What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5390521 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 5390521?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5390521?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5390521?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13134634-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5390521 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 5390521?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5390521?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5390521?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13134634-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5390521 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlords name and identifying details.
The tenants’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Proving claims in the Tribunal
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they 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 this 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b) and (bb) obligations to the tenant?
The tenants says the landlords have breached their s45(1)(b) and (bb) of the RTA obligations to them.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 . 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Under s45(1)(c) of the RTA, the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
Breaching any of these s45(1) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 6
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 7 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 8 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 9 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 10 .
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which general and/or exemplary damages may be awarded.
The tenants claim the landlord failed to repair and maintain the following: a. Black mould throughout the house, including the shower, the silicone sealant around the kitchen sink, the second bedroom that backed on to the bathroom, the curtains in the master bedroom, on the tenants’ belongings, and on windowsills, because of the leak in the shower; b. Gaps around the shower; and c. Leak under the house.
The tenants claim these were either not fixed during their tenancy, the fix was ineffective, or they were not fixed in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances. A. Mould and gaps around the shower 6 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 7 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 9 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
The tenants claim that there was black mould throughout the house during the later parts of their tenancy (from 1 Augst 2024). They claim the landlords have not addressed this mould effectively, during and after the shower leak was investigated and repaired by the landlords’ contract builder, and they allege this caused them and their children’s respiratory issues.
The pictures of the mould in question show that the alleged mould on the windowsills, bedroom walls and ceilings, the curtains and the tenants belongings is mildew.
Mildew is generally light-coloured (white, grey, yellow), powdery, and lives on surfaces. It often appears in small spots that grow outward in a thin layer. Mildew stays on the surface of materials like shower walls, bedroom walls, fabrics, and windowsills. Mildew can typically be removed with household cleaning agents and scrubs, along with adequate ventilation. Mildew can cause minor health issues like coughing, sore throat, and headaches.
Mould is darker (black, green) and slimy or fuzzy, and penetrates deep into porous materials (drywall, wood, insulation), causing structural damage. Black mould often requires professional remediation, especially for widespread infestations, as cleaning the surface does not kill the fungus inside the material. Black mould also produces toxigenic spores that can cause severe respiratory issues, fatigue, and allergic reactions.
The tenants raised their concerns about a mould infestation in the house on 1 August 2024. They say they were not aware of the leak in the shower at this time, but were concerned the mould was causing themselves and their children to have recurring respiratory issues. They produced doctor’s records that prove they had doctor’s visits for these recurring health issues, but neither the tenants nor the doctor had the alleged mould tested to identify what it was, and if it could be contributing to these health issues.
The landlords came to investigate the concerns on 3 August 2025. They identified that there was a small leak in the shower during that visit (that the tenants had not been aware of). They engage a builder who removed the shower and treated the wall and insulation for some surface level mould that had developed behind the wall, dried the wall and insulation out, replaced the shower with a new shower. The builder left a small gap at the base of the shower to allow the floorboards to dry out further, with the intention of closing this small gap up in the summer months, being January/February 2026.
The builder completed the work by 18 August 2025 and the shower was able to be used by 20 August 2025.
The tenants did not raise any further mould or shower leak issues until they made their application with the Tenancy Tribunal on 24 November 2025, after having a healthy homes assessment undertaken by the Well Homes/Sustainability Trust. It is of note that the mould issues are not raised by the assessor at all, nor is the gap in the shower.
The landlords produced evidence that they were aware of higher levels of condensation in the house because of the shower leak and offered to provide dehumidifiers to the tenants to assist them to clear the condensation out of the premise and asked them to ventilate the premise. The tenants had made the decision to terminate the tenancy and did not take the landlords up on this offer.
The tenants are required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. They have not produced sufficient evidence to satisfy me that it is more likely than not that that there was black mould in the premise that was not addressed by the landlords in a reasonable timeframe or that it was addressed ineffectively. The evidence shows the builder addressed the surface mould behind the shower and in the insulation effectively and in a timely manner in all the circumstances. I find the premise more likely than not developed mildew from excess moisture from the shower leak and that the landlords addressed the leak and tried to educate the tenants on how to dry the house out to reduce moisture and asked them to clean any mildew that developed with exit mould, bleach or the like as well as ventilating the house and using a dehumidifier to help reduce the moisture in the air.
The tenants’ claim is therefore dismissed for lack of evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. B. Leak under the house
The landlords have proven they got under the house to check the alleged leak as soon as it was reported. They found that there was a very slow drip from a pipe which had made a small puddle on the (black plastic ground moisture barrier) of water. It was not enough water to create the alleged dampness and mould issues in the house
The landlords sent a picture of the pipe to their plumber, and he said that it was the expansion valve that does drip every now and then when the cylinder heats up and cools down. He confirmed it is very normal for these valves to drip under the house but that he could attach as pipe to it and direct it out though the vent at the base of the house, so the drip flows out. The plumber has done this work but not until after the tenants had moved out, so as not to disturb their quiet enjoyment when the issue was not urgent.
I am satisfied that this alleged leak was not urgent and was not casing any dampness or mould in the house and that the landlords investigated and addressed the issue in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances.
The tenants’ claim is therefore dismissed for lack of evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. The landlords have also successfully disproven this claim. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards
The tenants claim that the landlords have breached the landlords’ 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). Specifically, they consider the landlords have failed to comply with the HHS insulation and draught stopping standards.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. 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. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenants’ tenancy commenced on 9 May 2022. The landlord had 90 days to ensure the premise complied with the healthy homes’ standards, being 7 August 2022. A. Draught stopping standard
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenants gave evidence that there were gaps around the windows where the putty had aged and fallen out, gaps at the bottom of the shower, a rotten window, the right-hand side window in the dining area could not be closed and is about to collapse and there are loose window latches letting moisture ingress and draughts inside.
The landlords gave evidence that they had a healthy homes assessment undertaken in 2020 and at that time the house was brought up to compliance. A ground moisture barrier was installed, gaps and draughts addressed, and underfloor insulation installed. The landlords checked the house before the start of this tenancy and say that the house was compliant by 7 August 2022. The however forgot to add the statutory required healthy homes compliance statement and the detailed healthy homes standards information to the tenancy agreement. The tenants have not raised this breach as one of their claims. The landlords also had a healthy homes assessment undertaken on 4 February 2026 and the house has been given a compliance certificate by a third party independent healthy homes provider.
The issues raised by the tenant, many of which are outlined in the healthy homes assessment email they obtained from Well Homes/Sustainability Trust, are all repair and maintenance issues. Section 40(1)(d) of the RTA confirms that “a tenant must notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs”. The tenants confirmed that they did not raise with these issues with the landlord, after receiving the 24 November 2025 email. A landlord cannot address issues they do not know exist.
In this case I have determined that tenants have not provided sufficient evidence to prove this breach on the balance of probabilities. There is evidence that there are some repair and maintenance issues that needed addressing, but that the landlords were unaware of these and were not given the opportunity to remedy these issues until after the tenancy ended. B. Insulation standard
The tenants claim that the landlords have failed to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 because there was there was no ceiling insulation in the premise during the tenancy.
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.
The landlords accept that there was no ceiling insulation but say that the premise had an exemption to the insulation standard, as there was an old header tank in the ceiling and very little crawlspace. Because of these factors their healthy homes compliance provider had not installed ceiling insulation and considered the premise to qualify for an exemption. This was not known to them until the tenant raised concerns as part of this application. They then checked with the previous provided and had it confirmed why no ceiling insulation had been installed previously.
The landlords have subsequently had the header tank removed, and this has allowed them to partially insulate the ceiling space. They say that they would have had this done sooner if the tenants had raised their concerns about the lack of insulation.
In this case, I have determined that tenants have not provided sufficient evidence to prove this breach on the balance of probabilities. There is evidence that the premise was exempted from the ceiling insulation standard. This claim is therefore dismissed. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenants have not wholly or substantially succeeded with their claims, I dismiss their application for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name Suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, 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 tenants have not wholly or substantially succeeded with their claims. However, I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case and consider the detriment to the tenants in obtaining future tenancies outweighs any public interest in this matter.
I also use the Tribunal discretion to grant the landlords name suppression. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlords conduct or any other circumstances of the case and consider the potential detriment to the landlords in letting this property out in the future outweighs any public interest in this matter.
Non-publication of the tenants’ and landlords’ names and identifying details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5390521 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5390521 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions