Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5456271 — Mould & damp

Decided 14 Jul 2026 · Published 14 Jul 2026 · Application 5456271

Mould & damp
State of repair
Smoke alarms
Healthy homes
Exemplary damages
Leaks

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Adjudicator

K Stirling

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Mr Van Gent representing the landlord.
The tenant brings the following claims against the landlord for which she seeks compensation and exemplary damages: a. Failure to maintain the property due to: i. deteriorating and flaking paint inside the premises that might also be contaminated with lead; ii. asbestos at the premises; b. Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards due to: i. gaps in window frames, cracks, and splits in window frames; ii. spongey/settlement of floor; iii. lack of heating making the house cold; c. The tenant seeks financial losses due to the need to vacate the tenancy.
The tenant also sought work orders to address the alleged breaches. However, because the tenancy has already ended, work orders cannot be ordered.
Any party bringing a claim to the Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim. The Tenancy Tribunal applies a civil standard of proof, determining matters on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each applicant must prove that it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be supported by other acceptable evidence. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents such as emails, texts, and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, 1 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. Has the landlord failed to maintain the premises and failed to comply with healthy homes standards? The relevant law
A landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. 2
Landlords are liable for defects they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire that knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 3 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage.... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: “....the obligation of the landlord under s45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is......depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be...” 4 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 3 Stewart Benson, Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18 4 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Limited DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010
Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation. 5
Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs. 6
Notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair, or the need for repair is apparent from observation. 7
A landlord must also comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) which cover insulation, heating, ventilation, draught stopping, drainage and moisture ingress. 8 The HHS compliance date for these premises was 1 July 2024 in relation to all standards except insulation which has an earlier compliance date. In other words, the premises were required to comply with HHS right from the start of the tenancy.
Breaching any of these maintenance and HHS obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. 9 Background facts 2024-2025
The tenancy commenced on 4 October 2024. Prior to the tenancy commencing the premises were redecorated in August 2024 which included: painting wardrobes, interior shelving, and cabinets, and redecorating the whole interior and installing new curtains and carpets.
The tenant is a solo mother with five young children, giving birth to her youngest not long after the tenancy started.
The landlord has disclosed various documents to the tenant including their Kotahi diary notes and work order records completed at the property during the tenancy. Copies have been provided in evidence. The Kotahi diary notes record various communications between the landlord and the tenant including with the customer support centre (CSC) operators, internal messages to housing support managers (HSM), work orders and inspection notices. A timeline of events can be established by reference to the Kotahi notes and work order records provided in evidence.
On 23 December 2024, the tenant rang the landlord’s call centre to report paint flaking off surfaces inside the house and falling into food when using the 5 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as LJ Hooker [2015] TT 2845 6 Section 40(1)(d) RTA 7 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey, DC Auckland CIV 2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 8 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA 9 Section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA kitchen. The notes record that the HSM would follow up about this in the New Year.
On 26 March 2025, the tenant called the HSM to follow up. There are no notes recording the subject of their discussion.
On 1 May 2025, various maintenance work orders were generated which related to minor repairs to window catches, sashes and stays, a water pipe repair and fibre cement board replacement to the exterior house. The work orders did not relate to flaking paint.
On 4 July 2025, the tenant applied for a transfer to Pukekohe to move closer to specialist medical support for her children who have specific health conditions including autism and speech delays.
On 19 August 2025, the tenant called CSC again to report flaking paint at the property and asked the landlord to follow up.
There were other communications with the tenant through August and September 2025 including a scheduled appointment at the premises; work on a broken window; and an annual inspection on 2 October 2025. The Kotahi inspection notes record as follows: Annual inspection completed, customer was home and happy to have photos taken. Customer requested the visit for after 2pm. Maintenance: Nil Concerns: Flaking paint, hallway light bulb, handle, cupboard doors. Customer is able to self-repair the work as it's very minor. Previous damage charge for the window to be reverted due to the chip existing before she moved in. No other issues raised, all smoke alarms working, no signs of leaks or mould. Customer is able to contact Kainga Ora in future if required.
The notes indicate that that there were no concerns at the annual inspection and while there was a reference to flaking paint and other issues they were recorded as minor with the tenant confirming that she would contact the landlord in future if required.
Exterior painting was done of windows and doors in December 2025. Prior to the work and as a precautionary health and safety measure a lead paint test was also conducted. The results of the test were not in evidence. Mr Van Gent submits that subsequent painting occurred and if lead had been present, the tenant would have been informed and a healthy and safety plan would have been in place. 2026
The tenant next followed up about flaking paint on 20 January 2026 and complained that it was becoming a health and safety issue. The Kotahi notes record: Email sent to HSM ......... [Tenant] called about the paint and wood flaking from the kitchen walls and cupboard, she said it's bad that it's falling into their food and kitchen benches and floor, she said the wood is deteriorating creating a bad smell and she has also noticed yellow mites around the house. [Tenant] is concerned for her baby that is starting to crawl and starting to put stuff in their mouth. Can you please follow up with [Tenant] at your earliest convenience to discuss this, I didn't raise a job as current job that was raised today noted property was under future retrofit, if you would like me to go ahead and raise a job, please let me know.
An appointment was made for the housing support manger (HSM) to visit the tenant on 29 January to review the flaking paint. The HSM recorded that the only issue of concern identified was a bit of paint flaking in the kitchen and bedroom. A job was raised accordingly. The HSM did not see anything else wrong with the house stating that it was in great condition with no immediate safety concerns for the tenant’s children.
A builder and painter attended the premises on 2 February. They found that both the wall and the kitchen cabinet paint was peeling and flaking. The notes record that previous paint was likely not properly plastered or prepared which caused the paint to fail. They also recorded that some door panels in the house were detached and required repair. They recommended that a responsive scope (RSC) be conducted by a supervisor, which is a more detailed assessment. This was later cancelled because evidence provided by the trades did not justify a responsive scope.
On 29 January, the tenant requested an HHS assessment report to support her transfer application as advised by MSD. The tenant had advised MSD that she was concerned that the flaking paint was affecting her and her childrens’ health. They have pre-existing asthma and eczema conditions that she believed were getting worse because of the premises. MSD recommended that she request the HHS report as evidence of her complaints and to further support her transfer application.
The tenant increased her calls to the landlord repeating her concerns about flaking paint. The February Kotahi notes record the tenant’s concerns that the flaking paint was being eaten by the tenant’s young child and making them sick.
On 15 February, the tenant served a 14-day notice on the landlord wanting a full inspection and written remediation plan to address flaking paint; structural deterioration; flooring concerns; draught gaps; professional pest treatment, a copy of the HHS compliance statement; and written confirmation of repair timelines.
The landlord says that work was undertaken to seek expert advice and respond to the complaints.
On 17 February, the tenant called CSC again requesting temporary accommodation because the premises were not suitable. CSC sent a message to the HSM to follow up.
In the meantime, on 18 February, a meeting took place at the landlord’s office and on 19 February another visit by the HSMs took place at the premises. It is fair to say that the tenant’s’ complaints had escalated with her raising multiple maintenance issues. The record after the visit on 19 February says: Concerns around paint flaking in the bedrooms and kitchen cupboards Parts of the doors are coming off in bathroom and bedroom Exterior cladding is coming off the exterior walls outside the kitchen after the storm will raise a w/o [Tenant] concerns were around the MSD transfer to Auckland because of the property condition but the property is in great condition it's warm safe and dry but she does have a current housing application for a transfer .............. I confirmed that she is not eligible for a BIT transfer with us as she does not meet the criteria SHSM - Rachel will put a key detail note on the file to state: Any enquires around the transfer will need to be sent to myself as she got some miscommunication for the CSC that caused her some anxiety and stress [Tenant] was grateful for the visit..... (my emphasis)
The tenant continued to make regular calls to the landlord and seemed to have an increasing anxiety about the premises. On 20 February, the HSM returned a call from the tenant and explained that she would need to give up her tenancy to move to Auckland or wait for an MSD transfer which could take some time. The tenant repeated her concern that flaking paint was making her sick. The HSM note says; “...as we explained yesterday, she has minor paint flaking that we have got to be fixed, and this wouldn’t be causing her to be sick...”
On 27 February 2026, the tenant first reported her belief that she and her children may be suffering from lead poisoning. Kotahi notes record as follows: Email sent to HSM 1 OF 2:[Tenant] reported that both she and her five children have been increasingly unwell. The children have ongoing sickness, and their doctor has raised concerns that their symptoms may be related to possible lead poisoning from the deteriorating paint in the home. The doctor has advised [Tenant] to have the property tested for lead due to the children's worsening condition. [Tenant] explained that the home environment is becoming hazardous, especially given their existing health issues. She and several of the children have asthma and eczema, and the peeling paint, paint dust, and poor air quality inside the property are triggering flare ups more frequently. The children's health issues are now affecting their school attendance, and [Tenant] stated that the kids are "getting sicker and sicker”. and in a second email EMAIL TO HSM 2 OF 2: Alongside the health concerns, [Tenant] noted significant deterioration in the kitchen and extensive paint damage throughout the house. I contacted the trades to follow up on the repair requests; however, the trades advised that the issues appear to be widespread and may require work across the entire property, not just isolated repairs. During the call, [Tenant] became very upset, explaining that the situation is heavily affecting her mental health. She stated that she has nowhere else to go with her children and urgently needs the matter addressed so her family can live safely and return to a stable routine. Given the severity of the health concerns and the scale of work required, could you please look into the possibility of arranging temporary accommodation for [Tenant] and her children while the necessary repairs are carried out? She is particularly worried that sanding the walls will release more paint dust into the home, which could further harm the children. [Tenant] is a solo mother on a limited income, and the ongoing medical appointments for all five children are beginning to impact her financially. She is extremely distressed and is seeking urgent support to ensure her family can live safely while their home is made healthy and habitable again.
The tenant was particularly concerned about her young autistic child who she explained has PICA behaviour. This is a disorder characterised by the compulsive, persistent consumption of non-food substances and often stems from underlying conditions including autism. As a result, her child was ingesting the paint flakes and would also pick at the paint already peeling and ingest it.
On 2 March the tenant requested further information from the landlord including contractor reports for all maintenance at the premises during the tenancy, all call logs with CSC, and an asbestos report.
On 6 March, the tenant and the HSM had further discussions about her various concerns that may be summarised as follows: a. Work orders had been cancelled. HSM explained that this was because the evidence provided by trades did not justify the RSC work being requested; b. The tenant alleged that she had a conversation with CSC in late January/early February where they reportedly told her that the senior housing support manager (SHSM) was urgently looking into temporary accommodation for her in Manukau due to her property being uninhabitable. The HSM advised that there was no record of that advice, and any such request would have come to the HSM for approval. This would only be considered if trades provided a report explaining why the property was uninhabitable and there was no such report for these premises. The HSM had also previously advised the tenant on 19 February that she was not eligible for a transfer (see note at para 32 above); c. The HSM explained that the premises were no longer flagged for retrofit and any maintenance jobs would not be deferred and would be processed according to the usual criteria; d. The tenant advised that a supervisor came to scope the premises for work regarding storm damage to exterior fibre cement sheets and said that they might contain asbestos. She wanted them to be tested. HSM advised that she would arrange for a supervisor to complete a thorough maintenance assessment of the exterior and interior of the premises with particular focus on the areas of concern the tenant had raised.
The landlord says that it sought reports regarding lead paint, asbestos and a foundation report.
On 6 March, the tenant and two of her children received results of their blood tests for lead levels. The blood tests were normal stating “This result would not normally signify excessive exposure to lead.”
The tenant supplied letters from her medical centre confirming existing health conditions suffered by family members of eczema, asthma and autism spectrum affecting one child. The letters emphasized the importance for the family to be housed in a safe, warm, dry, healthy home. Exposure to damp, mould, cold temperatures, or poor ventilation would likely exacerbate their eczema and asthma symptoms and negatively impact their health. The letters were written in support of the family being prioritised for appropriate housing that met those requirements. The last letter dated 23 February 2026 advised that the health conditions of the whanau had not improved, and they continue to struggle with their ongoing eczema and asthma.
The tenant supplied photos taken of the premises at the end of the tenancy showing deteriorating paintwork in parts and gaps around internal door frames requiring repair. There was also evidence of some windows frames with cracks in the paint and some gaps in the framing. These photos were taken in or about February and March when the landlord was investigating the issues. I note that complaints about window draughts and floor concerns were only raised in the 14-day notice dated 15 February 2026.
On 9 March, the tenant attempted to give a 2 day notice to terminate the tenancy under section 59 RTA on the grounds that the premises were uninhabitable due to lead and asbestos contamination. She then vacated the premises on 10 March. She says that she acted on her intuition because she felt she was not getting answers, and her complaints were not being taken seriously.
The landlord did not accept the notice but agreed that the tenant could end the tenancy on 21 days’ notice which would make the last day of the tenancy 31 March 2026.
The reports commissioned by the landlord were completed after the tenancy ended with the following results: a. There was no evidence of lead-based paint at the premises; b. No asbestos was detected except for chrysotile in a subfloor board. However, there was no evidence that it had been disturbed with the report noting that provided asbestos is incorporated into a stable matrix and no airborne dust is produced, it presents minimal health risk. Mr Van Gent submitted that the chrysotile was likely under the house in the subflooring or could be underneath the vinyl in the kitchen. He emphasized that testing was conducted by independent specialists and had there been any concern about asbestos they would have recommended removal because it is treated very seriously; c. The foundation report observed minor settlement in the kitchen and bedroom 2 area with approximately a 10-12mm fall over a 3m span towards the exterior wall; bearers and joists were in good condition with no rot or termite damage; floorboards were stable with no structural failure observed. Foundations were considered to be performing adequately under NZS3604 typical tolerances.
In relation to compliance with HHS, the landlord confirmed that the property underwent an independent Healthy Homes inspection on 21 January 2021, and an HHS compliance statement was provided to the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord also provided a copy of the current HHS compliance statement dated 16 February 2026 which shows that the premises fully comply. Discussion and findings
The tenant argues that she repeatedly reported concerns about the premises in relation to flaking paint, deteriorating timber, damaged surfaces, window issues, floor concerns and health concerns with the property concerning lead and asbestos contamination. She says despite repeated reporting, many of the issues remained unresolved for extended periods. She maintains that the evidence shows that the landlord considered the concerns significant enough to create work orders and arrange specialist investigations. However, the outcome of these investigations and the landlord’s records were not provided to her until after the tenancy ended.
The tenant claims that she was reluctant to use the kitchen because of falling paint flakes contaminating the food preparation areas and chose to purchase take away and home delivery food instead. She says this resulted in a substantial loss of amenity.
The tenant also says that while the property might comply with HHS she still felt that there were significant issues and the property was cold. She thinks the environment made them sick.
Mr Van Gent explained that there is a process for responding to maintenance issues and different response times depending on the seriousness of the issue. There are specific criteria for automatically approved maintenance work. Work outside these criteria must be escalated and approved by maintenance supervisors or the asset manager. In this case and until the tenant escalated her complaints in January 2026, the concerns she raised were minor and there was no indication from her at the annual inspection in October 2025 that she had serious concerns about the premises.
From 20 January 2026, the tenant pursued her complaints about paintwork, and later lead, asbestos contamination, and other issues with vigour. Mr Van Gent acknowledged that the paintwork throughout the house did appear to have failed and would need to be addressed but there was no sign of heavy flaking in the end of tenancy photos. He also says that between 20 January and 11 March, they were unable to complete any painting work at the premises because the tenant believed the property contained lead-based paint and requested testing before any work could proceed. As shown in the Kotahi notes, the tenant frequently contacted the landlord to engage multiple levels of support from HSM and senior/area managers, which contributed to ongoing changes of information and disrupted the establishment of a clear and consistent plan.
Mr Van Gent explained the reference in the 20 January 2026 Kotahi note that the property was flagged for future retrofit. This relates to the previous government program to retrofit old properties working on the oldest to the newest. However, the program has been reduced with many properties removed from the program for budget reasons. When a property is flagged for retrofit, the landlord continues to maintain, but a major piece of work might be deferred until the retrofit takes place unless it requires more immediate attention. An assessment is made as to whether the work can wait. These premises are no longer flagged for future retrofit, and Mr Van Gent says that the maintenance concerns raised by the tenant were dealt with following their usual processes and criteria.
The paint work was initially assessed by trades on 2 February as needing a responsive scope. It was later determined that a responsive scope was not justified based on the evidence.
Mr Van Gent also provided detailed evidence about the how the landlord assesses properties for lead paint. This property was constructed in 1974. Mr Van Gent said that the landlord treats all homes built before 1997 as potentially containing lead-based paint. High lead paints were banned by 1965, and white lead pigments were fully eliminated by 1979. Lead was primarily used in exterior applications and was less common indoors. The landlord works on the assumptions that: homes built before 1945 have a high likelihood of lead paint; homes built before 1965 likely contain lead paint; homes built before 1980 may contain lead paint; and homes recoated after 1980 are unlikely to contain lead paint, as testing and treatment would have occurred. Importantly, lead paint is considered safe when sealed and undisturbed. He noted that internal painting done before the tenant moved in would be safe and there was almost no risk of lead-based paint being present inside these premises.
The landlord submits that it responded reasonably and promptly in accordance with its obligations under the RTA to the tenant’s concerns and complaints.
After carefully considering all the available evidence, including the oral evidence given at the hearing, I find that the tenant has not proved that the landlord is in breach of their obligations to maintain the premises and comply with HHS. The evidence shows quite the opposite.
There is insufficient evidence (even from the photos) that paint would simply flake off into food when it was being prepared. In any event, I consider that the tenant could take steps to prepare the food away from the overhead cabinets if paint were likely to flake off. More importantly, there is no evidence of lead contamination.
The tenant became increasingly anxious from January 2026 onwards about the health of her whanau and whether the property might be contributing to poor health. I can understand why she might be concerned about harm from paint flakes which one of her children was ingesting. However, this concern is not borne out by the evidence. It also appears to me from the Kotahi notes that managers dealing with her tenancy communicated the relevant information in response to her concerns clearly, but they were unable to allay her ongoing anxiety about issues, despite their efforts to do so.
Similarly, I observed at the hearing that the tenant has a heightened anxiety about these issues which is not easily placated and seems out of proportion to any likely risk. Mr Van Gent spent considerable time at the hearing patiently answering the tenant’s questions about the premises and the specialist reports obtained; and information about the condition of the premises and her specific concerns. I found his evidence to be measured, clear, informative, and credible. The tenant also thanked him for answering her questions and providing further clarification. However, she commented that she feels the landlord is a big agency who will protect themselves; that she has fought for disclosure of documents; and she believes that the specialist testing was not conducted in the right places.
I have sympathy for the tenant. As a solo mother of five children, with challenging medical issues, she is concerned to ensure their safety and well- being. However, I find she has not discharged the onus of bringing sufficient evidence to the Tribunal to prove her claims on the balance of probabilities.
There is no evidence of lead or asbestos contamination, Even the tenant’s own blood testing results are normal and do not prove excessive lead exposure. While the medical evidence confirms the pre-existing and ongoing medical conditions affecting the tenant and her whanau had not improved, there is no independent evidence their medical condition got worse. There is certainly no evidence to link their self-reported worsening health to lead or asbestos contamination.
Stating that the property is cold is insufficient to establish a lack of maintenance or a defect at the premises and does not displace the fact that the property complies with all the HHS standards regarding insulation, heating, moisture ingress and drainage, draught stopping and ventilation.
There is no evidence that the floors at the property are defective or inadequate.
I am satisfied that the landlord had taken reasonable steps to investigate the tenant’s claims as they were raised with initial claims about flaking paint reported on 20 January; further claims made in the 14-day notice on 15 February; lead contamination raised on 27 February and asbestos raised on 2 March. The tenant vacated the tenancy on 10 March before those investigations could reasonably be completed.
The fact that the landlord ordered specialist reports is not recognition or admission of a fundamental problem. They tested to allay the tenant’s concerns.
In summary, the tenants claims that the landlord has breached their maintenance and HHS obligations are not proved and the claims are dismissed. It follows that the tenant’s claims for compensation and exemplary damages including a rent rebate, medical costs, moving costs and temporary/emergency housing costs, incurred because of the alleged breaches must be dismissed. Is the landlord responsible for the tenant’s financial losses?
The tenant claims that she had a conversation with an operator at CSC sometime between 20 January and 17 February 2026 about alternative accommodation. She says that the operator told her that there was a big job needing to be done at the premises (perhaps a reference to a future retrofit) and they were “probably looking at alternative temporary accommodation.”
In reliance on this conversation, the tenant says that she started selling some of her belongings because she could not afford to take them with her. This included a lounge suite, bed, and TV. She sold these cheaply but noted that she was still paying off an MSD grant she received to purchase these items new. She seeks recovery of the loss incurred.
The tenant acknowledged in the hearing that the HSM confirmed in their meeting with her on 18 February that the landlord was not looking at providing temporary accommodation and they did not know where the tenant got that information. There is no record in Kotahi of the tenant being told that she would be transferred to alternative accommodation. I also refer to the Kotahi diary note dated 19 February (see paragraphs 32 and 37 b) above) in which the HSM explained that any such transfer must be approved by the HSM and would be subject to evidence that the premises were uninhabitable.
I asked the tenant why she would rely on an indication from a call centre operator, rather than a formal letter confirming an agreement to provide temporary accommodation and/or a transfer. She could not provide a reasonable explanation.
The tenant also alleged that she had to leave behind belongings because she feared they were contaminated for which she seeks the replacement costs. The tenant could not explain why she sold some items and not others if she believed there was contamination However, she did not wait for the testing reports which confirmed that there was no contamination.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord did not agree to relocate, rehouse, or provide alternative/temporary accommodation for the tenant. Even if the tenant could prove that the CSC operator indicated that the landlord was looking at other accommodation for her, it was not reasonable for her to act on that indication before obtaining formal written confirmation. She made the decision to move without confirmation that the landlord would assist in providing alternative accommodation. Therefore, the tenant has not proved that the landlord is responsible for the financial losses she has incurred due to moving out of the premises and selling or disposing of her belongings. The claims are dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
The tenant has not succeeded with her claims and is not entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant sought suppression of her name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 10
The Tribunal may, on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. 11
In this case, the tenant is not automatically entitled to suppression because she has not succeeded. However, the decision refers to medical conditions regarding her children and those details and the identity of her children should not be disclosed as they are not in the public interest. I also accept that the tenant held genuine concerns about the premises causing her to bring the application. The tenant demonstrated a high level of anxiety about her tenancy and her situation has caused significant stress. She is also dealing with challenging medical issues being faced by her young children. I consider that publication of her details might exacerbate her anxiety and stress. For those reasons, the name and identifying details of the tenant are suppressed.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Mould & damp State of repair Smoke alarms Healthy homes Exemplary damages Leaks

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s1, s2024, s32, s3604, s40(1), s45, s45(1), s45(1A), s46, s59, s95A(1), s95A(4)

Key findings

Dispute theme: state of repair
Dispute theme: smoke alarms
Dispute theme: healthy homes

Property management

Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities (respondent)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5456271 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5456271?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5456271?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5456271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13893576-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

For landlords & property managers

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.

Order a Tenantcheck →

Tenancy Tribunal case 5456271 — Mould & damp

Decided 14 Jul 2026 · Published 14 Jul 2026 · Application 5456271

Mould & damp
State of repair
Smoke alarms
Healthy homes
Exemplary damages
Leaks

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Mr Van Gent representing the landlord.

The tenant brings the following claims against the landlord for which she seeks compensation and exemplary damages: a. Failure to maintain the property due to: i. deteriorating and flaking paint inside the premises that might also be contaminated with lead; ii. asbestos at the premises; b. Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards due to: i. gaps in window frames, cracks, and splits in window frames; ii. spongey/settlement of floor; iii. lack of heating making the house cold; c. The tenant seeks financial losses due to the need to vacate the tenancy.

The tenant also sought work orders to address the alleged breaches. However, because the tenancy has already ended, work orders cannot be ordered.

Any party bringing a claim to the Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim. The Tenancy Tribunal applies a civil standard of proof, determining matters on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each applicant must prove that it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be supported by other acceptable evidence. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents such as emails, texts, and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, 1 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. Has the landlord failed to maintain the premises and failed to comply with healthy homes standards? The relevant law

A landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. 2

Landlords are liable for defects they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire that knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 3 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage.... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: “....the obligation of the landlord under s45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is......depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be...” 4 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 3 Stewart Benson, Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18 4 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Limited DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010

Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation. 5

Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs. 6

Notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair, or the need for repair is apparent from observation. 7

A landlord must also comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) which cover insulation, heating, ventilation, draught stopping, drainage and moisture ingress. 8 The HHS compliance date for these premises was 1 July 2024 in relation to all standards except insulation which has an earlier compliance date. In other words, the premises were required to comply with HHS right from the start of the tenancy.

Breaching any of these maintenance and HHS obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. 9 Background facts 2024-2025

The tenancy commenced on 4 October 2024. Prior to the tenancy commencing the premises were redecorated in August 2024 which included: painting wardrobes, interior shelving, and cabinets, and redecorating the whole interior and installing new curtains and carpets.

The tenant is a solo mother with five young children, giving birth to her youngest not long after the tenancy started.

The landlord has disclosed various documents to the tenant including their Kotahi diary notes and work order records completed at the property during the tenancy. Copies have been provided in evidence. The Kotahi diary notes record various communications between the landlord and the tenant including with the customer support centre (CSC) operators, internal messages to housing support managers (HSM), work orders and inspection notices. A timeline of events can be established by reference to the Kotahi notes and work order records provided in evidence.

On 23 December 2024, the tenant rang the landlord’s call centre to report paint flaking off surfaces inside the house and falling into food when using the 5 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as LJ Hooker [2015] TT 2845 6 Section 40(1)(d) RTA 7 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey, DC Auckland CIV 2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 8 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA 9 Section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA kitchen. The notes record that the HSM would follow up about this in the New Year.

On 26 March 2025, the tenant called the HSM to follow up. There are no notes recording the subject of their discussion.

On 1 May 2025, various maintenance work orders were generated which related to minor repairs to window catches, sashes and stays, a water pipe repair and fibre cement board replacement to the exterior house. The work orders did not relate to flaking paint.

On 4 July 2025, the tenant applied for a transfer to Pukekohe to move closer to specialist medical support for her children who have specific health conditions including autism and speech delays.

On 19 August 2025, the tenant called CSC again to report flaking paint at the property and asked the landlord to follow up.

There were other communications with the tenant through August and September 2025 including a scheduled appointment at the premises; work on a broken window; and an annual inspection on 2 October 2025. The Kotahi inspection notes record as follows: Annual inspection completed, customer was home and happy to have photos taken. Customer requested the visit for after 2pm. Maintenance: Nil Concerns: Flaking paint, hallway light bulb, handle, cupboard doors. Customer is able to self-repair the work as it's very minor. Previous damage charge for the window to be reverted due to the chip existing before she moved in. No other issues raised, all smoke alarms working, no signs of leaks or mould. Customer is able to contact Kainga Ora in future if required.

The notes indicate that that there were no concerns at the annual inspection and while there was a reference to flaking paint and other issues they were recorded as minor with the tenant confirming that she would contact the landlord in future if required.

Exterior painting was done of windows and doors in December 2025. Prior to the work and as a precautionary health and safety measure a lead paint test was also conducted. The results of the test were not in evidence. Mr Van Gent submits that subsequent painting occurred and if lead had been present, the tenant would have been informed and a healthy and safety plan would have been in place. 2026

The tenant next followed up about flaking paint on 20 January 2026 and complained that it was becoming a health and safety issue. The Kotahi notes record: Email sent to HSM ......... [Tenant] called about the paint and wood flaking from the kitchen walls and cupboard, she said it's bad that it's falling into their food and kitchen benches and floor, she said the wood is deteriorating creating a bad smell and she has also noticed yellow mites around the house. [Tenant] is concerned for her baby that is starting to crawl and starting to put stuff in their mouth. Can you please follow up with [Tenant] at your earliest convenience to discuss this, I didn't raise a job as current job that was raised today noted property was under future retrofit, if you would like me to go ahead and raise a job, please let me know.

An appointment was made for the housing support manger (HSM) to visit the tenant on 29 January to review the flaking paint. The HSM recorded that the only issue of concern identified was a bit of paint flaking in the kitchen and bedroom. A job was raised accordingly. The HSM did not see anything else wrong with the house stating that it was in great condition with no immediate safety concerns for the tenant’s children.

A builder and painter attended the premises on 2 February. They found that both the wall and the kitchen cabinet paint was peeling and flaking. The notes record that previous paint was likely not properly plastered or prepared which caused the paint to fail. They also recorded that some door panels in the house were detached and required repair. They recommended that a responsive scope (RSC) be conducted by a supervisor, which is a more detailed assessment. This was later cancelled because evidence provided by the trades did not justify a responsive scope.

On 29 January, the tenant requested an HHS assessment report to support her transfer application as advised by MSD. The tenant had advised MSD that she was concerned that the flaking paint was affecting her and her childrens’ health. They have pre-existing asthma and eczema conditions that she believed were getting worse because of the premises. MSD recommended that she request the HHS report as evidence of her complaints and to further support her transfer application.

The tenant increased her calls to the landlord repeating her concerns about flaking paint. The February Kotahi notes record the tenant’s concerns that the flaking paint was being eaten by the tenant’s young child and making them sick.

On 15 February, the tenant served a 14-day notice on the landlord wanting a full inspection and written remediation plan to address flaking paint; structural deterioration; flooring concerns; draught gaps; professional pest treatment, a copy of the HHS compliance statement; and written confirmation of repair timelines.

The landlord says that work was undertaken to seek expert advice and respond to the complaints.

On 17 February, the tenant called CSC again requesting temporary accommodation because the premises were not suitable. CSC sent a message to the HSM to follow up.

In the meantime, on 18 February, a meeting took place at the landlord’s office and on 19 February another visit by the HSMs took place at the premises. It is fair to say that the tenant’s’ complaints had escalated with her raising multiple maintenance issues. The record after the visit on 19 February says: Concerns around paint flaking in the bedrooms and kitchen cupboards Parts of the doors are coming off in bathroom and bedroom Exterior cladding is coming off the exterior walls outside the kitchen after the storm will raise a w/o [Tenant] concerns were around the MSD transfer to Auckland because of the property condition but the property is in great condition it's warm safe and dry but she does have a current housing application for a transfer .............. I confirmed that she is not eligible for a BIT transfer with us as she does not meet the criteria SHSM - Rachel will put a key detail note on the file to state: Any enquires around the transfer will need to be sent to myself as she got some miscommunication for the CSC that caused her some anxiety and stress [Tenant] was grateful for the visit..... (my emphasis)

The tenant continued to make regular calls to the landlord and seemed to have an increasing anxiety about the premises. On 20 February, the HSM returned a call from the tenant and explained that she would need to give up her tenancy to move to Auckland or wait for an MSD transfer which could take some time. The tenant repeated her concern that flaking paint was making her sick. The HSM note says; “...as we explained yesterday, she has minor paint flaking that we have got to be fixed, and this wouldn’t be causing her to be sick...”

On 27 February 2026, the tenant first reported her belief that she and her children may be suffering from lead poisoning. Kotahi notes record as follows: Email sent to HSM 1 OF 2:[Tenant] reported that both she and her five children have been increasingly unwell. The children have ongoing sickness, and their doctor has raised concerns that their symptoms may be related to possible lead poisoning from the deteriorating paint in the home. The doctor has advised [Tenant] to have the property tested for lead due to the children's worsening condition. [Tenant] explained that the home environment is becoming hazardous, especially given their existing health issues. She and several of the children have asthma and eczema, and the peeling paint, paint dust, and poor air quality inside the property are triggering flare ups more frequently. The children's health issues are now affecting their school attendance, and [Tenant] stated that the kids are "getting sicker and sicker”. and in a second email EMAIL TO HSM 2 OF 2: Alongside the health concerns, [Tenant] noted significant deterioration in the kitchen and extensive paint damage throughout the house. I contacted the trades to follow up on the repair requests; however, the trades advised that the issues appear to be widespread and may require work across the entire property, not just isolated repairs. During the call, [Tenant] became very upset, explaining that the situation is heavily affecting her mental health. She stated that she has nowhere else to go with her children and urgently needs the matter addressed so her family can live safely and return to a stable routine. Given the severity of the health concerns and the scale of work required, could you please look into the possibility of arranging temporary accommodation for [Tenant] and her children while the necessary repairs are carried out? She is particularly worried that sanding the walls will release more paint dust into the home, which could further harm the children. [Tenant] is a solo mother on a limited income, and the ongoing medical appointments for all five children are beginning to impact her financially. She is extremely distressed and is seeking urgent support to ensure her family can live safely while their home is made healthy and habitable again.

The tenant was particularly concerned about her young autistic child who she explained has PICA behaviour. This is a disorder characterised by the compulsive, persistent consumption of non-food substances and often stems from underlying conditions including autism. As a result, her child was ingesting the paint flakes and would also pick at the paint already peeling and ingest it.

On 2 March the tenant requested further information from the landlord including contractor reports for all maintenance at the premises during the tenancy, all call logs with CSC, and an asbestos report.

On 6 March, the tenant and the HSM had further discussions about her various concerns that may be summarised as follows: a. Work orders had been cancelled. HSM explained that this was because the evidence provided by trades did not justify the RSC work being requested; b. The tenant alleged that she had a conversation with CSC in late January/early February where they reportedly told her that the senior housing support manager (SHSM) was urgently looking into temporary accommodation for her in Manukau due to her property being uninhabitable. The HSM advised that there was no record of that advice, and any such request would have come to the HSM for approval. This would only be considered if trades provided a report explaining why the property was uninhabitable and there was no such report for these premises. The HSM had also previously advised the tenant on 19 February that she was not eligible for a transfer (see note at para 32 above); c. The HSM explained that the premises were no longer flagged for retrofit and any maintenance jobs would not be deferred and would be processed according to the usual criteria; d. The tenant advised that a supervisor came to scope the premises for work regarding storm damage to exterior fibre cement sheets and said that they might contain asbestos. She wanted them to be tested. HSM advised that she would arrange for a supervisor to complete a thorough maintenance assessment of the exterior and interior of the premises with particular focus on the areas of concern the tenant had raised.

The landlord says that it sought reports regarding lead paint, asbestos and a foundation report.

On 6 March, the tenant and two of her children received results of their blood tests for lead levels. The blood tests were normal stating “This result would not normally signify excessive exposure to lead.”

The tenant supplied letters from her medical centre confirming existing health conditions suffered by family members of eczema, asthma and autism spectrum affecting one child. The letters emphasized the importance for the family to be housed in a safe, warm, dry, healthy home. Exposure to damp, mould, cold temperatures, or poor ventilation would likely exacerbate their eczema and asthma symptoms and negatively impact their health. The letters were written in support of the family being prioritised for appropriate housing that met those requirements. The last letter dated 23 February 2026 advised that the health conditions of the whanau had not improved, and they continue to struggle with their ongoing eczema and asthma.

The tenant supplied photos taken of the premises at the end of the tenancy showing deteriorating paintwork in parts and gaps around internal door frames requiring repair. There was also evidence of some windows frames with cracks in the paint and some gaps in the framing. These photos were taken in or about February and March when the landlord was investigating the issues. I note that complaints about window draughts and floor concerns were only raised in the 14-day notice dated 15 February 2026.

On 9 March, the tenant attempted to give a 2 day notice to terminate the tenancy under section 59 RTA on the grounds that the premises were uninhabitable due to lead and asbestos contamination. She then vacated the premises on 10 March. She says that she acted on her intuition because she felt she was not getting answers, and her complaints were not being taken seriously.

The landlord did not accept the notice but agreed that the tenant could end the tenancy on 21 days’ notice which would make the last day of the tenancy 31 March 2026.

The reports commissioned by the landlord were completed after the tenancy ended with the following results: a. There was no evidence of lead-based paint at the premises; b. No asbestos was detected except for chrysotile in a subfloor board. However, there was no evidence that it had been disturbed with the report noting that provided asbestos is incorporated into a stable matrix and no airborne dust is produced, it presents minimal health risk. Mr Van Gent submitted that the chrysotile was likely under the house in the subflooring or could be underneath the vinyl in the kitchen. He emphasized that testing was conducted by independent specialists and had there been any concern about asbestos they would have recommended removal because it is treated very seriously; c. The foundation report observed minor settlement in the kitchen and bedroom 2 area with approximately a 10-12mm fall over a 3m span towards the exterior wall; bearers and joists were in good condition with no rot or termite damage; floorboards were stable with no structural failure observed. Foundations were considered to be performing adequately under NZS3604 typical tolerances.

In relation to compliance with HHS, the landlord confirmed that the property underwent an independent Healthy Homes inspection on 21 January 2021, and an HHS compliance statement was provided to the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord also provided a copy of the current HHS compliance statement dated 16 February 2026 which shows that the premises fully comply. Discussion and findings

The tenant argues that she repeatedly reported concerns about the premises in relation to flaking paint, deteriorating timber, damaged surfaces, window issues, floor concerns and health concerns with the property concerning lead and asbestos contamination. She says despite repeated reporting, many of the issues remained unresolved for extended periods. She maintains that the evidence shows that the landlord considered the concerns significant enough to create work orders and arrange specialist investigations. However, the outcome of these investigations and the landlord’s records were not provided to her until after the tenancy ended.

The tenant claims that she was reluctant to use the kitchen because of falling paint flakes contaminating the food preparation areas and chose to purchase take away and home delivery food instead. She says this resulted in a substantial loss of amenity.

The tenant also says that while the property might comply with HHS she still felt that there were significant issues and the property was cold. She thinks the environment made them sick.

Mr Van Gent explained that there is a process for responding to maintenance issues and different response times depending on the seriousness of the issue. There are specific criteria for automatically approved maintenance work. Work outside these criteria must be escalated and approved by maintenance supervisors or the asset manager. In this case and until the tenant escalated her complaints in January 2026, the concerns she raised were minor and there was no indication from her at the annual inspection in October 2025 that she had serious concerns about the premises.

From 20 January 2026, the tenant pursued her complaints about paintwork, and later lead, asbestos contamination, and other issues with vigour. Mr Van Gent acknowledged that the paintwork throughout the house did appear to have failed and would need to be addressed but there was no sign of heavy flaking in the end of tenancy photos. He also says that between 20 January and 11 March, they were unable to complete any painting work at the premises because the tenant believed the property contained lead-based paint and requested testing before any work could proceed. As shown in the Kotahi notes, the tenant frequently contacted the landlord to engage multiple levels of support from HSM and senior/area managers, which contributed to ongoing changes of information and disrupted the establishment of a clear and consistent plan.

Mr Van Gent explained the reference in the 20 January 2026 Kotahi note that the property was flagged for future retrofit. This relates to the previous government program to retrofit old properties working on the oldest to the newest. However, the program has been reduced with many properties removed from the program for budget reasons. When a property is flagged for retrofit, the landlord continues to maintain, but a major piece of work might be deferred until the retrofit takes place unless it requires more immediate attention. An assessment is made as to whether the work can wait. These premises are no longer flagged for future retrofit, and Mr Van Gent says that the maintenance concerns raised by the tenant were dealt with following their usual processes and criteria.

The paint work was initially assessed by trades on 2 February as needing a responsive scope. It was later determined that a responsive scope was not justified based on the evidence.

Mr Van Gent also provided detailed evidence about the how the landlord assesses properties for lead paint. This property was constructed in 1974. Mr Van Gent said that the landlord treats all homes built before 1997 as potentially containing lead-based paint. High lead paints were banned by 1965, and white lead pigments were fully eliminated by 1979. Lead was primarily used in exterior applications and was less common indoors. The landlord works on the assumptions that: homes built before 1945 have a high likelihood of lead paint; homes built before 1965 likely contain lead paint; homes built before 1980 may contain lead paint; and homes recoated after 1980 are unlikely to contain lead paint, as testing and treatment would have occurred. Importantly, lead paint is considered safe when sealed and undisturbed. He noted that internal painting done before the tenant moved in would be safe and there was almost no risk of lead-based paint being present inside these premises.

The landlord submits that it responded reasonably and promptly in accordance with its obligations under the RTA to the tenant’s concerns and complaints.

After carefully considering all the available evidence, including the oral evidence given at the hearing, I find that the tenant has not proved that the landlord is in breach of their obligations to maintain the premises and comply with HHS. The evidence shows quite the opposite.

There is insufficient evidence (even from the photos) that paint would simply flake off into food when it was being prepared. In any event, I consider that the tenant could take steps to prepare the food away from the overhead cabinets if paint were likely to flake off. More importantly, there is no evidence of lead contamination.

The tenant became increasingly anxious from January 2026 onwards about the health of her whanau and whether the property might be contributing to poor health. I can understand why she might be concerned about harm from paint flakes which one of her children was ingesting. However, this concern is not borne out by the evidence. It also appears to me from the Kotahi notes that managers dealing with her tenancy communicated the relevant information in response to her concerns clearly, but they were unable to allay her ongoing anxiety about issues, despite their efforts to do so.

Similarly, I observed at the hearing that the tenant has a heightened anxiety about these issues which is not easily placated and seems out of proportion to any likely risk. Mr Van Gent spent considerable time at the hearing patiently answering the tenant’s questions about the premises and the specialist reports obtained; and information about the condition of the premises and her specific concerns. I found his evidence to be measured, clear, informative, and credible. The tenant also thanked him for answering her questions and providing further clarification. However, she commented that she feels the landlord is a big agency who will protect themselves; that she has fought for disclosure of documents; and she believes that the specialist testing was not conducted in the right places.

I have sympathy for the tenant. As a solo mother of five children, with challenging medical issues, she is concerned to ensure their safety and well- being. However, I find she has not discharged the onus of bringing sufficient evidence to the Tribunal to prove her claims on the balance of probabilities.

There is no evidence of lead or asbestos contamination, Even the tenant’s own blood testing results are normal and do not prove excessive lead exposure. While the medical evidence confirms the pre-existing and ongoing medical conditions affecting the tenant and her whanau had not improved, there is no independent evidence their medical condition got worse. There is certainly no evidence to link their self-reported worsening health to lead or asbestos contamination.

Stating that the property is cold is insufficient to establish a lack of maintenance or a defect at the premises and does not displace the fact that the property complies with all the HHS standards regarding insulation, heating, moisture ingress and drainage, draught stopping and ventilation.

There is no evidence that the floors at the property are defective or inadequate.

I am satisfied that the landlord had taken reasonable steps to investigate the tenant’s claims as they were raised with initial claims about flaking paint reported on 20 January; further claims made in the 14-day notice on 15 February; lead contamination raised on 27 February and asbestos raised on 2 March. The tenant vacated the tenancy on 10 March before those investigations could reasonably be completed.

The fact that the landlord ordered specialist reports is not recognition or admission of a fundamental problem. They tested to allay the tenant’s concerns.

In summary, the tenants claims that the landlord has breached their maintenance and HHS obligations are not proved and the claims are dismissed. It follows that the tenant’s claims for compensation and exemplary damages including a rent rebate, medical costs, moving costs and temporary/emergency housing costs, incurred because of the alleged breaches must be dismissed. Is the landlord responsible for the tenant’s financial losses?

The tenant claims that she had a conversation with an operator at CSC sometime between 20 January and 17 February 2026 about alternative accommodation. She says that the operator told her that there was a big job needing to be done at the premises (perhaps a reference to a future retrofit) and they were “probably looking at alternative temporary accommodation.”

In reliance on this conversation, the tenant says that she started selling some of her belongings because she could not afford to take them with her. This included a lounge suite, bed, and TV. She sold these cheaply but noted that she was still paying off an MSD grant she received to purchase these items new. She seeks recovery of the loss incurred.

The tenant acknowledged in the hearing that the HSM confirmed in their meeting with her on 18 February that the landlord was not looking at providing temporary accommodation and they did not know where the tenant got that information. There is no record in Kotahi of the tenant being told that she would be transferred to alternative accommodation. I also refer to the Kotahi diary note dated 19 February (see paragraphs 32 and 37 b) above) in which the HSM explained that any such transfer must be approved by the HSM and would be subject to evidence that the premises were uninhabitable.

I asked the tenant why she would rely on an indication from a call centre operator, rather than a formal letter confirming an agreement to provide temporary accommodation and/or a transfer. She could not provide a reasonable explanation.

The tenant also alleged that she had to leave behind belongings because she feared they were contaminated for which she seeks the replacement costs. The tenant could not explain why she sold some items and not others if she believed there was contamination However, she did not wait for the testing reports which confirmed that there was no contamination.

I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord did not agree to relocate, rehouse, or provide alternative/temporary accommodation for the tenant. Even if the tenant could prove that the CSC operator indicated that the landlord was looking at other accommodation for her, it was not reasonable for her to act on that indication before obtaining formal written confirmation. She made the decision to move without confirmation that the landlord would assist in providing alternative accommodation. Therefore, the tenant has not proved that the landlord is responsible for the financial losses she has incurred due to moving out of the premises and selling or disposing of her belongings. The claims are dismissed. Filing fee and suppression

The tenant has not succeeded with her claims and is not entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

The tenant sought suppression of her name and identifying details.

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 10

The Tribunal may, on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. 11

In this case, the tenant is not automatically entitled to suppression because she has not succeeded. However, the decision refers to medical conditions regarding her children and those details and the identity of her children should not be disclosed as they are not in the public interest. I also accept that the tenant held genuine concerns about the premises causing her to bring the application. The tenant demonstrated a high level of anxiety about her tenancy and her situation has caused significant stress. She is also dealing with challenging medical issues being faced by her young children. I consider that publication of her details might exacerbate her anxiety and stress. For those reasons, the name and identifying details of the tenant are suppressed.