What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5395022 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 5395022?

Compensation: HHS Extractor Fan: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $20.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5395022?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5395022?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13517497-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5395022 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 5395022?

Compensation: HHS Extractor Fan: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $20.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5395022?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5395022?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13517497-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

73A Mills Road, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5395022 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

73A Mills Road, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5395022 — Healthy homes | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

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

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5395022 — net $1,298.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: HHS extractor fan	$400.00	HHS extractor fan
Exemplary damages: HHS extractor fan	$600.00	HHS extractor fan
Exemplary damages: HHS information	$250.00	HHS information
Compensation: Mould cleaning - s 38	$20.00	Mould cleaning - s 38
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,298.00
Bond	$2,595.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,298.00

Claims and awards for application 5395022 — net $1,298.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: HHS extractor fan

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: HHS extractor fan

Exemplary damages: HHS extractor fan

Amount: $600.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: HHS extractor fan

Exemplary damages: HHS information

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: HHS information

Compensation: Mould cleaning - s 38

Amount: $20.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Mould cleaning - s 38

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants names and identifying details and the name of [Redacted].
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,595.00 [Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Property Management Wellington Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,298.00 immediately as calculated in the table below -

The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
For ease of reference, I will refer to the tenants in the singular.
All references to the RTA a reference to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. All references to the HHS are to the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
The tenancy has ended. The tenant claims the landlord has breached the RTA and HHS 1 in respect of insulation, ventilation and draught stopping. The tenant also says the landlord failed to provide HHS information when requested in accordance with the RTA. The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages.

ISSUES

The issues for determination are: a. Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS in respect of insulation, ventilation and draught stopping? b. Did the landlord fail to provide HHS information within 21 days of the tenant’s request? c. If any breaches are proven, should compensation and/or exemplary damages be ordered? d. What orders should be made with respect to the bond, costs and suppression?

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the RTA. With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant 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 2 , in practical terms this means that: 1 RTA, s 45. 2 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. ... [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. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 3 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the nature, duration and effect of the breach when deciding to award compensation. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 4 the Court of Appeal 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. Before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the intent of the person in committing the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed, the public interest, and whether it is just to make the award. 5
Intention is proved where the party turns their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately sets out to commit the act. It is unnecessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully, it is enough that they intended to commit the act which is in fact unlawful. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the particular obligation they have failed to perform, confusion, lack of knowledge or 3 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. 4 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732(Cooke P) 5 Section 109 of the RTA. ignorance of the law is no defence. 6 A party is considered to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional. Also, if the party is wilfully blind to the factual circumstances that give rise to an unlawful act, this may also be sufficient to prove they acted intentionally.
Exemplary damages must be ordered on a global basis, rather than for each and every breach separately under the same provision of the RTA. 7 The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 8

HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS

The tenancy commenced on 31 January 2024. On 24 November 2025 the tenant filed an application relating to the HHS. The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations as it relates to the insulation, ventilation and draught stopping HHS.
The RTA requires compliance with the HHS. 9 The HHS provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in relation to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. 10 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. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. The obligation to comply with the HHS in this case was 120 days after the commencement of the tenancy, being 30 May 2024.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 11 Insulation standard:
The insulation standard requires that the premises have qualifying insulation in the ceiling cavity, and under the floor if the floor is a suspended floor. To be considered ‘qualifying insulation’ the insulation must meet a minimum R value. 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. The insulation must also be in a reasonable condition. The HHS does provide an exemption to the requirements for insulation in specific circumstances for example, where it is 6 TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 7 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583 8 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781. 9 RTA, s 45(1) (bb). 10 HHS, Schedule 1 11 RTA, s 45(1A). not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated. 12 Insulation standard: this case
The tenant says the premises did not comply with the insulation standard.
The tenants provided an email from [Redacted]. (Mr S). I am told Mr S is a builder and I was provided with his New Zealand Certificate in Carpentry (Level 4). Mr S did not attend at the property to assess the property for HHS compliance and did not attend the hearing to give evidence.
The landlord relied on the insulation exemption in regulation 19 of the HHS. Regulation 19 HHS says a ceiling’s insulation need not comply with regulation 13 (Which requires coverage of the ceiling with qualifying insulation) if, at the commencement of the tenancy the ceiling does not comply with that regulation; and it is not reasonably practicable to install insulation so as to comply with that regulation. This exemption ceases to apply if, during the term of the tenancy, it becomes reasonably practicable to install insulation so as to comply with the insulation HHS. Regulation 4 HHS clarifies what is required in order for a landlord to rely on the exemption that compliance with the HHS is not reasonably practicable. Regulation 4 says: 4Meaning of not reasonably practicable to install 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.
The landlord says they had a contractor provide confirmation to them that the property would be exempt before the tenancy commenced. The landlord provided a current certificate of exemption. 12 HHS, regs 13-20
In reviewing the evidence, and in the absence of the tenant providing direct evidence from a professional builder at the hearing, I consider the tenant has not provided sufficient independent evidence that the insulation exemption does not apply, and that the property did not meet the HHS insulation standard. Ventilation standard:
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. 13 Ventilation standard: this case
The tenant says the kitchen extractor fan stopped working in May 2025 following a fuse blowing in the kitchen. The tenant says the extractor fan would turn on but kept stopping. The tenant says they emailed the landlord on 21 May 2025 about the kitchen extractor fan not working and this issue was not remedied. The tenant sent the landlord a 14-day notice on 27 December 2025 in respect of the issue with the kitchen extractor fan. The tenant says this was not remedied during the tenancy, which ended in January 2026.
The landlord says he understood “Rob” (who I understand to be his maintenance person) attended the property in December 2025 and completed the repair.
I am satisfied on the evidence, particularly the oral evidence that there was an issue with the extractor fan, the documentary evidence of the 14-day notice, and the landlord’s indication that the issue with the kitchen extractor fan was remedied in December 2025, that it is more likely than not that the kitchen extractor fan was not working properly from May 2025 until at least late December 2025 (approximately 7 months). I therefore find the premises did not comply with the ventilation standard during this period of the tenancy. I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act. 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. 14 Draught Stopping Standard: this case 13 HHS, regs 21-24 14 HHS, regs 25-26
The tenant said the property did not comply with the draught stopping standard as there were unreasonable gaps and holes. The tenant provided photographs of some gaps.
The landlord says the property is compliant with the draught stopping HHS.
In the absence of independent evidence from a builder as to whether the gaps are unreasonable gaps, I consider the tenant has not proven a breach with respect to the draught stopping standard.

COMPENSATION

The tenant seeks compensation in respect of the breach of HHS. I consider the tenant should be compensated for the breach of the ventilation standard.
In assessing a fair level of compensation in respect of the breach of the ventilation HHS, I consider the following factors are relevant: a. That the property was non-compliant for at least 7 months, with the kitchen extractor fan not fully functional. b. the inconvenience to the tenant of not having a kitchen extractor fan. c. that the tenant was living in a home that was not healthy which is a serious breach of the RTA.
I have reached the conclusion that it would be fair to award the tenant $400 compensation in respect of this breach.

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

The tenant seeks exemplary damages. In assessing the claim for exemplary damages, I note the following factors were relevant 15
Intent - The landlord was aware of the obligation to ensure compliance with the HHS and provided no reasonable explanation for the delay in the repair to the kitchen extractor fan.
Effect - The effect of the breach meant that the tenants lived in an unhealthy home. The tenant says they had a low standard of living. However, I consider the duration and nature of the breach to not be significant and I note that delay in the tenant serving the landlord with the 14 day notice to remedy the issue.
Interest of tenant - It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to comply with the HHS.
Public interest - It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that breach the HHS.
Having regards to the above factors I consider an award of exemplary damages of $600.00 is just and it is ordered accordingly. 15 RTA, s 109. HHS INFORMATION – COMPLIANCE STATEMENT AND DOCUMENTS
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA in relation to the provision of HHS information.
Section 45 of the RTA sets out the landlords’ responsibilities in respect of HHS information. Section 45 (1AC) RTA says if the tenant requests the landlord to provide information described in section 123A(1)(e) to the tenant, the landlord must, within 21 days after the date of receiving the request, provide the information to the tenant. 16 Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. 17
Section 123A RTA is a provision which relates to documentation that the landlord needs to hold and produce to MBIE as part of any compliance investigation. Section 123A(1)(e) RTA requires that the landlord hold and provide to MBIE the records or other documents that relate to the landlord’s compliance with the HHS and that are prescribed by the HHS under section 138B(5) RTA. Section 138B (5) RTA relates to the HHS and says regulations may be made prescribing information that must be included in a HHS compliance statement (s13A RTA), and prescribing the records or other documents that must be retained by a landlord for the purposes of section 123A(1)(e) RTA (which may include records or other documents relating to work or other things done before the commencement of the tenancy). Regulation 40 of the HHS sets out the relevant documents and says: ...relevant records or documents means any of the following to the extent that they relate to compliance with the healthy homes standards: (a)reports or other records of inspections of the premises, tenancy building, or installed or provided things (whether the inspections were done during or before the commencement of the tenancy), including photographs or video recordings: (b)records of any installation, maintenance or repair, or other work carried out at the premises or tenancy building (whether the work was done during or before the commencement of the tenancy): (emphasis added) (c)records of calculations of a living room’s required heating capacity, including the required heating capacity that resulted from the calculations, (for example, results from a heating capacity calculator (as defined in regulation 10)): (ca)if the main living room complies with regulation 8 by meeting the requirements of regulation 10A,— (i)the name and relevant qualifications of the specialist who made the assessment; and 16 This provision of the RTA came into force on 11 February 2021, by s 27 of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2020 (2020 No 59). 17 See section 45(1AD)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA. (ii)a description of how the specialist calculated the required heating capacity: (d)product manuals or other manufacturer’s information relating to installed or provided things: (e)certificates or other documents issued under or for the purposes of an enactment or a bylaw (for example, a code compliance certificate or building warrant of fitness under the Building Act 2004): (f)reports or other documents issued by a local authority (as defined in section 5(1) of the Local Government Act 2002) in relation to the premises or tenancy building (for example, a land information memorandum (LIM) report): (g)documents or records relating to the construction of, or work carried out at, the premises or tenancy building.

THIS CASE

The information to be provided in HHS compliance statements is set out in regulation 33-39 of the HHS. Regulation 36 in respect of ventilation says the HHS compliance statement must include for each kitchen and bathroom in the premises, whether it has an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation installed in it and if an extractor fan, the extractor fan’s diameter or exhaust capacity.
The HHS compliance statements provided to the tenant at the start of the tenancy are copied below. 10 November 2023 Heating Compliant - Yes Heating required: 3KW. Type of Heating: Fujitsu Heat pump 5.2kw + Noirot panel Heater 2.4kw KW of installed heating: 7.6KW Insulation Compliant - No Ceiling – No Underfloor – No Walls: EXEMPT Ceiling Insulation Type: - Batts/ segments/ etc R value/ mm Thick _________ Underfloor Insulation Type: Exempt – flat below Walls: Exempt no requirement to have walls insulated under current standard Ventilation Compliant- No Windows - Yes Kitchen - No Bathroom - Yes Windows - There is an opening window or door to the exterior in all living spaces. Kitchen – Professional Assessment required. Bathroom - Yes Pre-01 July 2019. – Professional Assessment required Moisture/Drainage Complaint - No Gutters and downpipes effectively drain. Drains unobstructed. Ground Moisture Barrier Present: No Draft Stopping Compliant - Yes Property is free of excess drafts. Windows and door gaps do not exceed 3mm. (Drafts can occur at properties over time as they move and age. If a draft occurs during the tenancy, please advise us so that it can be assessed and remedied if it exceeds Healthy Homes Standards Criteria) 30 January 2024 Heating Compliant - Yes Heating required: 3KW. Type of Heating: Fujitsu Heat pump 5.2kw + Noirot panel Heater 2.4kw KW of installed heating: 7.6KW Insulation Compliant – Exempt Ceiling – Exempt Underfloor – Exempt Walls: Exempt Ceiling Insulation Type: - Exempt – No practical safe access, due to low roof profile Underfloor Insulation Type: Exempt – No access, flat below Walls: Exempt no requirement to have walls insulated under current standard Ventilation Compliant- Yes Windows - Yes Kitchen - Yes Bathroom - Yes Windows - There is an opening window or door to the exterior in all living spaces. Kitchen – Yes Post-01 July 2019. External Extraction Bathroom - Yes Pre-01 July 2019. External Extraction Moisture/Drainage Complaint -Exempt Gutters and downpipes effectively drain. Drains unobstructed. Ground Moisture Barrier Present: Exempt – Due to dwelling below. Draft StoppingProperty is free of excess drafts. Compliant - YesWindows and door gaps do not exceed 3mm. (Drafts can occur at properties over time as they move and age. If a draft occurs during the tenancy, please advise us so that it can be assessed and remedied if it exceeds Healthy Homes Standards Criteria)
On 12 August 2025 the tenant emailed the landlord saying that the HHS compliance statement provided at the start of the tenancy is incomplete and missing required information, including extractor fan specifications and insulation verification.
The tenant says on 12 August 2025 they also formally requested HHS information from the landlord and the 21 days passed with no response.
The landlord says he understood providing the HHS compliance statement was the extent of his obligation and he did not consider he was required to provide additional documentation.
A new heat pump was installed on or about 24 July 2024. The landlord had in his possession the tax invoice. The landlord also had a quote for the bathroom and kitchen extractor fans. The landlord submitted these documents as evidence of compliance with the HHS. I consider they fall within Regulation 40 HHS and were not provided to the tenant after their request.
I find the landlord has not complied with s 45 (1AC) RTA and has committed an unlawful act.

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

The tenant seeks exemplary damages. In assessing the claim for exemplary damages, I note the following factors were relevant. 18
Intent - The landlord should have known what documents it had to provide to the tenant and that it had 21 days to comply with the tenant’s written information request. The landlord acknowledged not providing the HHS documents to the tenant. It appears he considered the HHS compliance statement was sufficient to meet its obligations in respect of disclosure. I consider the landlord has intentionally withheld the HHS documents from the tenant.
Effect - The impact on the tenant of the landlord not providing this information is they were not fully informed about the premises, as they have a right to be.
Interest of tenant - It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to provide HHS information. 18 RTA, s 109.
Public interest - It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally fail to meet their HHS obligations.
In having regards to the above factors, I consider an award of exemplary damages of $250 (a third of the maximum) is just and it is ordered accordingly.

THE MOULD ISSUE

Relevant law – Maintenance and mould

A landlord must provide and maintain the premises (including the facilities) in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. 19 In Barfoot & Thompson v Casey 20 the Court considered the extent of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The Court said that there was no absolute liability or responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. 21 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time. 22 In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd 23 the Court stated: [15] I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, 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 may be.
A landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. 24 The Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) provides that every house shall be free from dampness. 25
Failure to comply with these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be ordered. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered is $7,200.00. 26 19 RTA s 45 (1)(b). 20 Barfoot & Thompson v Casey CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007. 21 RTA, s 40(1)(d). 22 As noted in the landlord’s submissions at paragraph 10. 23 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 24 RTA, s 45 (1)(c) 25 HIR, regulation 15 26 RTA, s 45 (1A)and Schedule 1A
Mould can be caused by a lack of ventilation, but it also can be caused by leaks or water ingress. A tenant is required to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 27 If a tenant notices a problem with mould then they have an obligation to notify the landlord because the existence of mould can indicate an underlying defect in the property such as a hidden leak. Likewise, a landlord should investigate the cause of mould complained of by a tenant or seen at an inspection.
The presence of mould in the premises is not sufficient to establish a breach on the part of the landlord for which compensation can be ordered. Mould is commonly present throughout all residential dwellings in New Zealand to some degree. In Semmens v Wadman 28 the Tribunal said that a tenant must prove that there are defects with the premises which have caused mould to develop at a greater level than is reasonably expected in a dwelling that meets the required building standards. In Hullia and Hullia v Tran and Vu 29 the Tribunal said that the premises must be able to be used and lived in in the normal way, without excessive mould developing and if this cannot be done then the problem of mould falls on the landlord to remedy under their obligations to maintain the property.
The tenant says they reported mould on the ceilings, and they were told it was due to inadequate cleaning and the landlord arranged for a chemical cleaning. The tenants say after the cleaning the premises had a strong chemical smell for days making the home unpleasant to be in. The tenant said the chemicals dripped onto the walls and belongings, bedding was moved and after the cleaning paint flecks were left on their toiletries. The tenant says they were told they would receive $20 reimbursement for the damaged items, but this has not been received.
The landlord says they investigated the issue of mould and disputes that there is an issue with the premises that caused mould. The landlord thought the tenant’s may have already received the $20 compensation offered but also said he had not received any receipts to reimburse.
In respect of the mould issue, I consider there is insufficient evidence that there is any issue with the premises or that the landlord failed to investigate the issue, outside of the issue with ventilation which potentially contributed to issues with mould, but which I have addressed above.
However, the cleaning undertaken by the landlord, resulting in a dampness (evidenced by photographs), the oral evidence of a strong smell and the 27 RTA, s 40 (1)(c). 28 Semmens v Wadman [2022] NZTT Manukau 310605 29 Hullia and Hullia v Tran and Vu [2018] NZTT 4138867. subsequent issues with the paint, I consider amount to a breach of the tenants right to reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the use of the premises. 30
The tenant seeks compensation of $20 in respect of that breach, which appears to have been agreed to by the landlord during the tenancy but not paid. I allow compensation of $20 to reflect any inconvenience and loss (ie replacement toothbrush heads) in relation to that matter. COMPENSATION – NON-ATTENDANCE AT MEDIATION
The tenant has applied for compensation for having to take work off for mediation. The tenant says the landlord agreed to attend mediation however did not attend. While the landlord’s actions in agreeing to attend mediation, then not attending, is a waste of the Tribunal’s resources it is not a breach of the RTA and mediation is a voluntary process therefore I do not consider there are grounds to award compensation in respect of this matter and this claim is dismissed.

BOND

The parties agreed that the bond is to be refunded to the tenant, and I am making an order for this to occur by consent.

FILING FEE

The tenants have been partly successful in the claim; therefore, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $28. 31

SUPPRESSION

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. 32
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to 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 and may attach any conditions to that order the Tribunal considers appropriate. 33
Tenant - The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has been partly successful in their claim but, I consider their interest outweighs the public interest in publication. I order name suppression for the tenant. 30 RTA, s 38. 31 See section 102 (4)(b) of the RTA. 32 RTA, s 95A (1). 33 RTA, s 95A (4) and (5)
Landlord - The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has had substantial success in defending the quantum claimed by the tenant. However, I consider the public interest warrants publication of the landlord’s name, so that prospective tenants can make informed choices about their tenancies. I consider the landlord’s conduct in confirming attendance at mediation and not attending warrants declining name suppression for the landlord (being a property manager firm). I decline to make an order suppressing the landlord’s name.
Address - I am not suppressing the address of the property as I consider there is a public interest in prospective tenants being aware of the HHS status of this premises.
Other suppression orders - Of my own initiative I suppress the name of Mr S, who provided a statement in support of the tenants, but did not attend the hearing and I consider his professional reputation should be protected in the circumstances.

Claims & awards

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

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5395022 — net $1,298.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: HHS extractor fan	$400.00	HHS extractor fan
Exemplary damages: HHS extractor fan	$600.00	HHS extractor fan
Exemplary damages: HHS information	$250.00	HHS information
Compensation: Mould cleaning - s 38	$20.00	Mould cleaning - s 38
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,298.00
Bond	$2,595.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,298.00

Claims and awards for application 5395022 — net $1,298.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: HHS extractor fan

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: HHS extractor fan

Exemplary damages: HHS extractor fan

Amount: $600.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: HHS extractor fan

Exemplary damages: HHS information

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: HHS information

Compensation: Mould cleaning - s 38

Amount: $20.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Mould cleaning - s 38

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants names and identifying details and the name of [Redacted].
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,595.00 [Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Property Management Wellington Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,298.00 immediately as calculated in the table below -

The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
For ease of reference, I will refer to the tenants in the singular.
All references to the RTA a reference to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. All references to the HHS are to the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
The tenancy has ended. The tenant claims the landlord has breached the RTA and HHS 1 in respect of insulation, ventilation and draught stopping. The tenant also says the landlord failed to provide HHS information when requested in accordance with the RTA. The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages.

ISSUES

The issues for determination are: a. Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS in respect of insulation, ventilation and draught stopping? b. Did the landlord fail to provide HHS information within 21 days of the tenant’s request? c. If any breaches are proven, should compensation and/or exemplary damages be ordered? d. What orders should be made with respect to the bond, costs and suppression?

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the RTA. With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant 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 2 , in practical terms this means that: 1 RTA, s 45. 2 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. ... [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. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 3 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the nature, duration and effect of the breach when deciding to award compensation. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 4 the Court of Appeal 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. Before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the intent of the person in committing the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed, the public interest, and whether it is just to make the award. 5
Intention is proved where the party turns their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately sets out to commit the act. It is unnecessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully, it is enough that they intended to commit the act which is in fact unlawful. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the particular obligation they have failed to perform, confusion, lack of knowledge or 3 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. 4 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732(Cooke P) 5 Section 109 of the RTA. ignorance of the law is no defence. 6 A party is considered to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional. Also, if the party is wilfully blind to the factual circumstances that give rise to an unlawful act, this may also be sufficient to prove they acted intentionally.
Exemplary damages must be ordered on a global basis, rather than for each and every breach separately under the same provision of the RTA. 7 The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 8

HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS

The tenancy commenced on 31 January 2024. On 24 November 2025 the tenant filed an application relating to the HHS. The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations as it relates to the insulation, ventilation and draught stopping HHS.
The RTA requires compliance with the HHS. 9 The HHS provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in relation to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. 10 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. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. The obligation to comply with the HHS in this case was 120 days after the commencement of the tenancy, being 30 May 2024.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 11 Insulation standard:
The insulation standard requires that the premises have qualifying insulation in the ceiling cavity, and under the floor if the floor is a suspended floor. To be considered ‘qualifying insulation’ the insulation must meet a minimum R value. 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. The insulation must also be in a reasonable condition. The HHS does provide an exemption to the requirements for insulation in specific circumstances for example, where it is 6 TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 7 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583 8 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781. 9 RTA, s 45(1) (bb). 10 HHS, Schedule 1 11 RTA, s 45(1A). not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated. 12 Insulation standard: this case
The tenant says the premises did not comply with the insulation standard.
The tenants provided an email from [Redacted]. (Mr S). I am told Mr S is a builder and I was provided with his New Zealand Certificate in Carpentry (Level 4). Mr S did not attend at the property to assess the property for HHS compliance and did not attend the hearing to give evidence.
The landlord relied on the insulation exemption in regulation 19 of the HHS. Regulation 19 HHS says a ceiling’s insulation need not comply with regulation 13 (Which requires coverage of the ceiling with qualifying insulation) if, at the commencement of the tenancy the ceiling does not comply with that regulation; and it is not reasonably practicable to install insulation so as to comply with that regulation. This exemption ceases to apply if, during the term of the tenancy, it becomes reasonably practicable to install insulation so as to comply with the insulation HHS. Regulation 4 HHS clarifies what is required in order for a landlord to rely on the exemption that compliance with the HHS is not reasonably practicable. Regulation 4 says: 4Meaning of not reasonably practicable to install 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.
The landlord says they had a contractor provide confirmation to them that the property would be exempt before the tenancy commenced. The landlord provided a current certificate of exemption. 12 HHS, regs 13-20
In reviewing the evidence, and in the absence of the tenant providing direct evidence from a professional builder at the hearing, I consider the tenant has not provided sufficient independent evidence that the insulation exemption does not apply, and that the property did not meet the HHS insulation standard. Ventilation standard:
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. 13 Ventilation standard: this case
The tenant says the kitchen extractor fan stopped working in May 2025 following a fuse blowing in the kitchen. The tenant says the extractor fan would turn on but kept stopping. The tenant says they emailed the landlord on 21 May 2025 about the kitchen extractor fan not working and this issue was not remedied. The tenant sent the landlord a 14-day notice on 27 December 2025 in respect of the issue with the kitchen extractor fan. The tenant says this was not remedied during the tenancy, which ended in January 2026.
The landlord says he understood “Rob” (who I understand to be his maintenance person) attended the property in December 2025 and completed the repair.
I am satisfied on the evidence, particularly the oral evidence that there was an issue with the extractor fan, the documentary evidence of the 14-day notice, and the landlord’s indication that the issue with the kitchen extractor fan was remedied in December 2025, that it is more likely than not that the kitchen extractor fan was not working properly from May 2025 until at least late December 2025 (approximately 7 months). I therefore find the premises did not comply with the ventilation standard during this period of the tenancy. I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act. 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. 14 Draught Stopping Standard: this case 13 HHS, regs 21-24 14 HHS, regs 25-26
The tenant said the property did not comply with the draught stopping standard as there were unreasonable gaps and holes. The tenant provided photographs of some gaps.
The landlord says the property is compliant with the draught stopping HHS.
In the absence of independent evidence from a builder as to whether the gaps are unreasonable gaps, I consider the tenant has not proven a breach with respect to the draught stopping standard.

COMPENSATION

The tenant seeks compensation in respect of the breach of HHS. I consider the tenant should be compensated for the breach of the ventilation standard.
In assessing a fair level of compensation in respect of the breach of the ventilation HHS, I consider the following factors are relevant: a. That the property was non-compliant for at least 7 months, with the kitchen extractor fan not fully functional. b. the inconvenience to the tenant of not having a kitchen extractor fan. c. that the tenant was living in a home that was not healthy which is a serious breach of the RTA.
I have reached the conclusion that it would be fair to award the tenant $400 compensation in respect of this breach.

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

The tenant seeks exemplary damages. In assessing the claim for exemplary damages, I note the following factors were relevant 15
Intent - The landlord was aware of the obligation to ensure compliance with the HHS and provided no reasonable explanation for the delay in the repair to the kitchen extractor fan.
Effect - The effect of the breach meant that the tenants lived in an unhealthy home. The tenant says they had a low standard of living. However, I consider the duration and nature of the breach to not be significant and I note that delay in the tenant serving the landlord with the 14 day notice to remedy the issue.
Interest of tenant - It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to comply with the HHS.
Public interest - It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that breach the HHS.
Having regards to the above factors I consider an award of exemplary damages of $600.00 is just and it is ordered accordingly. 15 RTA, s 109. HHS INFORMATION – COMPLIANCE STATEMENT AND DOCUMENTS
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA in relation to the provision of HHS information.
Section 45 of the RTA sets out the landlords’ responsibilities in respect of HHS information. Section 45 (1AC) RTA says if the tenant requests the landlord to provide information described in section 123A(1)(e) to the tenant, the landlord must, within 21 days after the date of receiving the request, provide the information to the tenant. 16 Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. 17
Section 123A RTA is a provision which relates to documentation that the landlord needs to hold and produce to MBIE as part of any compliance investigation. Section 123A(1)(e) RTA requires that the landlord hold and provide to MBIE the records or other documents that relate to the landlord’s compliance with the HHS and that are prescribed by the HHS under section 138B(5) RTA. Section 138B (5) RTA relates to the HHS and says regulations may be made prescribing information that must be included in a HHS compliance statement (s13A RTA), and prescribing the records or other documents that must be retained by a landlord for the purposes of section 123A(1)(e) RTA (which may include records or other documents relating to work or other things done before the commencement of the tenancy). Regulation 40 of the HHS sets out the relevant documents and says: ...relevant records or documents means any of the following to the extent that they relate to compliance with the healthy homes standards: (a)reports or other records of inspections of the premises, tenancy building, or installed or provided things (whether the inspections were done during or before the commencement of the tenancy), including photographs or video recordings: (b)records of any installation, maintenance or repair, or other work carried out at the premises or tenancy building (whether the work was done during or before the commencement of the tenancy): (emphasis added) (c)records of calculations of a living room’s required heating capacity, including the required heating capacity that resulted from the calculations, (for example, results from a heating capacity calculator (as defined in regulation 10)): (ca)if the main living room complies with regulation 8 by meeting the requirements of regulation 10A,— (i)the name and relevant qualifications of the specialist who made the assessment; and 16 This provision of the RTA came into force on 11 February 2021, by s 27 of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2020 (2020 No 59). 17 See section 45(1AD)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA. (ii)a description of how the specialist calculated the required heating capacity: (d)product manuals or other manufacturer’s information relating to installed or provided things: (e)certificates or other documents issued under or for the purposes of an enactment or a bylaw (for example, a code compliance certificate or building warrant of fitness under the Building Act 2004): (f)reports or other documents issued by a local authority (as defined in section 5(1) of the Local Government Act 2002) in relation to the premises or tenancy building (for example, a land information memorandum (LIM) report): (g)documents or records relating to the construction of, or work carried out at, the premises or tenancy building.

THIS CASE

The information to be provided in HHS compliance statements is set out in regulation 33-39 of the HHS. Regulation 36 in respect of ventilation says the HHS compliance statement must include for each kitchen and bathroom in the premises, whether it has an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation installed in it and if an extractor fan, the extractor fan’s diameter or exhaust capacity.
The HHS compliance statements provided to the tenant at the start of the tenancy are copied below. 10 November 2023 Heating Compliant - Yes Heating required: 3KW. Type of Heating: Fujitsu Heat pump 5.2kw + Noirot panel Heater 2.4kw KW of installed heating: 7.6KW Insulation Compliant - No Ceiling – No Underfloor – No Walls: EXEMPT Ceiling Insulation Type: - Batts/ segments/ etc R value/ mm Thick _________ Underfloor Insulation Type: Exempt – flat below Walls: Exempt no requirement to have walls insulated under current standard Ventilation Compliant- No Windows - Yes Kitchen - No Bathroom - Yes Windows - There is an opening window or door to the exterior in all living spaces. Kitchen – Professional Assessment required. Bathroom - Yes Pre-01 July 2019. – Professional Assessment required Moisture/Drainage Complaint - No Gutters and downpipes effectively drain. Drains unobstructed. Ground Moisture Barrier Present: No Draft Stopping Compliant - Yes Property is free of excess drafts. Windows and door gaps do not exceed 3mm. (Drafts can occur at properties over time as they move and age. If a draft occurs during the tenancy, please advise us so that it can be assessed and remedied if it exceeds Healthy Homes Standards Criteria) 30 January 2024 Heating Compliant - Yes Heating required: 3KW. Type of Heating: Fujitsu Heat pump 5.2kw + Noirot panel Heater 2.4kw KW of installed heating: 7.6KW Insulation Compliant – Exempt Ceiling – Exempt Underfloor – Exempt Walls: Exempt Ceiling Insulation Type: - Exempt – No practical safe access, due to low roof profile Underfloor Insulation Type: Exempt – No access, flat below Walls: Exempt no requirement to have walls insulated under current standard Ventilation Compliant- Yes Windows - Yes Kitchen - Yes Bathroom - Yes Windows - There is an opening window or door to the exterior in all living spaces. Kitchen – Yes Post-01 July 2019. External Extraction Bathroom - Yes Pre-01 July 2019. External Extraction Moisture/Drainage Complaint -Exempt Gutters and downpipes effectively drain. Drains unobstructed. Ground Moisture Barrier Present: Exempt – Due to dwelling below. Draft StoppingProperty is free of excess drafts. Compliant - YesWindows and door gaps do not exceed 3mm. (Drafts can occur at properties over time as they move and age. If a draft occurs during the tenancy, please advise us so that it can be assessed and remedied if it exceeds Healthy Homes Standards Criteria)
On 12 August 2025 the tenant emailed the landlord saying that the HHS compliance statement provided at the start of the tenancy is incomplete and missing required information, including extractor fan specifications and insulation verification.
The tenant says on 12 August 2025 they also formally requested HHS information from the landlord and the 21 days passed with no response.
The landlord says he understood providing the HHS compliance statement was the extent of his obligation and he did not consider he was required to provide additional documentation.
A new heat pump was installed on or about 24 July 2024. The landlord had in his possession the tax invoice. The landlord also had a quote for the bathroom and kitchen extractor fans. The landlord submitted these documents as evidence of compliance with the HHS. I consider they fall within Regulation 40 HHS and were not provided to the tenant after their request.
I find the landlord has not complied with s 45 (1AC) RTA and has committed an unlawful act.

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

The tenant seeks exemplary damages. In assessing the claim for exemplary damages, I note the following factors were relevant. 18
Intent - The landlord should have known what documents it had to provide to the tenant and that it had 21 days to comply with the tenant’s written information request. The landlord acknowledged not providing the HHS documents to the tenant. It appears he considered the HHS compliance statement was sufficient to meet its obligations in respect of disclosure. I consider the landlord has intentionally withheld the HHS documents from the tenant.
Effect - The impact on the tenant of the landlord not providing this information is they were not fully informed about the premises, as they have a right to be.
Interest of tenant - It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to provide HHS information. 18 RTA, s 109.
Public interest - It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally fail to meet their HHS obligations.
In having regards to the above factors, I consider an award of exemplary damages of $250 (a third of the maximum) is just and it is ordered accordingly.

THE MOULD ISSUE

Relevant law – Maintenance and mould

A landlord must provide and maintain the premises (including the facilities) in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. 19 In Barfoot & Thompson v Casey 20 the Court considered the extent of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The Court said that there was no absolute liability or responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. 21 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time. 22 In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd 23 the Court stated: [15] I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, 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 may be.
A landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. 24 The Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) provides that every house shall be free from dampness. 25
Failure to comply with these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be ordered. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered is $7,200.00. 26 19 RTA s 45 (1)(b). 20 Barfoot & Thompson v Casey CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007. 21 RTA, s 40(1)(d). 22 As noted in the landlord’s submissions at paragraph 10. 23 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 24 RTA, s 45 (1)(c) 25 HIR, regulation 15 26 RTA, s 45 (1A)and Schedule 1A
Mould can be caused by a lack of ventilation, but it also can be caused by leaks or water ingress. A tenant is required to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 27 If a tenant notices a problem with mould then they have an obligation to notify the landlord because the existence of mould can indicate an underlying defect in the property such as a hidden leak. Likewise, a landlord should investigate the cause of mould complained of by a tenant or seen at an inspection.
The presence of mould in the premises is not sufficient to establish a breach on the part of the landlord for which compensation can be ordered. Mould is commonly present throughout all residential dwellings in New Zealand to some degree. In Semmens v Wadman 28 the Tribunal said that a tenant must prove that there are defects with the premises which have caused mould to develop at a greater level than is reasonably expected in a dwelling that meets the required building standards. In Hullia and Hullia v Tran and Vu 29 the Tribunal said that the premises must be able to be used and lived in in the normal way, without excessive mould developing and if this cannot be done then the problem of mould falls on the landlord to remedy under their obligations to maintain the property.
The tenant says they reported mould on the ceilings, and they were told it was due to inadequate cleaning and the landlord arranged for a chemical cleaning. The tenants say after the cleaning the premises had a strong chemical smell for days making the home unpleasant to be in. The tenant said the chemicals dripped onto the walls and belongings, bedding was moved and after the cleaning paint flecks were left on their toiletries. The tenant says they were told they would receive $20 reimbursement for the damaged items, but this has not been received.
The landlord says they investigated the issue of mould and disputes that there is an issue with the premises that caused mould. The landlord thought the tenant’s may have already received the $20 compensation offered but also said he had not received any receipts to reimburse.
In respect of the mould issue, I consider there is insufficient evidence that there is any issue with the premises or that the landlord failed to investigate the issue, outside of the issue with ventilation which potentially contributed to issues with mould, but which I have addressed above.
However, the cleaning undertaken by the landlord, resulting in a dampness (evidenced by photographs), the oral evidence of a strong smell and the 27 RTA, s 40 (1)(c). 28 Semmens v Wadman [2022] NZTT Manukau 310605 29 Hullia and Hullia v Tran and Vu [2018] NZTT 4138867. subsequent issues with the paint, I consider amount to a breach of the tenants right to reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the use of the premises. 30
The tenant seeks compensation of $20 in respect of that breach, which appears to have been agreed to by the landlord during the tenancy but not paid. I allow compensation of $20 to reflect any inconvenience and loss (ie replacement toothbrush heads) in relation to that matter. COMPENSATION – NON-ATTENDANCE AT MEDIATION
The tenant has applied for compensation for having to take work off for mediation. The tenant says the landlord agreed to attend mediation however did not attend. While the landlord’s actions in agreeing to attend mediation, then not attending, is a waste of the Tribunal’s resources it is not a breach of the RTA and mediation is a voluntary process therefore I do not consider there are grounds to award compensation in respect of this matter and this claim is dismissed.

BOND

The parties agreed that the bond is to be refunded to the tenant, and I am making an order for this to occur by consent.

FILING FEE

The tenants have been partly successful in the claim; therefore, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $28. 31

SUPPRESSION

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. 32
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to 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 and may attach any conditions to that order the Tribunal considers appropriate. 33
Tenant - The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has been partly successful in their claim but, I consider their interest outweighs the public interest in publication. I order name suppression for the tenant. 30 RTA, s 38. 31 See section 102 (4)(b) of the RTA. 32 RTA, s 95A (1). 33 RTA, s 95A (4) and (5)
Landlord - The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has had substantial success in defending the quantum claimed by the tenant. However, I consider the public interest warrants publication of the landlord’s name, so that prospective tenants can make informed choices about their tenancies. I consider the landlord’s conduct in confirming attendance at mediation and not attending warrants declining name suppression for the landlord (being a property manager firm). I decline to make an order suppressing the landlord’s name.
Address - I am not suppressing the address of the property as I consider there is a public interest in prospective tenants being aware of the HHS status of this premises.
Other suppression orders - Of my own initiative I suppress the name of Mr S, who provided a statement in support of the tenants, but did not attend the hearing and I consider his professional reputation should be protected in the circumstances.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

ISSUES

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS

COMPENSATION

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

THIS CASE

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

THE MOULD ISSUE

BOND

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

ISSUES

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS

COMPENSATION

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

THIS CASE

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

THE MOULD ISSUE

BOND

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions