What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5427585 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 5427585?

Compensation: appliances and furnitu…: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Clothing: $2,670.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: loss of amenity 14 Apr…: $1,978.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Miscellaneous: $830.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427585?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427585?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13594469-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5427585 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 5427585?

Compensation: appliances and furnitu…: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Clothing: $2,670.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: loss of amenity 14 Apr…: $1,978.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Miscellaneous: $830.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427585?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427585?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13594469-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat P06, 21 Brooklyn Road, Mount Cook, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5427585 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5427585 — net $11,606.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of amenity 14 April 2024 - 8 December 2025	$1,978.00	loss of amenity 14 April 2024 - 8 December 2025
Exemplary damages: duty to repair and maintain	$3,600.00	duty to repair and maintain
Compensation: appliances and furniture	$2,500.00	appliances and furniture
Compensation: miscellaneous	$830.00	miscellaneous
Compensation: clothing	$2,670.00	clothing
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,606.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$11,606.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Te Toi Mahana must pay [The tenant/s] $11,606.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. She had a representative.
The landlord did not attend the hearing. The landlord was properly served using the email address for service used by the landlord when it files applications in the Tribunal. A courtesy telephone call was made to Ms Atkins, and a message left. I decided the landlord had been served and the hearing went ahead with the tenant.
The tenant lived in a studio unit in a social housing complex from March 2024 to December 2025. She had problems with leaks, condensation, and mould throughout her tenancy. The landlord attended many times and carried out significant repairs, including installing a new shower. However, the tenant does not believe the landlord took her concerns seriously. The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages because of the mould. The questions I have to decide include: • Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards? • Was there a breach of the duty to maintain and repair? • Should the tenant get compensation for her belongings which were damaged by mould?

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenant claims that the landlord breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). The tenant submitted there was a breach of the moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The law sets out that the moisture ingress and drainage standard requires buildings comprising residential tenancies to have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The standard also requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space. I find this is not relevant to the claim here, which relates to leaks and faulty plumbing inside the unit. All claims relating to the HHS are dismissed.

Was there a breach of the duty to maintain and repair?

The tenant claims that the landlord breached its obligations under section 45 RTA. Under section 45 a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant provided a box of paperwork to support her claim. She has made requests under the Official Information Act. I have a comprehensive history of all the repairs done at the unit since the tenancy started. I can see that the tenant first contacted the landlord in April 2024, just weeks after she moved in. The tenant moved out at the end of 2025 because the landlord notified her about significant work needed in the unit, including removing the wall linings. The work which was carried out during her tenancy included: • repairing a leak under the kitchen sink • checking for the source of a smell of mould in the kitchen • locating a leak from the bathroom to the lounge • replacing the seal in the shower • locating another leak in the lounge • drying equipment to dry the lounge carpet • replacing a faulty valve because the hot water was cloudy • applying more silicon in the shower and bathroom • fixing the cold water running hot and a slight leak in the hot water cylinder • finding a big crack in the bathroom lino and a leak • replacing the shower because there was leaking behind the liner • servicing on the hot water cylinder • replacing the kitchen waste because of a leak • installing new lino and gib in the bathroom • installing a replacement cupboard in the kitchen because of mould • checking on an odour from the sink • applying more silicon to a small leak in the shower door • repairing more pipes under the kitchen sink and adjusting the s bend • locating and repairing a slow leak from the toilet • locating a leak from the hot water cylinder • testing for mould • testing for moisture • locating and repairing more leaks from the toilet.
The tenant asked that I make a decision about why there were so many plumbing failures in the unit but I cannot determine that without expert evidence. I can see that the tenant was proactive, reported every issue, and complied with all the requests for access for the multiple visits by tradespeople. I accept that managing the repairs and the mould took its toll and the tenant’s wellbeing deteriorated.
I am persuaded there was a loss of amenity because the tenant was paying rent for a unit which she could not use as intended. This has been calculated at $23 a week, which seems low but is a reasonable proportion of the income related rent the tenant was paying - $73 at the start of the tenancy and $78 at the end. I allow the compensation from 14 April 2024, which is when she first noticed the leak under the kitchen sink, until the end of the tenancy. This was a period of 86 weeks.
Ventia were the contractors the landlord used for all the repairs. The tenant provided me with a copy of an email sent by a team leader at Ventia to the landlord on 2 December 2024. The relevant part of the email states:
I have not heard any evidence from the landlord. The tenant’s submission is that repairs were carried out as issues arose, but there was no overall consideration of the ongoing leaks and the problems the tenant was having with mould. A technician from Clear Air went to the property over the winter in 2025 and was very concerned at how quickly the mould was growing after cleaning. Chemdry also went to the unit but could not find any explanation for the mould. Chemdry recommended removing the wall linings so a thorough assessment of the unit could be completed. The landlord communicated this step to the tenant on 31 October 2025, which is when the tenant decided to move out.
I find the landlord should have taken more steps to properly assess the unit, especially in light of the email from Ventia suggesting further investigation into the ongoing issues. I find the landlord breached the duty to repair and maintain and they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
I have not heard from the landlord but it seems most likely to me the landlord minimised the tenant’s concerns about mould and condensation and this was done intentionally. The effect for the tenant was frustration when no one listened to her and a home that was not a safe space. She said this experience caused her severe emotional distress and made her physically sick. It is in tenants interests that homes are dry and free from mould. There is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages when there is a breach of the RTA. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $3,600, which is midscale because of the many opportunities the landlord had to better manage the repairs. Should the tenant get compensation for her belongings which were damaged by mould?
At the end of the tenancy the parties agreed the tenant would leave all the belongings damaged by mould and the landlord would dispose of these. She estimated she left 95% of her belongings behind and she is claiming around $8,500 in compensation. It seems to me that the tenant took every step she could to bring her concerns about mould to the landlord’s attention and to mitigate her loss.
The tenant carefully documented everything that was left behind. At the hearing we discussed each item she claimed compensation for, the age of each item, and I looked at the photo for each item. The tenant had used an online depreciation calculator, and I have applied additional depreciation to some of the items, especially the clothing, as it seemed appropriate. Many of the items were gifts but will still need replacing. Some items, such as the bed and bedding, were new at the start of the tenancy. I find $2,500 for the appliances and furniture, $830 for the miscellaneous items such as storage containers and small appliances, and $2,670 for all the clothing to be reasonable compensation. Other issues
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
There is an application for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
I have allowed suppression for the tenant because she is the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords have to pay compensation and exemplary damages.
I note this order is a few days later than the 28 days I expected to have it written up and delivered to the parties. I am sorry this happened but two weeks of on and off IT issues has made it difficult to get the order written in time.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5427585 — net $11,606.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of amenity 14 April 2024 - 8 December 2025	$1,978.00	loss of amenity 14 April 2024 - 8 December 2025
Exemplary damages: duty to repair and maintain	$3,600.00	duty to repair and maintain
Compensation: appliances and furniture	$2,500.00	appliances and furniture
Compensation: miscellaneous	$830.00	miscellaneous
Compensation: clothing	$2,670.00	clothing
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,606.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$11,606.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Te Toi Mahana must pay [The tenant/s] $11,606.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. She had a representative.
The landlord did not attend the hearing. The landlord was properly served using the email address for service used by the landlord when it files applications in the Tribunal. A courtesy telephone call was made to Ms Atkins, and a message left. I decided the landlord had been served and the hearing went ahead with the tenant.
The tenant lived in a studio unit in a social housing complex from March 2024 to December 2025. She had problems with leaks, condensation, and mould throughout her tenancy. The landlord attended many times and carried out significant repairs, including installing a new shower. However, the tenant does not believe the landlord took her concerns seriously. The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages because of the mould. The questions I have to decide include: • Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards? • Was there a breach of the duty to maintain and repair? • Should the tenant get compensation for her belongings which were damaged by mould?

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenant claims that the landlord breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). The tenant submitted there was a breach of the moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The law sets out that the moisture ingress and drainage standard requires buildings comprising residential tenancies to have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The standard also requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space. I find this is not relevant to the claim here, which relates to leaks and faulty plumbing inside the unit. All claims relating to the HHS are dismissed.

Was there a breach of the duty to maintain and repair?

The tenant claims that the landlord breached its obligations under section 45 RTA. Under section 45 a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant provided a box of paperwork to support her claim. She has made requests under the Official Information Act. I have a comprehensive history of all the repairs done at the unit since the tenancy started. I can see that the tenant first contacted the landlord in April 2024, just weeks after she moved in. The tenant moved out at the end of 2025 because the landlord notified her about significant work needed in the unit, including removing the wall linings. The work which was carried out during her tenancy included: • repairing a leak under the kitchen sink • checking for the source of a smell of mould in the kitchen • locating a leak from the bathroom to the lounge • replacing the seal in the shower • locating another leak in the lounge • drying equipment to dry the lounge carpet • replacing a faulty valve because the hot water was cloudy • applying more silicon in the shower and bathroom • fixing the cold water running hot and a slight leak in the hot water cylinder • finding a big crack in the bathroom lino and a leak • replacing the shower because there was leaking behind the liner • servicing on the hot water cylinder • replacing the kitchen waste because of a leak • installing new lino and gib in the bathroom • installing a replacement cupboard in the kitchen because of mould • checking on an odour from the sink • applying more silicon to a small leak in the shower door • repairing more pipes under the kitchen sink and adjusting the s bend • locating and repairing a slow leak from the toilet • locating a leak from the hot water cylinder • testing for mould • testing for moisture • locating and repairing more leaks from the toilet.
The tenant asked that I make a decision about why there were so many plumbing failures in the unit but I cannot determine that without expert evidence. I can see that the tenant was proactive, reported every issue, and complied with all the requests for access for the multiple visits by tradespeople. I accept that managing the repairs and the mould took its toll and the tenant’s wellbeing deteriorated.
I am persuaded there was a loss of amenity because the tenant was paying rent for a unit which she could not use as intended. This has been calculated at $23 a week, which seems low but is a reasonable proportion of the income related rent the tenant was paying - $73 at the start of the tenancy and $78 at the end. I allow the compensation from 14 April 2024, which is when she first noticed the leak under the kitchen sink, until the end of the tenancy. This was a period of 86 weeks.
Ventia were the contractors the landlord used for all the repairs. The tenant provided me with a copy of an email sent by a team leader at Ventia to the landlord on 2 December 2024. The relevant part of the email states:
I have not heard any evidence from the landlord. The tenant’s submission is that repairs were carried out as issues arose, but there was no overall consideration of the ongoing leaks and the problems the tenant was having with mould. A technician from Clear Air went to the property over the winter in 2025 and was very concerned at how quickly the mould was growing after cleaning. Chemdry also went to the unit but could not find any explanation for the mould. Chemdry recommended removing the wall linings so a thorough assessment of the unit could be completed. The landlord communicated this step to the tenant on 31 October 2025, which is when the tenant decided to move out.
I find the landlord should have taken more steps to properly assess the unit, especially in light of the email from Ventia suggesting further investigation into the ongoing issues. I find the landlord breached the duty to repair and maintain and they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
I have not heard from the landlord but it seems most likely to me the landlord minimised the tenant’s concerns about mould and condensation and this was done intentionally. The effect for the tenant was frustration when no one listened to her and a home that was not a safe space. She said this experience caused her severe emotional distress and made her physically sick. It is in tenants interests that homes are dry and free from mould. There is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages when there is a breach of the RTA. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $3,600, which is midscale because of the many opportunities the landlord had to better manage the repairs. Should the tenant get compensation for her belongings which were damaged by mould?
At the end of the tenancy the parties agreed the tenant would leave all the belongings damaged by mould and the landlord would dispose of these. She estimated she left 95% of her belongings behind and she is claiming around $8,500 in compensation. It seems to me that the tenant took every step she could to bring her concerns about mould to the landlord’s attention and to mitigate her loss.
The tenant carefully documented everything that was left behind. At the hearing we discussed each item she claimed compensation for, the age of each item, and I looked at the photo for each item. The tenant had used an online depreciation calculator, and I have applied additional depreciation to some of the items, especially the clothing, as it seemed appropriate. Many of the items were gifts but will still need replacing. Some items, such as the bed and bedding, were new at the start of the tenancy. I find $2,500 for the appliances and furniture, $830 for the miscellaneous items such as storage containers and small appliances, and $2,670 for all the clothing to be reasonable compensation. Other issues
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
There is an application for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
I have allowed suppression for the tenant because she is the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords have to pay compensation and exemplary damages.
I note this order is a few days later than the 28 days I expected to have it written up and delivered to the parties. I am sorry this happened but two weeks of on and off IT issues has made it difficult to get the order written in time.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427585 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat P06, 21 Brooklyn Road, Mount Cook, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427585 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat P06, 21 Brooklyn Road, Mount Cook, Wellington

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Was there a breach of the duty to maintain and repair?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Was there a breach of the duty to maintain and repair?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions