What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5476855 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5476855?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5476855?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5476855?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13778247-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5476855 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5476855?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5476855?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5476855?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13778247-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 214 Otahuna Road, Tai Tapu, Tai Tapu 7672 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5476855 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 19 June 2026. Ms MacGregor and Ms Matthews represented the landlord.

The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for what she alleges was a breach by the landlord failing to provide the premises in a clean condition and for a health and safety breach related to the use of a cleaning chemical. 5476855 2 Background

The tenancy started on 24 February 2025. It was a fixed term tenancy for one year. When she viewed the premises, the tenant raised cleaning issues with the landlord who agreed to do some additional cleaning. She continued to raise concerns about cleaning at the premises after the tenancy started.

Despite repeated further cleaning by the landlord, the tenant did not consider the premises to be sufficiently clean.

Before even 2 months had elapsed, the landlord agreed to release the tenant from the tenancy because they could not agree that the premises were sufficiently clean.

When the landlord’s cleaning contractor used a chemical to clean the upstairs bathroom, the tenant had a strong reaction and had to receive hospital treatment.

The tenant moved first to temporary accommodation and then to her house which, like these premises, is in a rural settling.

The tenants seek the following compensation: • The full cost of curtains she provided (the landlord paid $624.17 which is 50% as the parties agreed; the tenant now seeks the other 50%) • Reimbursement for electricity for the pool pump ($461.27) • Reimbursement for curtain rods ($150.00) • Moving costs $9,700.00.

The tenant also seeks exemplary damages.

The bond has been paid to the tenant. Issues

The issues for the Tribunal to determine are these: • Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? • Has the tenant proved a claim for exemplary damages? Law

Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). 5476855 3 Compensation and exemplary damages

The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.

Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.

In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.

Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.

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.

In Birch, the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 5476855 4 (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Discussion

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation?

Both parties provided documentary evidence. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it.

The first point to note is that the landlord is only required to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition. The same obligation rests with a tenant at the end of a tenancy.

The landlord agreed to additional cleaning at the start of the tenancy to address issues raised by the tenant. It also agreed to fund further cleaning since the tenant was not satisfied with the cleanliness of the premises even after additional cleaning was done.

The landlord produced invoices in evidence that show it went ‘above and beyond’ trying to satisfy the tenant’s demands for cleaning.

Both parties provided photos in evidence. The landlord entry inspection report and photos are comprehensive. The Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord met its statutory responsibility in so far as cleanliness is concerned.

The tenant’s fewer photos show some areas, mostly the internal parts of what appears to be aluminium joinery, that were dirty. The tenant was also concerned about spider webs and what seemed like insect nests in a couple of spots in the folds of curtains.

The premises were in a semi-rural location. Spider webs can literally spring up overnight. Outside lights can result in insects building up outside doors at night. Vermin are not unexpected. The landlord agreed to arrange pest eradication and vermin control and associated repairs.

What struck me was the willingness with which the landlord responded to the tenant’s complaints. As Ms MacGregor put it, it seemed that whatever the landlord did, it was not sufficient.

The contractor the tenant retained to do a mould inspection has reported that he considered that the house was well presented, and the issues identified by the tenant did not pose any risks.

The tenant had cause for concern because her elderly mother had had recent surgery, and she was worried about infection risk. She gave evidence that her mother has required repeated surgeries after her joint replacement became 5476855 5 infected. There is no evidence that links that unfortunate sequence of events to any breach by the landlord.

The landlord’s cleaner cleaned the walls in the upstairs bathroom with a product called Biosan II, a hospital grade disinfectant. The tenant’s contractor has confirmed that he briefed the landlord’s cleaner about how to use the product.

That the tenant suffered an adverse reaction to that product does not establish a health and safety breach for which the landlord is somehow liable. The cleaning contractor has confirmed that he used the product in accordance with its intended purpose and took reasonable precautions to ensure the safety and comfort of the occupants.

Considered objectively, this tenant had expectations that well exceeded the responsibilities imposed on a landlord under the RTA. Whatever additional cleaning the landlord agreed to, and funded, she required more.

That she was allowed to leave the fixed term tenancy was a benefit because the Tribunal almost certainly would not have found grounds to release her from the tenancy. The landlord cannot be faulted for its responses to her many complaints.

The obvious solution here was for the tenant to contract a cleaner to do all the work she considered necessary. She could then have asked the landlord to reimburse the cost. If that was refused, she could have applied to the Tribunal for an order requiring reimbursement. The Tribunal would have objectively reviewed the work done and it would have decided if it was necessary. Or, she could have applied for a work order. But she chose to leave the tenancy instead.

That she exercised her choice (and the landlord agreed to end the tenancy) does not impose any obligation on the landlord to meet her moving costs. She chose to leave. The premises were not uninhabitable or unlawful, nor was there any other reason why the tenancy legally had to end. I dismiss the tenant’s claim for reimbursement of her moving costs.

The landlord produced evidence of a payment to the tenant’s bank account of her claim for 50% of the cost of new curtains, the curtain rods, and the electricity costs for the pool pump. I find those claims (agreed to by the landlord) are satisfied by the payment made.

I decline to order reimbursement of the other 50% of the cost of curtains. The parties reached an agreement about the curtains, and I will not interfere with that. It was the tenant’s choice to leave the tenancy less than 2 months after it started. The agreement she and the landlord reached about payment for the curtains should stand. 5476855 6

Has the tenant proved a claim for exemplary damages?

Before the Tribunal can award exemplary damages, it must first find that the landlord (in this case) committed an unlawful act, and then that the act was committed intentionally.

The tenant’s claim does nor clear the first hurdle. The landlord’s evidence proves that the premises were provided in a reasonably clean condition. The standard is no higher than that. The landlord completed further cleaning at considerable cost (which the tenant submitted was irrelevant) with each additional demand from the tenant. It did all it reasonably could do.

As the landlord did not commit any unlawful act, intentionality does not arise. Result

The tenant’s application is dismissed. Name suppression

The landlord did not seek name suppression.

The tenant sought name suppression. I make no order for name suppression as the application is unsuccessful2.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 19 June 2026. Ms MacGregor and Ms Matthews represented the landlord.

Despite repeated further cleaning by the landlord, the tenant did not consider the premises to be sufficiently clean.

Before even 2 months had elapsed, the landlord agreed to release the tenant from the tenancy because they could not agree that the premises were sufficiently clean.

When the landlord’s cleaning contractor used a chemical to clean the upstairs bathroom, the tenant had a strong reaction and had to receive hospital treatment.

The tenant moved first to temporary accommodation and then to her house which, like these premises, is in a rural settling.

The tenant also seeks exemplary damages.

The bond has been paid to the tenant. Issues

The issues for the Tribunal to determine are these: • Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? • Has the tenant proved a claim for exemplary damages? Law

The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.

Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.

Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation?

Both parties provided documentary evidence. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it.

The first point to note is that the landlord is only required to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition. The same obligation rests with a tenant at the end of a tenancy.

The landlord produced invoices in evidence that show it went ‘above and beyond’ trying to satisfy the tenant’s demands for cleaning.

What struck me was the willingness with which the landlord responded to the tenant’s complaints. As Ms MacGregor put it, it seemed that whatever the landlord did, it was not sufficient.

The contractor the tenant retained to do a mould inspection has reported that he considered that the house was well presented, and the issues identified by the tenant did not pose any risks.

Has the tenant proved a claim for exemplary damages?

Before the Tribunal can award exemplary damages, it must first find that the landlord (in this case) committed an unlawful act, and then that the act was committed intentionally.

As the landlord did not commit any unlawful act, intentionality does not arise. Result

The tenant’s application is dismissed. Name suppression

The landlord did not seek name suppression.

The tenant sought name suppression. I make no order for name suppression as the application is unsuccessful2.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5476855 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 4, 214 Otahuna Road, Tai Tapu, Tai Tapu 7672

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5476855 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 4, 214 Otahuna Road, Tai Tapu, Tai Tapu 7672

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation?

Has the tenant proved a claim for exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation?

Has the tenant proved a claim for exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions