What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5466289 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 5466289?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5466289?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5466289?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13688574-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5466289 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 5466289?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5466289?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5466289?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13688574-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5466289 — Mould & damp

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing in person with a support person.
[Authorised person’s name] appeared for the landlord as its authorised person, with a support person also. Background
The tenancy began on 11 July 2025 and ended on about 27 April 2026.
The premises is a centrally located first floor apartment that looks out onto the historic Symonds Street cemetery and park. The apartment is not large. It has three bedrooms and one bathroom.
A significant (and untypical) feature of this case is that the tenancy was in fact one of three “room-by-room” co-existing tenancies over the same premises.
The tenancy went happily for the tenant until she and the other tenants increasingly disagreed on what time of day activities such as clothes washing and drying, showering, cooking, boiling water, and blow-drying hair should be allowed. The apartment is compact and has only one bathroom.
The tenant wanted to shower and blow-dry her hair late at night but the other tenants – who also had their own tenancies with UQS – did not want to be disturbed by the noise accompanying those activities late at night. The tenant considers that as a tenant she has the right to use the facilities without absolute time limits on activities such as showering.
Another disagreement concerned one of the other tenants accusing the tenant of monopolising the living room when, among other things, the tenant was using the living room for several hours a day to work remotely.
The tenants were unable to agree on these day-to-day concerns, which led to disharmony and disputes. A particularly unpleasant event occurred on 27 March 2026 at about 11.40pm. The tenant was blow-drying her hair in her bedroom when a disgruntled co-tenant barged into the tenant’s bedroom to remonstrate with her. The tenant recorded the incident on her phone and says the intrusion lasted for 23 seconds. 1
A similar run-in happened about a month later. On this occasion the tenant was blow- drying her hair late at night when one the other tenants aggressively banged on the door.
The tenant claims that: a. The landlord breached the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) in respect to ventilation. b. The landlord harassed the tenant. c.The landlord failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure the other tenants did not interfere with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy. 1 I note, the landlord’s authorised person’s support person pointed out that the other tenants dispute some of the tenant’s version of events. The other tenants were present at court and available to give evidence. However, I elected not to hear evidence from the other tenants.
I address the claims in turn.

Did the landlord breach its HHS duties?

The tenant claimed the landlord failed to comply with the HHS for ventilation. The tenant’s case is based on the other tenants not using the premises extractor fans which contributed to the build up of moisture and mould in the premises.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), requires that landlords comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019.
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 tenant’s claim does not engage the regulations because it is based on how the tenants failed to use the extractor fans rather than the adequacy of the extractor fans by reference to the ventilation standard.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 2 Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. 3
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". 4
Black’s Law Dictionary 5 defines “harassment” as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
The New Oxford Dictionary of English“ 6 defines “harass” as: subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 38(2). 3 RTA s 38(3) and Schedule 1A. 4 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. 5 Bryan A Gardener (ed) Black’s Law Dictionary (8 th ed, West Group, 2004). 6 Patrick Hanks (ed) (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998).
During the hearing, it became evident that the tenant’s account does not contain a provide a credible narrative that the landlord interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy. Rather, the tenant’s claim is best considered under s 45(1)(e) of the RTA which is discussed next. Did the landlord ensure its other tenants did not interfere with the tenant’s peace?
Section 45(1)(e) of the RTA requires landlords to: (e) take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
The tenants emailed the landlord many times about their differences. The tenant considered she should not be so restricted in her usual activities late at night as the other tenants wanted. The landlord’s authorised person says she emailed the tenants, spoke to them by phone and in person, and tried to mediate between the three of them.
The landlord’s authorised person says her involvement included telling tenant who barged into the tenant’s room that the behaviour was not acceptable, but the landlord took no formal action.
Landlords can terminate tenancies for a tenant’s repeated antisocial behaviour pursuant to s 55A of the RTA. In that section, antisocial behaviour is defined as follows: In this section, anti-social behaviour means— (a) harassment; or (b) any other act or omission (whether intentional or not), if the act or omission reasonably causes alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor.
If the other tenant did barge into the tenant’s room, that conduct would meet the definition of antisocial behaviour. That does not necessarily mean the landlord had to take formal action in the circumstances of this case. The landlord’s informal disapproval likely helped to bring the temperature down. That approach was possibly effective given it is not alleged that either of the other tenants are alleged to have gone into the room uninvited again.
There was the second blow-drying incident during which the other tenants were involved in one of them aggressively banging on the tenant’s door. That conduct might arguably meet the definition of antisocial behaviour. However, the other tenants’ conduct should be considered in context of their repeated requests for the tenant not to blow-wave her hair (and the like) late at night. While the context does not excuse the behaviour, it does help explain it. The Tribunal must also consider that context in assessing the landlord’s steps to protect the tenant’s reasonable peace.
In that regard, the other tenants also had an entitlement to reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy, including not being subjected to unwelcome noise late at night. It follows, the landlord had duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent the tenant from interfering with the other tenants’ reasonable peace also. Assessment
The tenants in this case could not agree on how best to share the premises. There were at least two unpleasant incidents involving the tenant using her blow-dryer late at night.
The landlord was in a difficult position. Each of the tenants had a right to reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy in their use of the same premises. Each of the tenants had genuine human reasons for acting as they did.
The landlord’s approach of trying to mediate between the tenants was reasonable. Landlords cannot dictate the minutiae of tenants’ living circumstances. There comes a point where tenants must work out their day-to-day activities cooperatively without external guidance. That is what the landlord pragmatically attempted to facilitate.
In the circumstances of this case, I am not persuaded that the landlord failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure the other tenants did not interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy.
This claim is dismissed. Non-publication
The parties seek non-publication.
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. 7 7 RTA s 95A(1).
The landlord has succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified by the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or the name or any party not be published.
The facts of the case raise private matters of home life that do not need names attached. This tenancy was the tenant’s first experience of a private tenancy away from home. Prior to that she had been living in Student Halls. The tenancy failing because of incompatibilities between tenants is something of a rite of passage. Her future ability to find suitable accommodation should not be disadvantage by publication.
Non-publication is ordered.

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing in person with a support person.
[Authorised person’s name] appeared for the landlord as its authorised person, with a support person also. Background
The tenancy began on 11 July 2025 and ended on about 27 April 2026.
The premises is a centrally located first floor apartment that looks out onto the historic Symonds Street cemetery and park. The apartment is not large. It has three bedrooms and one bathroom.
A significant (and untypical) feature of this case is that the tenancy was in fact one of three “room-by-room” co-existing tenancies over the same premises.
The tenancy went happily for the tenant until she and the other tenants increasingly disagreed on what time of day activities such as clothes washing and drying, showering, cooking, boiling water, and blow-drying hair should be allowed. The apartment is compact and has only one bathroom.
The tenant wanted to shower and blow-dry her hair late at night but the other tenants – who also had their own tenancies with UQS – did not want to be disturbed by the noise accompanying those activities late at night. The tenant considers that as a tenant she has the right to use the facilities without absolute time limits on activities such as showering.
Another disagreement concerned one of the other tenants accusing the tenant of monopolising the living room when, among other things, the tenant was using the living room for several hours a day to work remotely.
The tenants were unable to agree on these day-to-day concerns, which led to disharmony and disputes. A particularly unpleasant event occurred on 27 March 2026 at about 11.40pm. The tenant was blow-drying her hair in her bedroom when a disgruntled co-tenant barged into the tenant’s bedroom to remonstrate with her. The tenant recorded the incident on her phone and says the intrusion lasted for 23 seconds. 1
A similar run-in happened about a month later. On this occasion the tenant was blow- drying her hair late at night when one the other tenants aggressively banged on the door.
The tenant claims that: a. The landlord breached the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) in respect to ventilation. b. The landlord harassed the tenant. c.The landlord failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure the other tenants did not interfere with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy. 1 I note, the landlord’s authorised person’s support person pointed out that the other tenants dispute some of the tenant’s version of events. The other tenants were present at court and available to give evidence. However, I elected not to hear evidence from the other tenants.
I address the claims in turn.

Did the landlord breach its HHS duties?

The tenant claimed the landlord failed to comply with the HHS for ventilation. The tenant’s case is based on the other tenants not using the premises extractor fans which contributed to the build up of moisture and mould in the premises.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), requires that landlords comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019.
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 tenant’s claim does not engage the regulations because it is based on how the tenants failed to use the extractor fans rather than the adequacy of the extractor fans by reference to the ventilation standard.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 2 Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. 3
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". 4
Black’s Law Dictionary 5 defines “harassment” as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
The New Oxford Dictionary of English“ 6 defines “harass” as: subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 38(2). 3 RTA s 38(3) and Schedule 1A. 4 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. 5 Bryan A Gardener (ed) Black’s Law Dictionary (8 th ed, West Group, 2004). 6 Patrick Hanks (ed) (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998).
During the hearing, it became evident that the tenant’s account does not contain a provide a credible narrative that the landlord interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy. Rather, the tenant’s claim is best considered under s 45(1)(e) of the RTA which is discussed next. Did the landlord ensure its other tenants did not interfere with the tenant’s peace?
Section 45(1)(e) of the RTA requires landlords to: (e) take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
The tenants emailed the landlord many times about their differences. The tenant considered she should not be so restricted in her usual activities late at night as the other tenants wanted. The landlord’s authorised person says she emailed the tenants, spoke to them by phone and in person, and tried to mediate between the three of them.
The landlord’s authorised person says her involvement included telling tenant who barged into the tenant’s room that the behaviour was not acceptable, but the landlord took no formal action.
Landlords can terminate tenancies for a tenant’s repeated antisocial behaviour pursuant to s 55A of the RTA. In that section, antisocial behaviour is defined as follows: In this section, anti-social behaviour means— (a) harassment; or (b) any other act or omission (whether intentional or not), if the act or omission reasonably causes alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor.
If the other tenant did barge into the tenant’s room, that conduct would meet the definition of antisocial behaviour. That does not necessarily mean the landlord had to take formal action in the circumstances of this case. The landlord’s informal disapproval likely helped to bring the temperature down. That approach was possibly effective given it is not alleged that either of the other tenants are alleged to have gone into the room uninvited again.
There was the second blow-drying incident during which the other tenants were involved in one of them aggressively banging on the tenant’s door. That conduct might arguably meet the definition of antisocial behaviour. However, the other tenants’ conduct should be considered in context of their repeated requests for the tenant not to blow-wave her hair (and the like) late at night. While the context does not excuse the behaviour, it does help explain it. The Tribunal must also consider that context in assessing the landlord’s steps to protect the tenant’s reasonable peace.
In that regard, the other tenants also had an entitlement to reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy, including not being subjected to unwelcome noise late at night. It follows, the landlord had duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent the tenant from interfering with the other tenants’ reasonable peace also. Assessment
The tenants in this case could not agree on how best to share the premises. There were at least two unpleasant incidents involving the tenant using her blow-dryer late at night.
The landlord was in a difficult position. Each of the tenants had a right to reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy in their use of the same premises. Each of the tenants had genuine human reasons for acting as they did.
The landlord’s approach of trying to mediate between the tenants was reasonable. Landlords cannot dictate the minutiae of tenants’ living circumstances. There comes a point where tenants must work out their day-to-day activities cooperatively without external guidance. That is what the landlord pragmatically attempted to facilitate.
In the circumstances of this case, I am not persuaded that the landlord failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure the other tenants did not interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy.
This claim is dismissed. Non-publication
The parties seek non-publication.
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. 7 7 RTA s 95A(1).
The landlord has succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified by the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or the name or any party not be published.
The facts of the case raise private matters of home life that do not need names attached. This tenancy was the tenant’s first experience of a private tenancy away from home. Prior to that she had been living in Student Halls. The tenancy failing because of incompatibilities between tenants is something of a rite of passage. Her future ability to find suitable accommodation should not be disadvantage by publication.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5466289 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5466289 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach its HHS duties?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach its HHS duties?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions