What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5395404 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of the

How much money was awarded in case 5395404?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5395404?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Leaks, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5395404?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13363028-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5395404 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of the

How much money was awarded in case 5395404?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5395404?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Leaks, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5395404?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13363028-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 221, 118 Salisbury Street, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5395404 — Mould & damp

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of the tenants.
The application for a work order is dismissed.
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
Max Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,028.00 immediately, being compensation for a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to draught through the front door that cannot be remedied.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 26 March 2026. Ms Bayliss and Ms Hurford represented the landlord Max Property Management Limited (MPM).
I heard evidence from the parties and from witnesses for the landlord. As well I have considered the documentary and video evidence both parties provided, even if I do not specifically refer to it. Background
The tenancy started on 12 July 2025 and is a fixed term tenancy until 16 July 2026.
The premises are located in a large unit title development the common property owned by the body corporate.
Soon after the tenancy started the tenants raised issues about cleanliness and repairs and maintenance. The relationship between the parties has deteriorated progressively. The landlord considers the tenants’ allegations to be hyperbole. The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to respond adequately to the issues they have raised and has therefore failed to comply with its responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenants filed their application on 24 November 2025, so it has taken a while for it to get to a hearing. They remain in the tenancy but are hoping to relocate. They consider the lack of a reference has hindered their chance of finding another tenancy. I explained at the hearing that the Tribunal has no power to remedy that.
The tenants have applied for compensation and exemplary damages arising from the landlord’s alleged breaches, and for a work order. Issues
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Should the Tribunal make work orders? •Did the landlord fail to ensure compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)? •Did the landlord or its agents breach the tenants’ quiet enjoyment? •Did the landlord fail to meet its responsibilities at the start of the tenancy? •Was the tenancy agreement false and misleading? Relevant law
Section 38 RTA provides that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities which include providing the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; providing and maintaining the premises in a reasonable state of repair; and complying with the HHS.
Section 78(1)(e) RTA enables the Tribunal to make a work order. Compensation and exemplary damages
The tenants are aware of the law as it relates to compensation and exemplary damages. I set it out in my decision dated 29 July 2025 where one of the tenants was the applicant against a different landlord. That application raised some of the same issues raised by the present application.
The tenants were critical of the landlord referring to the earlier decision, but it is a publicly searchable decision with the tenant’s name suppressed.
So, for the landlord’s understanding, I will set out the applicable law again.
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.
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 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Unlike compensation, exemplary damages are punitive, similar to a fine. They are awarded on a discretionary basis. Sometimes, even if an unlawful act is proved the Tribunal will not award damages because it must take account of the factors in section 109 RTA.
In Birch, the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Discussion

Should the Tribunal make work orders?

The first order sought was to repair a toilet roll holder in the main bathroom. The landlord’s representative said she was happy to arrange for it to be replaced with something else, such as a free-standing holder. This matter is so minor it does not require Tribunal intervention. I decline to make a work order. The parties can sort that out between themselves.
The second order sought is for the replacement of the front door. I will discuss that further under the HHS issue.
The tenants said that the door allows both a draught and some light to penetrate and therefore does not seal properly, even when the 4-point lock is fully engaged. They said that there is some water ingress because the bottom seal is not watertight.
I heard evidence from Mr Scoon the factory manager of the factory which supplied the aluminium joinery when the units were built around 2020. There are about 86 units in the complex. Mr Scoon explained that the aluminium door construction meant that in the morning sun the aluminium can bend 3-5mm which stops one of the locking rods from working. He said that that cannot be remedied, and he had done everything he could to address the problem.
The landlord’s representative said that MPM manages about 80% of the apartments in the complex and there had been no other reports of any issues.
I am not prepared to make a work order for the front door replacement. That is a considerable capital item. Another complication is that the complex is a body corporate development. There are often restrictions about the replacement of external doors so as not to change the appearance of the units.
This is an annoyance, but Mr Scoon’s evidence is that everything that can be done has been done and the heating of the aluminium only occurs in the morning sun.
The tenancy has only 4 months to run, and that is during autumn and winter when there is much less chance of morning sun.
While annoying for these tenants, it might not be for anyone else. It would be unjust to require the landlord to replace the door based on the annoyance of these tenants. This issue can be addressed by compensation
The tenant also referred to insecure window latches. That has been remedied and does not require any work order to be made.
I dismiss the application for a work order.

Did the landlord fail to ensure compliance with the HHS?

The tenants allege that the premises are not compliant with the HHS because draught comes through the front door, enough to blow out a lighter and the bathroom extraction fans did not work properly and had to be replaced.
The replacement of the fans took 41 days. Until then, they experienced condensation. The window latches took 38 days to be fixed. The tenants also referred to spouting issues but that is a body corporate management and repair issue, not a matter distinct to this tenancy.
The tenants said that the record of HHS compliance showed that there was a compliance report from 2022 but no evidence of checks since then.
I heard witness evidence from registered electrician Mr Sutton. He explained how the bathroom extraction fans were first swapped out, and then replaced with a completed different system. He explained the difficulty of the work given the construction of the building and the poor installation of the ducting by whoever did the work during construction. He confirmed that the fans used were always HHS compliant (and are still in use) but the installation of the ducting meant that the damp air was not properly or efficiently extracted due largely to the pooling of water in parts of the ducting.
The tenants said that despite the explanation, the ventilation system as a whole was not compliant with the HHS.
To award exemplary damages, which the tenants seek, the landlord must turn its mind to the unlawful act (HHS non-compliance) and deliberately set about to commit it.
That is not what happened here. No reasonable landlord could have known the state of the ducting beyond the wall and ceiling cavities. The landlord was entitled to rely on the HHS assessment and the fact that the premises, relatively newly built, complied with the Building Code. The landlord did what any responsible landlord would do. After receiving the tenants’ complaints, it had contractors investigate and eventually remedy the issue. The timeframes involved in all the repair issues are not unreasonable especially given the involvement of the body corporate.
Again, this is an issue that can be addressed by compensation.
I dismiss the tenants’ application for exemplary damages. The criteria set out in section 109 RTA, in particular that the landlord act with intent, are not satisfied. Did the landlord or its agents breach the tenants’ quiet enjoyment?
I do not find proved the tenants’ allegations of breaches of their quiet enjoyment. The impression I gained was that the tenants are hyper-vigilant and very reactive.
First, they say that there were multiple entries by tradespeople to undertake repairs. They waived the right to notice, but at some point, withdrew the waiver. That alone can be confusing. And there is a contradiction between raising repair issues and then complaining about contractors visiting to do the repairs.
In the case of a bad small emanating from a drain, no cause was initially identified, and the plumbing contractor could identify no odour. Then a silicone coating to a valve seemed to solve the problem.
The landlord acted immediately to have that issue checked and paid for the tenants to move to Airbnb accommodation while that was done. That something happens (sometimes for no apparent reason) does not establish a breach by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities.
That the next-door apartment is run as an Airbnb (possibly without consent) and the people who use the accommodation cause disturbance is not a landlord breach. A landlord’s responsibility to ensure none of its other tenants interfere with a tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy.
I accept that these tenants are frequently disturbed by the Airbnb occupants, but there is no order the Tribunal can make about that. It is a civil issue that requires noise complaints to the local authority, or an action between the tenants and the owner of the neighbouring apartment. That is something on which the tenants might take advice.
Apartment living in a complex such as this often leads to conflict. The tenants allege that they were told MPM controlled the lease of the next-door apartment. The landlord denied that and confirmed it does not manage that apartment which is privately owned. Ms Bayliss said she had checked with the previous tenant who had not experienced any issues. She said she was not even aware that the next-door apartment was rented on Airbnb.
Ms Bayliss and Ms Hurford described the tenant as punitive, confrontational, and intimidating to their staff, to the body corporate and to Airbnb guests and quick to threaten Tenancy Tribunal action. The landlord has issued two breach notices for aggressive and intimidating behaviour by the tenant. They said the tenants’ action has taken a large emotional toll on their staff.
I find no breaches of quiet enjoyment in this case that would attract an award of compensation. For the alleged breaches the Tribunal could consider, the tenants’ actions are at least part of the on-going disruption and break down of the relationship.

Did the landlord fail to meet its responsibilities at the start of the tenancy?

The tenants allege that the landlord did not comply with its statutory responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition and in a reasonable state of the repair.
This is not an absolute standard. Premises do not have to be provided to a ‘motel standard’.
I have assessed the photographs and other evidence each party referred to. I find that the premises were provided in a reasonably clean condition. That the tenants felt it necessary to do further cleaning does not of itself establish a landlord breach.
The fact that repairs are required (and notified by the tenant) does not establish a landlord breach. It is the landlord’s response that is determinative.
The many invoices produced in evidence show that the landlord acted promptly in response to the repair issues raised. I find no proven breaches by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities.

Was the tenancy agreement false and misleading?

I dismiss this claim. I find that the premises were HHS compliant generally. The front door issue was a repair and maintenance issue that the landlord alerted the tenant to and did everything it could to resolve.
Mr Coon confirmed that he had replaced the door seal and hinges and tightened the locks and replaced the screws on the handles. He demonstrated how the bottom plate worked so as to prevent the ingress of moisture, a` design feature to allow water to drain if it penetrated the seal.
The bathroom extraction fans were HHS compliant. That repair and maintenance work was required does not mean that the HHS were breached, just that some work was required to get the (compliant) fan operating to maximum efficiency.
To find that the tenancy agreement was false and misleading would require a proven misrepresentation by the landlord. I do not find that to be the case. Result
The application for a work order is dismissed.
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
I award the tenants compensation for the draught issue that arises from the front door. Even if that means that the draught standard of the HHS is not fully complied with, it is not an intentional breach. The evidence shows that there is nothing further that can be done, and the issue is relatively minor.
The tenants’ compensation claim ($2,313.00) is unrealistic. I award them $250.00 since the front door issue is one that cannot be remedied, but objectively viewed, it is a relatively small loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
I make no order reimbursing the filing fee as the application is mostly unsuccessful. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek a name suppression order.
The tenants sought name suppression. Because their application is only marginally successful, I would not have made a name suppression order 2 . However, because of the name suppression order made on one of the tenant’s previous applications, I must proceed with caution to preserve the integrity of that order. It is possible that a search of this published order could result in identification of the tenant whose name was suppressed in the previous order (on a different tenancy). For that reason alone, I grant name suppression to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5395404 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat Unit 221, 118 Salisbury Street, Christchurch

Tenancy Tribunal case 5395404 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat Unit 221, 118 Salisbury Street, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal make work orders?

Did the landlord fail to ensure compliance with the HHS?

Did the landlord fail to meet its responsibilities at the start of the tenancy?

Was the tenancy agreement false and misleading?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal make work orders?

Did the landlord fail to ensure compliance with the HHS?

Did the landlord fail to meet its responsibilities at the start of the tenancy?

Was the tenancy agreement false and misleading?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions