What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5408688 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5408688?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5408688?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5408688?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13404874-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5408688 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5408688?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5408688?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5408688?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13404874-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

80 Tir Conaill Avenue, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019, Granny Tenancy Tribunal Case 5408688 — Mould & damp

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The Tribunal made a decision in relation to this tenancy on 4 December 2025. The application number was 5317129, and it was an application by the tenants for a refund of their bond, as well as exemplary damages and the filing fee. The Tribunal found in favour of the tenants and awarded the bond, exemplary damages, and the filing fee.

Today’s matter is a landlord application in relation to the same tenancy.

The applicant seeks $1,400 plus GST for preparing their application, calculated at 20 hours at $70 per hour. They also seek $575 per week, totalling $14,950 plus GST, which they say represents a period of six months during which they were unable to tenant the property.

In addition, the applicant seeks $5,000 plus GST described as personal grievance compensation arising from alleged false statements, attempted attribution of blame, and fabricated documents. They further claim $11,100 plus GST based on a renovation proposal from a builder.

The civil standard of proof applies to all claims made before the Tenancy Tribunal. This means it is the responsibility of the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal, on the balance of probabilities, that their claims and factual assertions are correct. In other words, it must be more likely than not (that is, at least 51%) that their version of events is accurate.

In support of their application, the applicant has provided a number of zoomed-in photographs of kitchen cabinetry and flooring, including laminate material that appears to have warped due to moisture.

They have also provided photographs of two cracks in tiles, which they say are located in the bathroom area. Each crack appears to measure approximately 1 centimetre by 3–4 centimetres, and the two cracks are identical in appearance.

The remaining photographs depict minor impact damage, which would properly be categorised as fair wear and tear. It is difficult to assess the extent of any alleged damage because no comparative or zoomed-out photographs have been provided, only close-up images lacking context.

The applicant also states that there was damage to the benchtop. No photographs of this alleged damage were provided with the application. During the hearing, the applicant produced a photograph on their phone, which was also zoomed in. It was unclear what the photograph depicted. The image appeared largely white with some black discolouration, and no identifiable damage to a benchtop was visible.

The respondent, in addressing the claims, referred to their earlier application to the Tribunal and advised that further photographs were available on the file. I have reviewed that file and identified corresponding photographs from 2023, at the commencement of the tenancy, which show the same damage that the landlord now asserts occurred in 2025.

The applicant’s narrative that the property was so severely damaged as to cause personal stress, require time off work, deem it untenantable for 6 months and justify an award of $5,000 for stress, as well as the broader claims for damage and loss, is not supported by the evidence and does not warrant further consideration.

The claims are without merit and are dismissed in their entirety.

It is appropriate in these circumstances to continue suppression for the tenants.

The applicant has been entirely unsuccessful and therefore an award of the filing fee and consideration of suppression are not warranted.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tribunal made a decision in relation to this tenancy on 4 December 2025. The application number was 5317129, and it was an application by the tenants for a refund of their bond, as well as exemplary damages and the filing fee. The Tribunal found in favour of the tenants and awarded the bond, exemplary damages, and the filing fee.
Today’s matter is a landlord application in relation to the same tenancy.
The applicant seeks $1,400 plus GST for preparing their application, calculated at 20 hours at $70 per hour. They also seek $575 per week, totalling $14,950 plus GST, which they say represents a period of six months during which they were unable to tenant the property.
In addition, the applicant seeks $5,000 plus GST described as personal grievance compensation arising from alleged false statements, attempted attribution of blame, and fabricated documents. They further claim $11,100 plus GST based on a renovation proposal from a builder.
The civil standard of proof applies to all claims made before the Tenancy Tribunal. This means it is the responsibility of the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal, on the balance of probabilities, that their claims and factual assertions are correct. In other words, it must be more likely than not (that is, at least 51%) that their version of events is accurate.
In support of their application, the applicant has provided a number of zoomed-in photographs of kitchen cabinetry and flooring, including laminate material that appears to have warped due to moisture.
They have also provided photographs of two cracks in tiles, which they say are located in the bathroom area. Each crack appears to measure approximately 1 centimetre by 3–4 centimetres, and the two cracks are identical in appearance.
The remaining photographs depict minor impact damage, which would properly be categorised as fair wear and tear. It is difficult to assess the extent of any alleged damage because no comparative or zoomed-out photographs have been provided, only close-up images lacking context.
The applicant also states that there was damage to the benchtop. No photographs of this alleged damage were provided with the application. During the hearing, the applicant produced a photograph on their phone, which was also zoomed in. It was unclear what the photograph depicted. The image appeared largely white with some black discolouration, and no identifiable damage to a benchtop was visible.
The respondent, in addressing the claims, referred to their earlier application to the Tribunal and advised that further photographs were available on the file. I have reviewed that file and identified corresponding photographs from 2023, at the commencement of the tenancy, which show the same damage that the landlord now asserts occurred in 2025.
The applicant’s narrative that the property was so severely damaged as to cause personal stress, require time off work, deem it untenantable for 6 months and justify an award of $5,000 for stress, as well as the broader claims for damage and loss, is not supported by the evidence and does not warrant further consideration.
The claims are without merit and are dismissed in their entirety.
It is appropriate in these circumstances to continue suppression for the tenants.
The applicant has been entirely unsuccessful and therefore an award of the filing fee and consideration of suppression are not warranted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5408688 — Mould & damp at 80 Tir Conaill Avenue, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019, Granny

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5408688 — Mould & damp at 80 Tir Conaill Avenue, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019, Granny

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions