What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5500670 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5500670?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5500670?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5500670?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13793505-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5500670 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5500670?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5500670?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5500670?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13793505-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

20C Kowhai Street, Tokomaru, Palmerston North 4474 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5500670 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $500.00 to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The tenant’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that where a tenant applies for refund of the bond and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim.
Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is to be refunded in full to the tenant. The tenant’s claims for failure to maintain and comply with HHS
The tenant’s application included claims against the landlord for failing to maintain the property and failing to comply with the Healthy Home Standards (HHS). See sections 45(1)(b) and (bb) RTA. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence. The parties’ evidence
The tenant provided the following evidence: a. The tenancy started on 27 November 2020 and was terminated by the tenant giving 21-days written notice on 5 January 2026 so that the tenancy ended on 26 January 2026. b. The tenant hoped to return to the property and rent it once again. The landlord agreed to “hold the property open” until her return. On this basis, the tenant did not remove all her possessions from the property. c. No further rent was paid. d. The parties communicated about the tenant moving back into the property and a new tenancy starting. The tenant raised several issues with the landlord that she wished to see remedied before she moved back in. She advised the landlord that the shower had leaked into the bedroom cupboard and was mouldy, the heat pump “roared like an aeroplane”, the kitchen sink leaked, the light above the sink was not working, and there was no light in the oven nor extractor fan in the kitchen. e. After a period, the landlord refused to replace the carpets and noted that the tenancy had been terminated by the tenant. Communications broke down and no tenancy agreement was either prepared or signed. The landlord made it clear that he would not be renting the premises to the tenant and so she removed all her possessions. f. She provided photographs of the mould in a bedroom cupboard and mould under the kitchen sink. g. She confirmed that she had not complained to the landlord during the tenancy regarding these issues. They were matters which she wanted the landlord to fix before she moved back in.
The landlord provided the following evidence: a. The tenant had not complained of any of these issues during the tenancy. b. The tenancy had terminated upon the tenant giving her written notice. c. The landlord had tried to work with the tenant to arrange a new tenancy, but the tenant kept delaying the start date. d. No written tenancy agreement had been executed by the parties and no tenancy existed between them after 26 January 2026. e. He had good reasons not to replace the carpet. Once the tenant had rejected his refusal to replace the carpet, he texted her to say: “I guess that means you move out completely as soon as possible.” The tenant then moved her possessions out of the property. f. He had promptly repaired anything requested by the tenant during the tenancy. The tenant had not raised any other issues with him until after the end of the tenancy. g. He had explained to the tenant that he had ordered the part to fix the shower leak and had arranged contractors to address the other issues. He could not get the sink to leak and did not believe this was an issue. h. He believes that the property complies with the HHS as he has had an adjoining and identical property recently assessed and it complies. Discussion and decision
As discussed at the hearing, on the evidence before it, the tenant has not been able to persuade the Tribunal that it is more likely than not that the landlord failed to maintain the premises or comply with the HHS for the following reasons: a. The landlord’s obligation under section 45(1)(b) RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances. However, a tenant has a duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so. b. The tenant acknowledged that she had not complained of the issues to the landlord during the tenancy. The landlord does not have an obligation to repair if the tenant does not notify the landlord that repairs are required. c. At the time the tenant complained of the issues, the parties had not prepared or signed a tenancy agreement, and the tenant was not paying rent. The parties were still negotiating regarding the replacement of the carpet and the start date so that they had not yet agreed to terms. There was therefore no legally binding landlord-tenant relationship and so the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction. d. For completeness’ sake, the Tribunal concludes that the landlord’s termination of negotiations could not be a retaliatory termination because there was no tenancy. e. The landlord had until 1 July 2025 to comply with the HHS. His assurance that the premises complied is insufficient proof that the premises did comply. However, the burden of proof is on the tenant to prove that the premises did not comply. The tenant did not provide any evidence that the premises did not comply. Her photographic evidence was about the items which required repair. There was no photographic evidence or a report from a qualified person that the premises did not comply with the HHS. The Tribunal does not therefore have sufficient evidence to determine whether the landlord had complied with the HHS.
The tenant’s claims for breach of section 45(1)(b) and (bb) RTA are dismissed. Suppression and filing fee
At the hearing the landlord confirmed that he was not seeking name suppression.
As the tenant has been successful in her application for refund of the bond, it is appropriate that her name and identifying details be suppressed.
As the tenant has been unsuccessful in her application for compensation and exemplary damages, it is not appropriate that her application fee be refunded.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $500.00 to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The tenant’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that where a tenant applies for refund of the bond and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim.
Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is to be refunded in full to the tenant. The tenant’s claims for failure to maintain and comply with HHS
The tenant’s application included claims against the landlord for failing to maintain the property and failing to comply with the Healthy Home Standards (HHS). See sections 45(1)(b) and (bb) RTA. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence. The parties’ evidence
The tenant provided the following evidence: a. The tenancy started on 27 November 2020 and was terminated by the tenant giving 21-days written notice on 5 January 2026 so that the tenancy ended on 26 January 2026. b. The tenant hoped to return to the property and rent it once again. The landlord agreed to “hold the property open” until her return. On this basis, the tenant did not remove all her possessions from the property. c. No further rent was paid. d. The parties communicated about the tenant moving back into the property and a new tenancy starting. The tenant raised several issues with the landlord that she wished to see remedied before she moved back in. She advised the landlord that the shower had leaked into the bedroom cupboard and was mouldy, the heat pump “roared like an aeroplane”, the kitchen sink leaked, the light above the sink was not working, and there was no light in the oven nor extractor fan in the kitchen. e. After a period, the landlord refused to replace the carpets and noted that the tenancy had been terminated by the tenant. Communications broke down and no tenancy agreement was either prepared or signed. The landlord made it clear that he would not be renting the premises to the tenant and so she removed all her possessions. f. She provided photographs of the mould in a bedroom cupboard and mould under the kitchen sink. g. She confirmed that she had not complained to the landlord during the tenancy regarding these issues. They were matters which she wanted the landlord to fix before she moved back in.
The landlord provided the following evidence: a. The tenant had not complained of any of these issues during the tenancy. b. The tenancy had terminated upon the tenant giving her written notice. c. The landlord had tried to work with the tenant to arrange a new tenancy, but the tenant kept delaying the start date. d. No written tenancy agreement had been executed by the parties and no tenancy existed between them after 26 January 2026. e. He had good reasons not to replace the carpet. Once the tenant had rejected his refusal to replace the carpet, he texted her to say: “I guess that means you move out completely as soon as possible.” The tenant then moved her possessions out of the property. f. He had promptly repaired anything requested by the tenant during the tenancy. The tenant had not raised any other issues with him until after the end of the tenancy. g. He had explained to the tenant that he had ordered the part to fix the shower leak and had arranged contractors to address the other issues. He could not get the sink to leak and did not believe this was an issue. h. He believes that the property complies with the HHS as he has had an adjoining and identical property recently assessed and it complies. Discussion and decision
As discussed at the hearing, on the evidence before it, the tenant has not been able to persuade the Tribunal that it is more likely than not that the landlord failed to maintain the premises or comply with the HHS for the following reasons: a. The landlord’s obligation under section 45(1)(b) RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances. However, a tenant has a duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so. b. The tenant acknowledged that she had not complained of the issues to the landlord during the tenancy. The landlord does not have an obligation to repair if the tenant does not notify the landlord that repairs are required. c. At the time the tenant complained of the issues, the parties had not prepared or signed a tenancy agreement, and the tenant was not paying rent. The parties were still negotiating regarding the replacement of the carpet and the start date so that they had not yet agreed to terms. There was therefore no legally binding landlord-tenant relationship and so the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction. d. For completeness’ sake, the Tribunal concludes that the landlord’s termination of negotiations could not be a retaliatory termination because there was no tenancy. e. The landlord had until 1 July 2025 to comply with the HHS. His assurance that the premises complied is insufficient proof that the premises did comply. However, the burden of proof is on the tenant to prove that the premises did not comply. The tenant did not provide any evidence that the premises did not comply. Her photographic evidence was about the items which required repair. There was no photographic evidence or a report from a qualified person that the premises did not comply with the HHS. The Tribunal does not therefore have sufficient evidence to determine whether the landlord had complied with the HHS.
The tenant’s claims for breach of section 45(1)(b) and (bb) RTA are dismissed. Suppression and filing fee
At the hearing the landlord confirmed that he was not seeking name suppression.
As the tenant has been successful in her application for refund of the bond, it is appropriate that her name and identifying details be suppressed.
As the tenant has been unsuccessful in her application for compensation and exemplary damages, it is not appropriate that her application fee be refunded.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5500670 — Mould & damp at 20C Kowhai Street, Tokomaru, Palmerston North 4474

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5500670 — Mould & damp at 20C Kowhai Street, Tokomaru, Palmerston North 4474

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions