What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5390122 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 5390122?

Cleaning: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: HHS: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Plumbers Invoice: $267.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5390122?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5390122?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13415319-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5390122 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 5390122?

Cleaning: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: HHS: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Plumbers Invoice: $267.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5390122?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5390122?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13415319-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5390122 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5390122 — net $89.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet fumigation/cleaning	$322.00		Carpet fumigation/cleaning
Plumbers invoice	$267.50		Plumbers invoice
Compensation: HHS		$500.00	HHS
Total award	$589.50	$500.00
Net award	$89.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$89.50

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5390122 — net $89.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet fumigation/cleaning	$322.00		Carpet fumigation/cleaning
Plumbers invoice	$267.50		Plumbers invoice
Compensation: HHS		$500.00	HHS
Total award	$589.50	$500.00
Net award	$89.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$89.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] is to pay from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Goldbrook Realty Limited T/A Lj Hooker Papatoetoe As The Agent For Dianne Nichol: $89.50 [The tenant/s]: $2,630.50
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Goldsmith.
This tenancy began on 2 February 2024 and ended on 4 December 2025. The rent is $680.00 per week and a bond of $2,720.00 was paid.
The tenant has filed an application claiming breaches of landlord obligations and seeking compensation and exemplary damages. The tenant claims the landlord has not complied with the Healthy Homes Standards, in terms of ventilation and insulation, and states there is an issue with mould. The tenant also claims the landlord has unlawfully entered the premises and breached her quiet enjoyment. This is application number 5390122.
The landlord has filed a counterclaim, application number 5449994, seeking water charges, and compensation for a plumber’s invoice and carpet cleaning costs.
Both parties have provided oral, documentary and photographic evidence, together with their submissions. The claims are considered below. General legal principles
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.
Exemplary damages are penalties and can only be awarded for an unlawful act, as set out in various sections of the RTA and as listed in Schedule 1A of the Act. As explained by the Court of Appeal in Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732, they are different from compensation, and are designed to punish and deter, more like a fine. Where one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act, before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA. Tenant’s application: 5390122
The tenant claims as follows: • Healthy Homes Standards (HHS): the landlord has not complied with its obligations concerning ventilation and insulation. • Mould: issues with mould at the premises, especially during winter. • Unlawful entry: the landlord breached its obligations when trying to bring prospective tenants to view the property on 19 November 2025 without her permission. • Breach of quiet enjoyment: i. disruption due to installation of the ceiling fan before 1 July 2025 ii. landlord’s appearance at the premises on 19 November 2025 to show a prospective tenant iii. communication issues with the landlord after she gave her notice to end the tenancy. The tenant felt bullied by the landlord’s behaviour towards her. Healthy Homes Standards
The tenant states the landlord has not complied with its obligations concerning: • Ventilation – the ceiling fan in the bathroom was not installed until July 2025. • Insulation – there was little insulation in the walls, and the premises was cold
The tenant notes there were issues with mould at the premises, especially during winter. Legal framework
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: • 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. • All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. • 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.
The landlord has obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA Residential Tenancies Act 1986 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 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 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
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 s 109(3) RTA). Ventilation
In terms of the ventilation, the landlord has explained the reasons why there was a delay in the bathroom extractor fan being installed. The landlord states there was already ventilation above the shower, although it was not ducted outside. The previous tenants had no issues, and there were difficulties with access to the premises to install the extractor fan. In terms of the mould, the landlord notes the tenant was using a gas heater, rather than the heat pump. The gas heater likely caused condensation.
In response, the tenant notes that, during inspections by the landlord, because of her meticulous cleaning of the bathroom, mould was not evident. She described other areas of the house that was damp, especially in the spare bedroom. She also bought a dehumidifier. She denies being told not to use the gas heater.
In this case, while the landlord’s reasons are noted, it is clear the landlord had an obligation to ensure compliance with the HHS within 120 days of the start of the tenancy. This tenancy began on 2 February 2024. Therefore, the premises ought to have complied by 1 June 2024. The landlord was aware, at the start of the tenancy, that the bathroom did not have a compliant extractor fan. This extractor fan was not installed until June 2025. The invoice provided by the landlord is dated 27 June 2025. The landlord’s evidence at the hearing is that it was installed on 25 June 2025. This is over one year after the compliance date. Insulation
In terms of the insulation, the landlord has provided an insulation certificate, in support of the statement in the tenancy agreement that the premises complied with the HHS. The tenant believes the house is cold and lacks the necessary insulation in the walls. However, there is no requirement under the HHS for the walls to be insulated. In the absence of any further evidence from the tenant, as this claim has not been established, to the required standard, it is dismissed. HHS - compensation and exemplary damages
Overall, as the premises did not comply with the ventilation standards by the compliance date, the landlord has been in breach of the HHS. Therefore, the tenant is to be compensated. Taking into account the nature of the breach, duration, the resulting effect for the tenant, the amount of $500.00 is awarded.
The tenant also claims exemplary damages. For this to be awarded, the test for exemplary damages must be met. This is set out in section 109(3) of the RTA, and requires, as a precondition, that the person against whom the order is sought committed the unlawful act intentionally. An intentional act is a deliberate act, not a negligent or careless oversight, or incompetence. In this case, I find that the required intent for exemplary damages is not met, so there is no separate award for exemplary damages. Mould
In relation to the claim that there was mould throughout the house, as noted by the Tribunal in Semmens v Wadman, 1 mould is commonly present throughout all residential dwellings in New Zealand to some degree. Adjudicator Woodhouse explained that simply having mould in the premises would not be sufficient to establish a breach on the part of the landlord for which compensation can be ordered: Rather, what a tenant must establish, is that there are defects with the premises which have caused mould to develop, or to be at a more extensive level than would otherwise be reasonably expected in a dwelling that meets the required building standards.
In this case, the photographic evidence produced by the tenant is limited. It is accepted that the bathroom lacked an extractor fan that was ducted to the outside. However, there is only limited evidence that the rest of the house was mouldy. As observed by the Tribunal in the above case, the presence of mould, in itself, is insufficient to establish a breach on the part of the landlord. Aside from the lack of an extractor fan that complied with the HHS, overall, I find that the tenant has been unable to establish, with sufficient evidence, that there were defects in the premises which have caused the mould to develop. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Unlawful entry
The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice. This event is said to have occurred on 19 November 2025 (the November 2025 incident), when a representative of the landlord came to the premises to show a prospective tenant. The tenant states that she was unwell, was off work and resting at home. A medical report from her GP was provided. The landlord had knocked on the door. Later, the owner also knocked on the door. She did not allow them to enter. The tenant provided a video recording of the event. The tenant explained that she felt angry and upset at the behaviour of the owner.
In response, the landlord has explained the steps taken to try to re-let the premises after the tenant gave notice. The landlord states that access had been difficult. The prospective tenant gave up due to the difficulties. The landlord was clear that neither its staff nor the owner entered the premises, and referred to the written statement provided by the owner and the landlord’s representative. 1 [2022] NZTT Manukau 310605 Legal framework and analysis
Under section 48 of the RTA, 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. 2 A landlord can enter the premises with the tenants consent freely given, at or immediately before the time of entry, as provided in section 48(1)(a).
Section 48(3) states: With the prior consent of the tenant, the landlord may enter the premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of showing the premises— (a) to prospective tenants...
Where a landlord wishes to enter the premises to show prospective tenants the landlord must have the prior consent of the tenant, and the landlord may enter at any reasonable time for the purpose of showing the premises.
If a landlord enters the premises in contravention of section 48, this is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 3
Under section 48, the definition of “premises” does not include the land or facilities. This means the rules as to entry only apply to the premises and not the land or facilities.
The evidence shows there were some difficulties with access to show prospective tenants. The landlord does have a right to show prospective tenants while the tenancy is ongoing, provided the landlord complies with the requirements under section 48 of the RTA. Therefore, the landlord can request permission during the period after the tenant has given notice to end the tenancy but before the tenancy has ended. While this may be inconvenient from the tenant’s perspective, the landlord does need to be able to show the premises so it can be re-let without undue delay.
In this case, having considered the evidence overall, I am unable to conclude that the landlord has unlawfully entered the premises. It is clear that the landlord did not enter the house, once the tenant declined her permission. The landlord also emailed the tenant about the visit, although I accept the tenant may not have seen the email until the day of the visit.
As to whether this incident has resulted in a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment, this is considered below. 2 See section 48(1) and (2) of the RTA 3 See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A of the RTA Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant claims the landlord has breached her quiet enjoyment of the premises. The tenant states there was disruption due to the landlord trying to install an extractor fan in the bathroom, to ensure it was installed before 1 July 2025. There was also the November 2025 incident described above, when the landlord attempted to show the premises to a prospective tenant.
The tenant has also described her unhappiness with the communication from the landlord, noting its haste in trying to bring prospective new tenants to view the premises within days of her giving notice. She has explained that she had tried to extend her move out date because she had given notice prematurely. However, the landlord declined to allow her to have an extension. She expressed concerns regarding the behaviour of the landlord and the owner. Legal framework and analysis
Section 38(1) of the RTA states that the tenant is entitled to have “quiet enjoyment” of the premises without interruption by the landlord or anyone acting on the landlord’s behalf. This provision imposes a limited duty on the landlord not to do anything to interrupt the tenant’s use of the premises. 4 Section 38(2) of the RTA further provides that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
The right to ‘reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy’ is often described as the right to quiet enjoyment. In this context “quiet” means peaceful, not merely free from noise, and “enjoyment” means the right to full use and benefit of the tenancy property.5 This right is commonly used in reference to the uninterrupted use of the premises, and can include the right not to have the tenancy significantly impaired by the actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents. Where this obligation has been breached in circumstances that amount to harassment, this is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.6 Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person." 7
In Smith v Olmstead v Floris 8 the Tribunal emphasised the distinction between a true breach of quiet enjoyment and a clash of personalities: 4 ‘Residential Tenancies: The Law and Practice’ 4 th edition, D. Grinlinton (2012) 5 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson (2018) 6 See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the RTA 7 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. 8 Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1993 ... one must bear in mind that landlord/tenant relationships tend to be between individuals and that will inevitably involve some interaction between them on a personal level. It is important not to allow a simple clash of personality to become the sole basis for a claim for breach of this type.
The Tribunal has observed, in the case of McIntosh v O’Malley 9 , that it is not a breach of a legal duty for the landlord and tenant to dislike each other. So, there may be instances where one party is unhappy with the communication style of the other party, but that will not always amount to a breach under the RTA.
Taking all these factors into account, noting the history and context of the incident, the communication between the parties prior to the event, the landlord and tenant’s evidence, and the behaviour of those involved during the event, overall, I find there are shortcomings on both sides. It is unfortunate that the tenant did not read the landlord’s communication about the visit, and that the landlord did not telephone her to confirm the arrangement. Both parties decided to film the interaction, and this may have escalated tensions between them. While accepting that the tenant felt aggrieved by this incident, overall, I am not able to find that there has been a breach of her quiet enjoyment.
There is insufficient evidence concerning the claimed disruption from the installation of the extractor fan.
While noting the tenant’s concerns and how she felt, and I do not find the other instances described, including the nature of the communication received from the landlord, amount to a breach under the RTA.
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Landlord’s application: 5449994
The landlord claims as follows: • Water charges of $16.31 • Carpet fumigation and cleaning costs of $322.00 • Compensation for a plumber’s invoice of $267.50 These claims are considered below. 9 [2022] NZTT 4325097, 4326905 Water charges
Under the RTA a tenant is responsible for all outgoings exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises. This includes electricity, gas, telephone, and internet. 10 A tenant is also liable for water charges where a water supplier charges for water on the basis of consumption. 11 However, a tenant is not liable to pay fixed water charges as they are payable regardless of the tenant’s occupation.
In this case the tenant states that she has paid the final amount to Watercare, and does not believe she owes anything. She has provided evidence of the payment made. While noting the detailed explanation provided by the landlord, including its calculation of the tenant’s liability for water charges, the evidence provided does not adequately support the final amount of $16.31 being sought. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Carpet cleaning
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA.
In support of the claim for carpet cleaning costs of $322.00, the landlord has provided an invoice. The landlord relies on a clause in the tenancy agreement requiring fumigation of the carpet at the end of the tenancy, since the owner has given permission for the tenant to keep a cat. The landlord notes there was also a lot of cat hair at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant accepts liability for fumigation of the carpet, but not for steam cleaning. She states her two cats were pedigree cats, they were wormed, and had flea treatment.
While noting the carpet cleaning invoice records steam cleaning, it is unclear whether the steam cleaning was part of the fumigation process. If it was a separate process, it is not clear how much of the cost can be apportioned to fumigation alone. Therefore, I consider it reasonable for the tenant to reimburse the landlord the full cost of this invoice, in view of the agreed term under the tenancy agreement, which is considered a reasonable requirement. This is awarded above. 10 Section 39(4)(a) and (b) 11 Section 39(4)(c) Plumber’s invoice
The landlord claims $267.50 for a plumber’s invoice, explaining that a plumber was called when the tenant advised that the toilet was blocked. The plumber cleared it, and found there was an obstruction that had caused the blockage. This was due to a toilet rim cleaner being lodged in the drain.
The tenant accepts that she uses a toilet rim cleaner but denies this is the product she used, and believes the device shown in the photo sent by the plumber is different. She believes it could have been sitting there for a while. The landlord considers it unlikely to be the responsibility of a previous tenant.
On balance, I consider it likely that the tenant is responsible, due to her evidence of using a toilet rim cleaner, which is the product that has caused the blockage, and noting she has not established that the product she used was different to the one that blocked the toilet. Accordingly, the tenant is liable for this invoice, as awarded above. Filing fee and name suppression
As each party has had some success with their application, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant seeks name suppression, the landlord does not. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, and noting that the tenant has established some of her claims, orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5390122 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5390122 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions