Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5389085 — Mould at 14 Heaton Grove, Chatswood, Auckland 0626

Published 7 April 2026 · Application 5389085

Landlord favoured

Mould
State of repair
Healthy homes
Exemplary damages
Leaks

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Landlord favoured

From published order

Location

Auckland

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

C Lamdin

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Order

VICTOR RHYS CAMPBELL is removed as a party to the proceeding.
The tenants’ claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Pajudpol and Mr Kelly represented the landlord. Victor Rhys Campbell represented the tenants. Georgina Paratene attended by teleconference. Danielle Paratene did not attend.
Mr Kelly objected to Mr Campbell addressing the Tribunal on the basis that he doesn’t have standing as a party to the application.
A party is entitled to representation where the amount in dispute exceeds $6,000.00. See Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) section 93(2)(b).
Before allowing a party to act as a representative, the Tribunal must satisfy itself that the person proposed has sufficient knowledge of the case and sufficient authority to bind the party. See RTA section 93(6).
Ms Paratene told the Tribunal she was unable to attend the hearing in person today because she is ill. She said that she had no objection to Mr Campbell being removed as a party to the hearing, but it was her wish that he represent her in the hearing.
Mr Campbell said that he lived in the premises from early 2023 onwards and the landlord had knowledge of this and consented. Mr Kelly confirmed this was the case.
The tenants’ application form raises claims regarding failure to maintain the premise and breaches of the healthy homes standards (“HHS”). The limit for exemplary damages for these breaches is $7,200.00. Awards for general damages are also possible.
The tenants have quantified their claim as being for $99,000.00.
When I consider the above information, I consider the tenant’s request to have Mr Campbell represent them is supported by the necessary facts and law, and I allow it. Burden of proof:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these standards is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. That means the party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the burden of proof. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging the is 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.
If the claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
Danielle Jazzette Paratene and Georgina J Paratene, (“the tenants”) claim the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: For private rentals 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.
The landlord produced a tenancy agreement signed by the parties which records the first day of the tenancy as being 19/10/2022.
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.
Mr Campbell raised issues of water ingress throughout the tenancy. He said he wasn’t sure exactly all the times it happened, but it did occur during “Gabrielle” a severe weather event from February 2023. Mr Campbell said he was told by the plumber the water ingress was caused by lack of “overflows” by which I believe he meant overflows for the guttering.
Mr Campbell produced a photograph of the carpet in the entranceway which he said got wet one month after it was installed in 2025.
In response, Mr Kelly said that in the course of four or five landlord applications to mediation over the course of the tenancy, the tenant never raised the issue of moisture ingress.
Section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) says a party may only apply to the Tribunal for exemplary damages for claims made within 12 months of the date of commission of the unlawful act.
The tenants filed their application on 14 November 2025. This means that their claims are limited to landlord breaches made after 14 November 2024. This excludes a moisture ingress event that happened during Cyclone Gabrielle in February 2023.
The tenants second claim is that the landlord breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Mr Campbell said the premises were beset with leaks in the kitchen, bathroom and washhouse. This first occurred after Cyclone Gabrielle but others also occurred in June 2025 and August 2025.
The landlord said that after a complaint about a leak in the bathroom in August 2025, a work order was made out and a plumber attended. When the plumber met Ms Paratene, he was told that another plumber had already attended and the problem had been sorted out. When he asked if he should go, Ms Paratene said “I suppose so.”
At the landlord’s subsequent insistence the plumber returned, cut the gib- board and undertook an invasive inspection. He was unable to see evidence of any leak. The landlord produced a report from the plumber which includes “area found dry with no active leaks present.”
Mr Campbell’s response to this was that the plumber “...didn’t’ look in the right places.”
Mr Kelly said that there were ongoing issues with the property. Ms Pajudpol said that whenever they received a complaint, they actioned the complaint.
This has evidently been a tenancy that has suffered complaints from both sides. I discern there have been ongoing maintenance issues at the property. The evidence persuades me on the balance of probabilities that there has been an issue with either moisture ingress or leaks from time to time during this tenancy.
However the tenants’ claims were not well made out. Mr Campbell was not able to locate claims with regard to dates, specific occasions or even specific breaches. The claim was general in every regard.
This leaves me in a position of not knowing whether the breach is time barred by section 109, whether it is a claim that points to a breach by the landlord that amounts to an unlawful act or not, and if it is, whether or not exemplary damages would be appropriate as a remedy.
For instance, moisture ingress as the result of a serious weather event is less likely to attract exemplary damages than moisture ingress following weather that is not unusual in anyway. If a water pipe burst in a wall and a tenant does not report it to the landlord in a timely fashion, then again exemplary damages are less likely than if a tenant does report the problem and the landlord sits on their hands and doesn’t repair it.
Whereas I accept it is likely there were problems that related to moisture ingress and leaks, it also appears that the landlord has been active in addressing the maintenance issues raised.
Despite accepting there has probably been leaks or moisture ingress, the tenant has not satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that this has been the result of a breach by the landlord, much less that it is a breach for which exemplary damages or compensation should be awarded.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Mould State of repair Healthy homes Exemplary damages Leaks Auckland

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s109, s45, s45(1), s93(2), s93(6)

Key findings

Dispute theme: state of repair
Dispute theme: healthy homes
Dispute theme: exemplary damages

Property management

NORTHSIDE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED (respondent)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5389085?

The tribunal order states: VICTOR RHYS CAMPBELL is removed as a party to the proceeding.

How much money was awarded in case 5389085?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389085?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389085?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13401018-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Pajudpol and Mr Kelly represented the landlord. Victor Rhys Campbell represented the tenants. Georgina Paratene attended by teleconference. Danielle Paratene did not attend.

Mr Kelly objected to Mr Campbell addressing the Tribunal on the basis that he doesn’t have standing as a party to the application.

A party is entitled to representation where the amount in dispute exceeds $6,000.00. See Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) section 93(2)(b).

Before allowing a party to act as a representative, the Tribunal must satisfy itself that the person proposed has sufficient knowledge of the case and sufficient authority to bind the party. See RTA section 93(6).

Ms Paratene told the Tribunal she was unable to attend the hearing in person today because she is ill. She said that she had no objection to Mr Campbell being removed as a party to the hearing, but it was her wish that he represent her in the hearing.

Mr Campbell said that he lived in the premises from early 2023 onwards and the landlord had knowledge of this and consented. Mr Kelly confirmed this was the case.

The tenants’ application form raises claims regarding failure to maintain the premise and breaches of the healthy homes standards (“HHS”). The limit for exemplary damages for these breaches is $7,200.00. Awards for general damages are also possible.

The tenants have quantified their claim as being for $99,000.00.

When I consider the above information, I consider the tenant’s request to have Mr Campbell represent them is supported by the necessary facts and law, and I allow it. Burden of proof:

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these standards is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. That means the party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the burden of proof. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging the is 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.

If the claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.

Danielle Jazzette Paratene and Georgina J Paratene, (“the tenants”) claim the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: For private rentals 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.

The landlord produced a tenancy agreement signed by the parties which records the first day of the tenancy as being 19/10/2022.

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.

Mr Campbell raised issues of water ingress throughout the tenancy. He said he wasn’t sure exactly all the times it happened, but it did occur during “Gabrielle” a severe weather event from February 2023. Mr Campbell said he was told by the plumber the water ingress was caused by lack of “overflows” by which I believe he meant overflows for the guttering.

Mr Campbell produced a photograph of the carpet in the entranceway which he said got wet one month after it was installed in 2025.

In response, Mr Kelly said that in the course of four or five landlord applications to mediation over the course of the tenancy, the tenant never raised the issue of moisture ingress.

Section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) says a party may only apply to the Tribunal for exemplary damages for claims made within 12 months of the date of commission of the unlawful act.

The tenants filed their application on 14 November 2025. This means that their claims are limited to landlord breaches made after 14 November 2024. This excludes a moisture ingress event that happened during Cyclone Gabrielle in February 2023.

The tenants second claim is that the landlord breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

Mr Campbell said the premises were beset with leaks in the kitchen, bathroom and washhouse. This first occurred after Cyclone Gabrielle but others also occurred in June 2025 and August 2025.

The landlord said that after a complaint about a leak in the bathroom in August 2025, a work order was made out and a plumber attended. When the plumber met Ms Paratene, he was told that another plumber had already attended and the problem had been sorted out. When he asked if he should go, Ms Paratene said “I suppose so.”

At the landlord’s subsequent insistence the plumber returned, cut the gib- board and undertook an invasive inspection. He was unable to see evidence of any leak. The landlord produced a report from the plumber which includes “area found dry with no active leaks present.”

Mr Campbell’s response to this was that the plumber “...didn’t’ look in the right places.”

Mr Kelly said that there were ongoing issues with the property. Ms Pajudpol said that whenever they received a complaint, they actioned the complaint.

This has evidently been a tenancy that has suffered complaints from both sides. I discern there have been ongoing maintenance issues at the property. The evidence persuades me on the balance of probabilities that there has been an issue with either moisture ingress or leaks from time to time during this tenancy.

However the tenants’ claims were not well made out. Mr Campbell was not able to locate claims with regard to dates, specific occasions or even specific breaches. The claim was general in every regard.

This leaves me in a position of not knowing whether the breach is time barred by section 109, whether it is a claim that points to a breach by the landlord that amounts to an unlawful act or not, and if it is, whether or not exemplary damages would be appropriate as a remedy.

For instance, moisture ingress as the result of a serious weather event is less likely to attract exemplary damages than moisture ingress following weather that is not unusual in anyway. If a water pipe burst in a wall and a tenant does not report it to the landlord in a timely fashion, then again exemplary damages are less likely than if a tenant does report the problem and the landlord sits on their hands and doesn’t repair it.

Whereas I accept it is likely there were problems that related to moisture ingress and leaks, it also appears that the landlord has been active in addressing the maintenance issues raised.

Despite accepting there has probably been leaks or moisture ingress, the tenant has not satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that this has been the result of a breach by the landlord, much less that it is a breach for which exemplary damages or compensation should be awarded.