional installers who state that it is not reasonably practicable to install the underfloor insulation and ground moisture barrier.
The Healthy Homes statement said that the underfloor insulation was exempt due to the concrete pad but that was only part of the house. While the statement should have said the exemption applied due to both the concrete pad and access issues, I do not consider that this is a significant issue. The statement confirms that the exemption applies and that is supported by the expert evidence.
The statement also said that there were no subfloor spaces, which is not accurate but again, the exemption applies.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant claimed that the property was not compliant with the Healthy Homes standards, however it is, because in relation to the underfloor insulation and the ground moisture barrier, exemptions apply.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379974 — Mould & damp at 2 Anglesea Street, Freemans Bay, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379974 — Mould & damp at 2 Anglesea Street, Freemans Bay, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.