What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5442429 about?

The tribunal order states: Karl Cooper must pay Alexander Joseph Langton and Larissa Teresinha Siqueira

How much money was awarded in case 5442429?

Compensation: $846.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5442429?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5442429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13828130-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5442429 about?

The tribunal order states: Karl Cooper must pay Alexander Joseph Langton and Larissa Teresinha Siqueira

How much money was awarded in case 5442429?

Compensation: $846.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5442429?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5442429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13828130-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

48 Turanga Road, Henderson Valley, Auckland 0612, main Tenancy Tribunal Case 5442429 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5442429 — net $874.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$846.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$874.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$874.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5442429 — net $874.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$846.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$874.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$874.00

Order

Karl Cooper must pay Alexander Joseph Langton and Larissa Teresinha Siqueira $874.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionTenant Compensation$846.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$874.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenants against the landlord. The tenancy has ended but there are a range of matters in dispute at the end of the tenancy.
A hearing was convened in Waitakere today to consider the tenant application. The landlord is overseas, so it was represented at the hearing today by Mr Yee.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records the landlord as Karl Cooper, and the cotenants as Alex Langton and Larissa Signeira. The tenancy commenced on 2 May 2024 and was a fixed-term tenancy until 5 March 2026. As will be relevant below, the agreement records that the landlord would pay for the power, and on charge a proportion of the costs to the tenants.
The evidence is that over the course of the tenancy, the tenants and landlord had a good working relationship, and the tenants liked the house, as reflected in their discussion with the landlord about purchasing the property.
However, some issue have arisen as I will discuss below, including with a leak into one of the bedrooms causing mould, and also with the tenant’s dog. I will discuss the history of these specific matters below. Tenants Healthy Homes Inspection report
The tenants obtained a Healthy Homes Compliance assessment from Pinnacle Home & Building Inspections. I am uncertain of the inspection date, but note the inspector recorded that there were three areas of non- compliance; those were: a. Moisture ingress and drainage - no ground moisture barrier in the subfloor area, and that gutters and downpipes were blocked with leaf matter and debris. b. Ventilation - the extractor fan in the bathroom was not working. c. Moisture/mould concern – visible mould in the downstairs bedroom.
Then the assessor made a range of suggestions, some beyond the Healthy Homes Standards.
On 6 September 2025, the tenants wrote to the landlord requesting a range of maintenance, including: a. Addressing the mould behind the wallpaper in the bedroom. b. Repairing the bathroom extractor fan. c. Dressing a gap in a closet. d. Addressing a gap behind the upstairs bathroom. e. Replacing the broken glass panel on the switchboard. f. Requesting an electrical inspection. g. Assessing the flooring outside the bathroom for stability. h. Assessing the flush for an upstairs toilet. i. Addressing moisture and rot around windowsills. j. Providing a fixed heating source. k. Servicing the fireplace. l. Requesting HHS compliance certificate.
The tenancy ended on or around 19 October 2025 by agreement of the parties.
On 16 February 2026, the tenants filed this application with the Tribunal.

TENANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the tenant confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Exemplary damages and compensation for a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. b. Compensation for an unusable (mouldy) room. c. Compensation for electricity charges. d. Compensation for heating costs. e. Unlawful notice to remove dog.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, 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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [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. Exemplary damages
The Tribunal must consider claims for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) 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. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.

ANALYSIS

There are five claims advanced for the tenants; I will consider those claims in turn. Claim 1 - Exemplary damages and compensation for a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards.
The tenants state that during the tenancy, they found there was wallpaper coming off in one of the rooms, and that it was mouldy. The tenants say that the house was mouldy, damp, missing insulation, and missing a moisture barrier. When the bedroom mould was raised with the landlord, the landlord said it was mould from the prior tenants.
In response, the landlord says he was first made aware of an ongoing problem on 17 June 2025, and at the time believed it was a minor issue from condensation from the window. On 11 July 2025, the tenants said they were ready to talk, and there was a video call where the tenants showed the affected area, and it turned out there was no condensation. Mr Yee notes the landlord is an architect. The landlord then assumed it was a leak, a contractor was engaged, and the leak repair work around a window was completed by 23 July 2025. The landlord then engaged with another contractor to remediate the interior wall on 8 September 2025. The tenants requested to end the tenancy early and that was agreed, and the tenants moved out on 19 October 2025.
The landlord considers there is a moisture barrier between the flooring and the underfloor insulation, but otherwise notes that the HHS assessment report did not say anything about insulation.
The tenant said that the house was mouldy, damp and leaking. The tenant considers that barrier under the floor that the landlord is referring to is a different kind of barrier. The tenant also notes the HHS statement was different to that provided at the start of the tenancy. Analysis
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached his obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the HHS. A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered as set out in Schedule 1A to the RTA, is $7,200.00.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
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 insulation must also be in a reasonable condition.
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 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 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.
Taking into consideration the issues raised by the tenants, I reach the following conclusions around compliance with the HHS. a. Heating – the tenants have not proven that the landlord has breached his HHS obligations. The premises have a wood burner, and providing the woodburner produced an adequate level of heat, it would be a qualifying heater. No evidence has been presented which shows that this particular heater did not have the necessary heat output for those premises. While the tenants have raised concerns around gaps with the woodburner, in my assessment that is a maintenance issue. To be fair, the tenants acknowledge that they did not raise those concerns during the tenancy. But of itself, the evidence falls short of proving that the landlord has not provided a qualifying heater. b. Insulation – while, the tenants have raised various concerns around insulation of the premises, there is no evidence before me that the insulation in these premises is not compliant. I note that even the Pinnacle assessment did not identify any insulation breach. c. Ventilation – the ventilation standard potentially may be breached, as the extractor fan in the bathroom was not working. But another way to look at the situation, is that the landlord has provided ventilation, but maintenance to that unit is required. But any event, to order exemplary damages I would need to be satisfied that the landlord had intentionally breached his obligation to provide a working extractor fan, and the evidence does not support that. d. Draught stopping – the tenants raised concerns around drafts at the premises, but the Pinnacle report did not identify any draught issues. Overall, I am not persuaded that a breach has been established as far as draught stopping goes. e. Moisture – the Pinnacle assessment identified that the gutters needed to be cleaned, but again I would view that as a maintenance issue. The reality is that gutters do become blocked with leaf matter and the like, particularly in bushy locations, but that does not show a fundamental defect with the premises. There is also the issue with the leak into the bedroom. Again, this is a situation where a leak was identified, and the landlord fixed it. In order to find that exemplary damages should be ordered for a breach of the HHS, the law requires that I find the landlord’s actions to be intentional, which would mean the landlord knew that the premises were leaking, but decided to do nothing about it. That is not the evidence here. There is also the issue with the ground moisture barrier. The evidence is that the landlord does not have a polythene or similar ground moisture barrier on the soil beneath the house, but has a foil product sitting between the floor joists and the flooring (above the insulation). The landlord’s position is that this complies with the HHS. I am not persuaded on the evidence that the system in place would not comply with the HHS. The regulations require that there be a ground moisture barrier that complies with New Zealand standard 4246;2016, or be an alternate solution with a vapour flow resistance of a certain value, and be installed by a professional installer. If an interpretation was to be that the barrier in place prevented ground moisture from entering the premises, then it could be deemed to comply, as long as it had the appropriate vapour resistance and there is no evidence before me that it does not. Based on the information available, I am unable to conclude that the solution in place does not comply with the HHS.
Overall I find that the tenants have not established that the landlord has intentionally breached the HHS. I remain of the view, that some of the issues raised would better be classed as maintenance issues, rather than a physical defect with the premises, comprising an HHS breach. Claim 2 - Compensation for an unusable (mouldy) room.
The tenant said that they were not able to use the mouldy room while it was being remediated. The room should have been sealed when the remediation work was happening.
The landlord states that the room is 9 m 2 vs 110 m 2 , therefore 8% of the floor space, so the tenant’s claim is disproportionate. Further the landlord offered a dehumidifier, and the tenants could have done more to dry the room.
The tenants considers that when the issue with the mouldy room was raised, only the affected wall was checked, not the other areas in that room. Analysis
There is no dispute between the parties that there was a water leak involving one of the bedrooms, which caused mould to develop behind the wallpaper.
On 17 June 2026, the tenant sent a text message to the landlord advising that they had found an area of mould beneath the wallpaper that was peeling back, and provide provided the landlord with a photograph supporting that.
The landlord responded that day, noting there had been a previous mould problem with earlier tenants that they had treated.
On 24 July 2025, a handyman attended and addressed the exterior water leak.
Then the landlord engaged a contractor to treat the mould on the walls, and following a period of drying, the room was redecorated. The landlord states that the work was completed by 8 September 2025.
When I stand back and consider the situation in the round, I agree with the tenants, that once the issue with the mould was identified, it was reasonable that the room was not used until the remediation was completed. In fact, there is a communication on file which supported that the room should be sealed during the works.
The tenants were paying rent for premises that met certain considerations, including that the rooms were not damp and mouldy, and that were safe for habitation. As far as this room is concerned, the tenants did not get that. They should be compensated for their loss.
I have determined that a fair level of compensation would be a rent reimbursement of 10%. That would equate to $70.50 per week, and applying the dates between the landlord first being notified and the work being completed, that is effectively 12 weeks, I therefore order compensation of $846.00. Claim 3 - Compensation for electricity charges.
The tenants position is that they are not paying a fair contribution to the electricity charges. The tenant confirmed the issue is not that the landlord is profiting from the electricity charge, but the split of charges.
The landlords position is that the power should be split between the main house which is larger, and the outbuilding which is smaller. Analysis
The tenants are responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. Section 39 of the RTA is a provision which sets out the landlord and tenants “responsibility for outgoings”. Subsection 3 records: The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities.
The effect of section 39(3) is that the tenants are only liable for outgoings in respect of the premises that are “exclusively attributable” to the specific tenancy.
I note the District Court decision of Graeme Geraghty Leonie Jones v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813, in which Judge de Ridder needed to consider a case where there was one power meter for both a main house and a semi- detached flat (the tenancy), that is a similar case to the matter before me. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim for power charges because there was no separate meter to be able to determine what the power consumption to the tenancy was with precision. The District Court did not agree with that approach, and stated in the decision: [23] It is clear from the comments of the Adjudicator recorded at [18] above that the adjudicator took a strict legal approach and applied a strict application of the words “exclusively attributable” used in s 39(3) of the Act. There is an argument that whilst the strict legal application of s 39(3) means that Ms Raui does not have to pay for any of her power use, an application of the principle of determining the matter according to the substantial merits and justice of the case, and considering whether that, “... strict application of the law gives rise to a fair result...,” might arguably lead to a result where Ms Raui should be paying something for her power and not, effectively, receiving it for free. Also by requiring the landlord to pay for the power clearly used by Ms Raui, the benefit of rental income from the property to the landlord is significantly reduced by the amount of the order. [24] In all the circumstances, where there is an argument that s 85 might apply to produce a different result and that provision has not been considered, then that could be said to amount to a procedural error which in turn has possibly resulted in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
Section 85 is a provision in the RTA which relates to decision making of the Tribunal, and confirms that the Tribunal should looks to a fair resolution of the dispute, taking into account substantial merits and justice, not necessarily strict legal rights and technicalities: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
That that means, is that the Tribunal could (if not should) look to an approach which deals with the power charges on a fair and equitable basis when there is no entirely separate meter.
In this case, the landlord has set out the basis for calculating the split between the main house, and the outbuilding, on what I consider to be a principal basis. The main house, which I presume is much larger, pays a high proportion of the electricity charge, compared to the outbuilding. The tenants live in the main building with their children, but confirm there is only one occupant in the outbuilding.
Overall, I am not persuaded that the approach taken by the landlord is unjust, or unfair, and therefore I declined to interfere with it. Claim 4 - Compensation for heating costs.
The tenant states there was a firebox in the house, but it had holes in it including around the chimney, and the fireplace had ‘expired’. Further, the agreement included an electric heater that has not been provided, but it would not be sufficient to heat the house. The tenant said that they stopped using the fire because of their concerns. The tenants did not raised these concerns with the landlord, because they did not know they could. The tenants needed to purchase their own heaters, and the landlord knew they were using electric heaters.
The landlords position is that energy costs have risen. Note is made that the tenants own HHS assessment did not identify any issues with the fire. Analysis
The obligation on the landlord as far as heating is concerned, is to provide a qualifying heater. As I have discussed above, the tenants have not proven that the landlord has failed to do that. Otherwise, I am not persuaded there are any reasonable grounds to compensate the tenants for additional heating costs in these premises. This claim is dismissed. Claim 5 - Unlawful notice to remove dog.
The tenant says that when they were looking for a house, they wanted one that would be pet friendly, and the landlord advised that there was no problem with the tenants having a dog at the tenancy. The landlord was well aware the tenants had a dog, and had no issue with the tenants having a dog on the premises. The tenants accept that the dog is a large dog, but the reason he was put in a room for inspections is because that is normally what would happen for house inspections, not because he was menacing.
The landlords position is that the dog caused the landlord concern because it was a boisterous dog and the premises could not be fenced off. It was only when issues were raised following a manager being appointed . The landlord considers that a working solution could have been reached if the tenants wanted to. Analysis
The evidence is that the tenants have a dog, called Maui. This was raised prior to the tenancy agreement being entered into; in fact, the tenants provided text messages with the landlord from 15 April 2024, where the landlord requested that they bring Maui to meet the landlord. The evidence also points to the landlord being well aware that Maui was living on the premises during the tenancy.
My impression is that Maui was not a problem for the landlord initially.
On 19 September 2025, the landlord issued a “formal notice” to remove Maui within 30 days, stating: While I have been aware you are keeping a dog at the premises I have never given you verbal or written permission to do so. It has also been brought to my attention that this dog is large, very energetic and intimidating. When my Agent called at the property it had to be locked away in a room and was heard scratching at the door. I believe the dog is difficult to keep under control and can escape from the property onto the street and into other neighbouring properties. The size and nature of the dog causes concern. The property is not fully fenced and given the property’s character and landscaping, is not appropriate to provide fencing at the back and front of the property. The dog is a hazard, potentially causing damage to the property and the property itself is inappropriate for this large energetic dog.
The landlord states that if Maui was not removed within 30 days, he would serve a notice to terminate the tenancy.
In my view, it was a term of the tenancy agreement that Maui could live in the premises. The landlord knew that the tenant wanted to have the dog, and the Tenancy was agreed on that basis.
I have no reservation in concluding that the landlord was wrong in issuing the notice that he did on 19 September 2025, requiring that Maui leave the premises. During any contractual period, there is no problem with one party negotiating with another to vary the terms of an agreement, but a party cannot unilaterally change terms, as the landlord is attempting to do here.
If Maui was causing problems in the tenancy, for example disturbing the neighbours, or causing damage to the property, then the landlord’s remedy is to apply to the Tenancy Tribunal for any appropriate orders.
Beyond making a finding that the landlord was not able to give the notice he did, I cannot see that any other orders would be indicated. The tenants have not pointed to any loss incurred because of the notice, and furthermore, the tenancy ended not too long following. For that reason, while I accept that the notice could not be given, I make no further orders because of it.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5442429 — Tenancy dispute at 48 Turanga Road, Henderson Valley, Auckland 0612, main

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5442429 — Tenancy dispute at 48 Turanga Road, Henderson Valley, Auckland 0612, main

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions