What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438216 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 5438216?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438216?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438216?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13474428-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438216 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 5438216?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438216?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438216?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13474428-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

129 Maupuia Road, Maupuia, Wellington 6022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5438216 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5438216 — net $1,228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: no ground moisture barrier	$1,200.00	no ground moisture barrier
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,228.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,228.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Pimlico Limited T/A Propertyscouts Wellington As Agent For Abigail Kibble & Rocco Pierini must pay [The tenant/s] $1,228.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Mr Christensen.
The parties agreed this fixed term tenancy would end 12 days earlier than set out in the tenancy agreement. The bond was refunded in full and there are no claims against the tenants. At the start of February 2026 the tenants paid for a Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) inspection and a report. The report identified areas of non-compliance and contradicted the HHS report attached to their tenancy agreement. The tenants have asked for compensation and exemplary damages because the house did not comply with the HHS and was mouldy. The questions I have to decide include: • Did the smoke alarm comply? • Was the downstairs part of the house mouldy? • Was there a breach of the HHS?

Did the smoke alarm comply?

The tenants claim the smoke alarm in the downstairs bedroom was not installed correctly. Section 45(1)(ba) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that landlords comply with all requirements in relation to smoke alarms. The relevant regulations are the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
Smoke alarms must be installed in every sleeping space, or within 3 metres of the entrance to the sleeping space, and in each level of a multi-level dwelling. The smoke alarms must be photoelectric, have a battery life of at least eight years, be installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions, meet international standards, be in full working order, and have their expiry date displayed.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. The tenants’ HHS report identified that the smoke alarm in the downstairs bedroom was installed in a ‘dead air space’ and not in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
The landlord provided me with a copy of a smoke alarm compliance certificate done at the start of the tenancy showing that the three smoke alarms in the house, including the one downstairs, complied with the regulations.
Both parties have provided me with independent opinions about the placement of the smoke alarm. I am not persuaded I should favour the tenants’ report over the landlord’s report. This means the claim is not proved. All claims relating to the smoke alarm are dismissed.

Was the downstairs part of the house mouldy?

The tenants claim the downstairs part of the house, which had a bedroom, storeroom, living area, ensuite and a laundry area, was mouldy. The tenants used the storeroom as a wardrobe. They first brought the mould to the landlord’s attention by email on 29 December 2025. They followed up with another email on 22 January 2026, referring to ‘ongoing mould issues’. They asked that the active mould in the bathroom and wardrobe area be addressed because the two tenants living downstairs had respiratory and other health issues related to mould toxicity. The tenants briefly moved into the lounge upstairs and then moved out. Their HHS report has two photos each showing small areas of mould.
In reply the landlord said that he arranged for a shower dome to be installed. He went to the house on 28 January to look at the problem but could not find any discernible mould in either the ensuite, storeroom or bedroom. The underfloor space, accessible by a hatch on the storeroom, appeared to be dry. The only mould he found was a small area in the track on the aluminium door frame. He warned the tenants against using the storeroom as a wardrobe, even though this had never been raised during routine inspections.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I do not find the two photos in the HHS report are sufficient to persuade me there was a significant mould problem in the downstairs part of the house. All claims relating to mould are dismissed.

Was there a breach of the HHS?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019. The tenants are concerned the landlord has failed to comply with the insulation and moisture ingress and drainage standards. The compliance date for the tenancy premises was 1 July 2025. Breaching any of these obligations 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. Insulation
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. The HHS require ceiling insulation and underfloor insulation and these have to be in a good condition. The required ratings vary depending on when the insulation was installed. There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is impractical to install insulation.
The landlord’s HHS report in the tenancy agreement stated that the ceiling insulation complied at the start of the tenancy. The low height of the subfloor meant it could not be properly inspected. The report writer concluded that what could be seen complied with HHS. The tenants’ HHS report identified gaps in the ceiling insulation and parts of the underfloor that were not insulated at all. The report includes photos. The recommendation for the underfloor was that insulation was required.
I am not persuaded there is sufficient difference in the two reports that I can make a decision that the landlord breached the HHS. If this tenancy was continuing I would have made an order that an insulation business asses the subfloor for installation, but that is not an option. I do not find the tenants have proved there was a breach of the insulation standard. The claims relating to insulation are dismissed. Moisture ingress
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. Their HHS report states the gutters needed to be cleaned when the inspection was carried out and that a ground moisture barrier should have been installed under the house. Both breaches are relevant given the concerns about moisture in the downstairs part of the house. The report said that parts of the enclosed subfloor were very wet and work was required to fix the issue. There is one photo showing the wet subfloor.
In reply the landlord said the gutters had been cleaned at the start of the tenancy. He referred to a letter from the owner’s builder written in May 2025 stating that: Due to low floor height and inaccessible area for safety reasons, a moisture barrier cannot be installed. However, in the mentioned area there is already installed underfloor insulation.
I am not concerned about the gutters because overall the gutters, down pipes and drainage system appear to be in good order. I am persuaded by the tenant’s report and find there has been a breach of the requirement to install a ground moisture barrier. The tenants’ report states: Enclosed subfloor. Installation of Ground Moisture Barrier required. Some arears will be exempt due to safe working height being too low. Exemption should be provided by a professional moisture barrier installation company to state that some arears of the subfloor cannot be insulated.
I find the letter written by the owner’s builder is not independent. To avoid an order against it the landlord should have arranged for a business to check the subfloor before the hearing. I find the landlord has 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord said it relied on the advice of the builder and should not be penalised. However I find the landlord acted intentionally by not consulting a ground moisture barrier installer at the start of the tenancy when checking the house for HHS compliance, and this was detrimental to the tenants. The tenants living downstairs said having no moisture barrier meant that water pooled under the house and made the storeroom and bedroom damp. Three of the tenants have asthma which got worse living in the house. It is in tenants’’ interests that houses comply with the HHS and there is public interest in exemplary damages to encourage compliance. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $1,200. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of other orders against the landlord for a similar breach.
I am not persuaded I should also allow compensation. The tenants only raised the issue towards the end of the tenancy and the landlord acted promptly and reasonably when it agreed the fixed term could end early. There is value in not being charged rent for the last 12 days. The claim for compensation is dismissed. Other orders
The tenants are the most successful party so an order is made for reimbursement of the filing fee.
There are applications 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.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest in names when tenancy premises do not comply with the HHS.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5438216 — net $1,228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: no ground moisture barrier	$1,200.00	no ground moisture barrier
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,228.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,228.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Pimlico Limited T/A Propertyscouts Wellington As Agent For Abigail Kibble & Rocco Pierini must pay [The tenant/s] $1,228.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Mr Christensen.
The parties agreed this fixed term tenancy would end 12 days earlier than set out in the tenancy agreement. The bond was refunded in full and there are no claims against the tenants. At the start of February 2026 the tenants paid for a Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) inspection and a report. The report identified areas of non-compliance and contradicted the HHS report attached to their tenancy agreement. The tenants have asked for compensation and exemplary damages because the house did not comply with the HHS and was mouldy. The questions I have to decide include: • Did the smoke alarm comply? • Was the downstairs part of the house mouldy? • Was there a breach of the HHS?

Did the smoke alarm comply?

The tenants claim the smoke alarm in the downstairs bedroom was not installed correctly. Section 45(1)(ba) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that landlords comply with all requirements in relation to smoke alarms. The relevant regulations are the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
Smoke alarms must be installed in every sleeping space, or within 3 metres of the entrance to the sleeping space, and in each level of a multi-level dwelling. The smoke alarms must be photoelectric, have a battery life of at least eight years, be installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions, meet international standards, be in full working order, and have their expiry date displayed.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. The tenants’ HHS report identified that the smoke alarm in the downstairs bedroom was installed in a ‘dead air space’ and not in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
The landlord provided me with a copy of a smoke alarm compliance certificate done at the start of the tenancy showing that the three smoke alarms in the house, including the one downstairs, complied with the regulations.
Both parties have provided me with independent opinions about the placement of the smoke alarm. I am not persuaded I should favour the tenants’ report over the landlord’s report. This means the claim is not proved. All claims relating to the smoke alarm are dismissed.

Was the downstairs part of the house mouldy?

The tenants claim the downstairs part of the house, which had a bedroom, storeroom, living area, ensuite and a laundry area, was mouldy. The tenants used the storeroom as a wardrobe. They first brought the mould to the landlord’s attention by email on 29 December 2025. They followed up with another email on 22 January 2026, referring to ‘ongoing mould issues’. They asked that the active mould in the bathroom and wardrobe area be addressed because the two tenants living downstairs had respiratory and other health issues related to mould toxicity. The tenants briefly moved into the lounge upstairs and then moved out. Their HHS report has two photos each showing small areas of mould.
In reply the landlord said that he arranged for a shower dome to be installed. He went to the house on 28 January to look at the problem but could not find any discernible mould in either the ensuite, storeroom or bedroom. The underfloor space, accessible by a hatch on the storeroom, appeared to be dry. The only mould he found was a small area in the track on the aluminium door frame. He warned the tenants against using the storeroom as a wardrobe, even though this had never been raised during routine inspections.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I do not find the two photos in the HHS report are sufficient to persuade me there was a significant mould problem in the downstairs part of the house. All claims relating to mould are dismissed.

Was there a breach of the HHS?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019. The tenants are concerned the landlord has failed to comply with the insulation and moisture ingress and drainage standards. The compliance date for the tenancy premises was 1 July 2025. Breaching any of these obligations 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. Insulation
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. The HHS require ceiling insulation and underfloor insulation and these have to be in a good condition. The required ratings vary depending on when the insulation was installed. There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is impractical to install insulation.
The landlord’s HHS report in the tenancy agreement stated that the ceiling insulation complied at the start of the tenancy. The low height of the subfloor meant it could not be properly inspected. The report writer concluded that what could be seen complied with HHS. The tenants’ HHS report identified gaps in the ceiling insulation and parts of the underfloor that were not insulated at all. The report includes photos. The recommendation for the underfloor was that insulation was required.
I am not persuaded there is sufficient difference in the two reports that I can make a decision that the landlord breached the HHS. If this tenancy was continuing I would have made an order that an insulation business asses the subfloor for installation, but that is not an option. I do not find the tenants have proved there was a breach of the insulation standard. The claims relating to insulation are dismissed. Moisture ingress
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. Their HHS report states the gutters needed to be cleaned when the inspection was carried out and that a ground moisture barrier should have been installed under the house. Both breaches are relevant given the concerns about moisture in the downstairs part of the house. The report said that parts of the enclosed subfloor were very wet and work was required to fix the issue. There is one photo showing the wet subfloor.
In reply the landlord said the gutters had been cleaned at the start of the tenancy. He referred to a letter from the owner’s builder written in May 2025 stating that: Due to low floor height and inaccessible area for safety reasons, a moisture barrier cannot be installed. However, in the mentioned area there is already installed underfloor insulation.
I am not concerned about the gutters because overall the gutters, down pipes and drainage system appear to be in good order. I am persuaded by the tenant’s report and find there has been a breach of the requirement to install a ground moisture barrier. The tenants’ report states: Enclosed subfloor. Installation of Ground Moisture Barrier required. Some arears will be exempt due to safe working height being too low. Exemption should be provided by a professional moisture barrier installation company to state that some arears of the subfloor cannot be insulated.
I find the letter written by the owner’s builder is not independent. To avoid an order against it the landlord should have arranged for a business to check the subfloor before the hearing. I find the landlord has 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord said it relied on the advice of the builder and should not be penalised. However I find the landlord acted intentionally by not consulting a ground moisture barrier installer at the start of the tenancy when checking the house for HHS compliance, and this was detrimental to the tenants. The tenants living downstairs said having no moisture barrier meant that water pooled under the house and made the storeroom and bedroom damp. Three of the tenants have asthma which got worse living in the house. It is in tenants’’ interests that houses comply with the HHS and there is public interest in exemplary damages to encourage compliance. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $1,200. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of other orders against the landlord for a similar breach.
I am not persuaded I should also allow compensation. The tenants only raised the issue towards the end of the tenancy and the landlord acted promptly and reasonably when it agreed the fixed term could end early. There is value in not being charged rent for the last 12 days. The claim for compensation is dismissed. Other orders
The tenants are the most successful party so an order is made for reimbursement of the filing fee.
There are applications 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.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest in names when tenancy premises do not comply with the HHS.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438216 — Exemplary damages at 129 Maupuia Road, Maupuia, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438216 — Exemplary damages at 129 Maupuia Road, Maupuia, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the smoke alarm comply?

Was the downstairs part of the house mouldy?

Was there a breach of the HHS?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the smoke alarm comply?

Was the downstairs part of the house mouldy?

Was there a breach of the HHS?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions