What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5501154 about?

This case concerned a mould & damp dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 5501154?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5501154?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5501154?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14102893-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5501154 about?

This case concerned a mould & damp dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 5501154?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5501154?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5501154?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14102893-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

ORDER Tenancy Tribunal Case 5501154 — Mould & damp

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 24 December 2025. It was a one-year fixed term tenancy. [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] were the joint tenants.
[Tenant 1] left the property on 21 February 2026 after a domestic incident.
[Tenant 1’s] application relates to the bond, the lawfulness of the premises, and healthy homes compliance.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on [date]. [Tenant 1] and Ms de Bruin attended the hearing. Bond
The tenancy agreement required [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] to pay a general bond of $1,200.00 and a pet bond of $1,300.00.
The bonds were not paid before the start of the tenancy on 24 December 2025.
[Tenant 2] paid the bonds on 2 February 2026.
The Bond Centre received both bonds on 9 February 2026. Therefore, the landlords met their duty to forward any bond payments to the Bond Centre within 23-working days of receipt.
[Tenant 2] remained at the property until March. The tenancy was then surrendered with the landlords’ consent. The landlords negotiated an agreement with [Tenant 2] that they would retain $750 from the bond to cover various costs, and the balance would be paid to [Tenant 2].
[Tenant 1] did not strongly dispute that outcome. His concern was that he saw a bond release form that had his signature on it, that he had never signed.
The landlords use a property management software tool called myRent. The bond release form generated by myRent includes a final page that has a copy of the signatures of the landlord and tenant, taken from the tenancy agreement. It seems that this is used to confirm the authenticity of the signatures on the release form.
I think that this is the page of the document that caused [Tenant 1] concern. Having viewed the form in its totality, I accept that [Tenant 1’s] signature was not on the bond release form itself, just on this final page that myRent autogenerates. Therefore, I am satisfied that no-one falsified [Tenant 1’s] signature on the form. Unlawful residential premises
The landlords purchased the property as bare land in 2015. They relocated two dwellings onto the land that same year. They live in one, and the other is the tenanted premises.
[Tenant 1] is a builder. He said that he made enquiries with the local councils after the end of his tenancy and discovered that no Code compliance certificate (“CCC”) was issued for either dwelling.
At the hearing Ms de Bruin provided a copy of a CCC that was issued by [the Council] on 7 August 2026. The certificate covers both dwellings.
Ms de Bruin said that she was “up front” with [Tenant 1] before the start of the tenancy about the fact that the property did not have a CCC.
[Tenant 1] said that Ms de Bruin did not tell him that the property did not have a CCC. He was aware that the property was not healthy homes compliant (as discussed in more detail below) and that some building work was required on the owners’ residence.
Even if [Tenant 1] was aware, that does not remove the landlords’ legal obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Section 78A RTA sets out the orders that the Tenancy Tribunal may make if the Tribunal determines that the premises were unlawful residential premises.
The Tribunal may order a refund of all of the rent paid during the tenancy, or an amount that is less than a full refund if it is appropriate to do so. 1
Unlawful residential premises are premises that: a. Cannot be lawfully used as residential premises; and b. Where the landlord’s failure to “comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises” 2 caused or contributed to the unlawfulness.
My finding is that these premises were unlawful residential premises for the full period of the tenancy.
The premises could not be lawfully used for residential purposes during the tenancy because they did not have a CCC.
The landlords were responsible for obtaining a CCC. They failed to do so.
My finding is that it is not appropriate to award a full refund of rent in this instance. The premises were habitable and generally in good condition. [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] obtained some benefit from the tenancy. The unlawfulness was relatively technical in this instance.
[Tenant 1] was at the property for approximately 8 and a half weeks. The rent was $650 per week, and this was a joint tenancy. [Tenant 2] is not an applicant in this claim. [Tenant 1’s] share of the rent for the entire tenancy was about $2,800.00.
I will award a rent refund of $280.00. 1 Section 78A(3) RTA 2 Section 45(1)(c) RTA Healthy homes compliance
Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards. 3
Ms de Bruin acknowledged that the premises did not comply with the health homes standards in some respects. She said that she explained this to [Tenant 1] before the start of the tenancy and that he agreed to do a healthy homes assessment and to assist with getting them to compliance.
At the hearing Ms de Bruin criticised [Tenant 1’s] report and appeared to blame [Tenant 1] for failing to deliver what she had hoped for.
The law is clear. Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards. They cannot delegate that obligation to anyone else.
The healthy homes obligations were phased in over a period of many years, giving landlords ample opportunity to familiarise themselves with the standards and bring tenanted premises up to compliance.
Failure to comply with the healthy homes standards is an unlawful act. The Tenancy Tribunal can award exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00.
The premises were non-compliant in the following respects: a. There is no fixed means of heating in the main living area in the house. b. There is no ground moisture barrier. c. The kitchen extractor fan did not vent to the exterior of the house. 4
[Tenant 1] said that the premises were also non-compliant in respect of draughts and drainage, but this was disputed by the landlord, and [Tenant 1] did not provide evidence to establish these aspects of non-compliance.
The Tenancy Tribunal may award exemplary damages if the Tribunal is satisfied that an unlawful act was committed intentionally. In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to: a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
The maximum award for failure to comply with the healthy homes standards is $7,200.00.
In this instance: 3 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA 4 Section 3 definition of “extractor fan”, Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 a. The landlords have owned this property since 2015 and have had a long time to time to achieve compliance. It is disappointing that the landlords’ approach was to blame the tenant rather than accept responsibility for their own failure to address this before the start of the tenancy. I note that after the tenant filed this application, the landlords got on and achieved healthy homes compliance within a few weeks. b. The impact on [Tenant 1] was minimal. He occupied the premises for a short time over summer. There is no evidence that the premises were damp or mouldy. c. There is a legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords comply with the healthy homes standards.
Having regard to these factors, in particular to the minimal impact upon the tenant, it is appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages at the low end of the scale.
I will award $720.00. Filing fee, name suppression
The tenant was successful in this application. I will award the tenant the filing fee of $28.00. 5 Name suppression is granted to the tenant. 6

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 24 December 2025. It was a one-year fixed term tenancy. [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] were the joint tenants.

[Tenant 1] left the property on 21 February 2026 after a domestic incident.

[Tenant 1’s] application relates to the bond, the lawfulness of the premises, and healthy homes compliance.

The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on [date]. [Tenant 1] and Ms de Bruin attended the hearing. Bond

The tenancy agreement required [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] to pay a general bond of $1,200.00 and a pet bond of $1,300.00.

The bonds were not paid before the start of the tenancy on 24 December 2025.

[Tenant 2] paid the bonds on 2 February 2026.

The Bond Centre received both bonds on 9 February 2026. Therefore, the landlords met their duty to forward any bond payments to the Bond Centre within 23-working days of receipt.

[Tenant 2] remained at the property until March. The tenancy was then surrendered with the landlords’ consent. The landlords negotiated an agreement with [Tenant 2] that they would retain $750 from the bond to cover various costs, and the balance would be paid to [Tenant 2].

[Tenant 1] did not strongly dispute that outcome. His concern was that he saw a bond release form that had his signature on it, that he had never signed.

The landlords use a property management software tool called myRent. The bond release form generated by myRent includes a final page that has a copy of the signatures of the landlord and tenant, taken from the tenancy agreement. It seems that this is used to confirm the authenticity of the signatures on the release form.

I think that this is the page of the document that caused [Tenant 1] concern. Having viewed the form in its totality, I accept that [Tenant 1’s] signature was not on the bond release form itself, just on this final page that myRent autogenerates. Therefore, I am satisfied that no-one falsified [Tenant 1’s] signature on the form. Unlawful residential premises

The landlords purchased the property as bare land in 2015. They relocated two dwellings onto the land that same year. They live in one, and the other is the tenanted premises.

[Tenant 1] is a builder. He said that he made enquiries with the local councils after the end of his tenancy and discovered that no Code compliance certificate (“CCC”) was issued for either dwelling.

At the hearing Ms de Bruin provided a copy of a CCC that was issued by [the Council] on 7 August 2026. The certificate covers both dwellings.

Ms de Bruin said that she was “up front” with [Tenant 1] before the start of the tenancy about the fact that the property did not have a CCC.

[Tenant 1] said that Ms de Bruin did not tell him that the property did not have a CCC. He was aware that the property was not healthy homes compliant (as discussed in more detail below) and that some building work was required on the owners’ residence.

Even if [Tenant 1] was aware, that does not remove the landlords’ legal obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

Section 78A RTA sets out the orders that the Tenancy Tribunal may make if the Tribunal determines that the premises were unlawful residential premises.

The Tribunal may order a refund of all of the rent paid during the tenancy, or an amount that is less than a full refund if it is appropriate to do so. 1

Unlawful residential premises are premises that: a. Cannot be lawfully used as residential premises; and b. Where the landlord’s failure to “comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises” 2 caused or contributed to the unlawfulness.

My finding is that these premises were unlawful residential premises for the full period of the tenancy.

The premises could not be lawfully used for residential purposes during the tenancy because they did not have a CCC.

The landlords were responsible for obtaining a CCC. They failed to do so.

My finding is that it is not appropriate to award a full refund of rent in this instance. The premises were habitable and generally in good condition. [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] obtained some benefit from the tenancy. The unlawfulness was relatively technical in this instance.

[Tenant 1] was at the property for approximately 8 and a half weeks. The rent was $650 per week, and this was a joint tenancy. [Tenant 2] is not an applicant in this claim. [Tenant 1’s] share of the rent for the entire tenancy was about $2,800.00.

I will award a rent refund of $280.00. 1 Section 78A(3) RTA 2 Section 45(1)(c) RTA Healthy homes compliance

Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards. 3

Ms de Bruin acknowledged that the premises did not comply with the health homes standards in some respects. She said that she explained this to [Tenant 1] before the start of the tenancy and that he agreed to do a healthy homes assessment and to assist with getting them to compliance.

At the hearing Ms de Bruin criticised [Tenant 1’s] report and appeared to blame [Tenant 1] for failing to deliver what she had hoped for.

The law is clear. Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards. They cannot delegate that obligation to anyone else.

The healthy homes obligations were phased in over a period of many years, giving landlords ample opportunity to familiarise themselves with the standards and bring tenanted premises up to compliance.

Failure to comply with the healthy homes standards is an unlawful act. The Tenancy Tribunal can award exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00.

The premises were non-compliant in the following respects: a. There is no fixed means of heating in the main living area in the house. b. There is no ground moisture barrier. c. The kitchen extractor fan did not vent to the exterior of the house. 4

[Tenant 1] said that the premises were also non-compliant in respect of draughts and drainage, but this was disputed by the landlord, and [Tenant 1] did not provide evidence to establish these aspects of non-compliance.

The Tenancy Tribunal may award exemplary damages if the Tribunal is satisfied that an unlawful act was committed intentionally. In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to: a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.

The maximum award for failure to comply with the healthy homes standards is $7,200.00.

In this instance: 3 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA 4 Section 3 definition of “extractor fan”, Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 a. The landlords have owned this property since 2015 and have had a long time to time to achieve compliance. It is disappointing that the landlords’ approach was to blame the tenant rather than accept responsibility for their own failure to address this before the start of the tenancy. I note that after the tenant filed this application, the landlords got on and achieved healthy homes compliance within a few weeks. b. The impact on [Tenant 1] was minimal. He occupied the premises for a short time over summer. There is no evidence that the premises were damp or mouldy. c. There is a legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords comply with the healthy homes standards.

Having regard to these factors, in particular to the minimal impact upon the tenant, it is appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages at the low end of the scale.

I will award $720.00. Filing fee, name suppression

The tenant was successful in this application. I will award the tenant the filing fee of $28.00. 5 Name suppression is granted to the tenant. 6

Tenancy Tribunal case 5501154 — Mould & damp at ORDER

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5501154 — Mould & damp at ORDER

At a glance

Claims & awards

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.