What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5509809 about?

The tribunal order states: [The respondent/s][The applicant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5509809?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5509809?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5509809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13867766-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5509809 about?

The tribunal order states: [The respondent/s][The applicant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5509809?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5509809?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5509809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13867766-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5509809 — Mould & damp

Order

[The respondent/s][The applicant/s]

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The relevant background to this matter is: a. The tenancy began on 16 August 2025 with a fixed term to 8 February 2026. The tenancy is a two-bedroom flat on the top floor of the property. The dwelling was built in the 1970s and is weatherboard with timber framing and aluminium joinery. b. The tenant says that from the outset it was noticed that the flat was cold and draughty, although these issues were not raised with the landlord until later. c. At the outset of the tenancy the tenant noted that the healthy home statement had not been included with the tenancy agreement. On 25 July 2025, the landlord emailed advising that the healthy home statement had not been available, I assume as the tenancy was of a reasonably recently purchased property, and would be provided in due course. d. In the two bedrooms it was noticed that mildew and mould was growing and paint was peeling on a strip of ceiling on the edge of the main bedroom nearest the window, on the main bedroom curtains and windowsill, and in the wardrobe and the second bedroom which is on the same wall as the issues in the first bedroom. e. On 24 September 2025, the tenant notified the landlord of the mould issues. The landlord responded the next day and a builder investigated the issue. In October the area was repainted with mould resistant paint. f. The mould came back and this was reported to the landlord on 19 October 2025. As I understand it, the builder attended the same day, and cleaned and repainted the area. g. On 8 February 2026, the term of the tenancy expired. In the lead up to this after some negotiation it had been decided that tenancy would be renewed with a period to 31 October 2026. h. On 4 May 2026, the tenants may request that the lease could be broken early by assigning the tenancy. This was discussed over the next few days, and on 11 May 2026 break lease agreement was sent to the tenants, the terms of which are discussed below. On the same day prospective new tenants were put forward. i. On 6 May 2026, the tenants served a 14-day notice to remedy on the landlord. This referred to issues with recurring mould, noticeable drafts, the absence of the healthy homes compliance statement, and a pre- existing moisture problem. j. On 12 May 2026 the prospective new tenants submitted the tenancy application form. Over the next two days their references were checked and the application was submitted to the owner. k. On 15 May 2026, the owner rejected the application of the prospective new tenants due to being dissatisfied with the references provided. l. Over the next several weeks another set of tenants was put forward and rejected, again on reference check grounds, a third set of tenants was accepted but had found another tenancy, and a port set were accepted, signed the assignment of the lease on 15 June 2026, and moved in on 20 20 June 2026.
The tenants bring this application for alleged healthy homes breaches, failure to provide healthy homes information, and alleged breaches relating to the break lease process. Healthy Homes Information
Ss13A(1A) and 13A (1CA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, .
Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has accepted that the tenancy agreement was non-compliant, and that exemplary damages are justified. Exemplary damages are discretionary and the Tribunal has developed practices we are the level of exemplary damages set backs into account the landlord’s previous behaviours with this and other tenancies. This landlord has no previous findings against it the healthy homes matters. As a result I award $200 and exemplary damages, taking into account that the breach is technical, and this is a first strike or the landlord. Insulation
S 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires all tenancies to be insulated in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the installation must be at least 150 mm thick, or if not it must meet the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation in the relevant geographical zone which is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, in which Wellington sits. There are exemptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The premises are relatively recently insulated, although it is unclear exactly when the insulation was installed. The evidence shows that the R-value is 2.4. The same evidence gives the insulation a nominal thickness of 100 mm. The landlord accepts that the insulation R-value and thickness are non-compliant.
Moreover, there is a strip approximately 300 mm wide which runs down the side of the bedrooms where there is no insulation. The landlord said that insulation has not been installed in this area as a rafter makes this area inaccessible without removing ceiling linings. The tenant says that this area could be accessed and insulation could be poked into it.
Viewing the photos I accept the landlord’s position that the strip down the side of the house is inaccessible and the exemptions apply.
However, the landlord has accepted that the insulation is unlawfully below the minimum thickness and R-value, I find they have committed an unlawful act. As above this breach is technical, and this is a first offence of this type of breach by the landlord. Therefore, I award exemplary damages of $2000 for this breach. Draught stopping
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), requires that tenancies comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants say the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard which requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenant refers to draughts through the windows in the spare bedroom, and to draughts around the wooden front door. There are in effect two limbs to this issue, that the draughts mean the property was not compliant with healthy homes requirements, and that the first copy of the healthy homes statement indicated that there were no issues with draughts.
The timeline around this is that the tenant advised the landlord of the draughts and the healthy homes statement on 6 May 2026, on 12 May 2026 the landlord attended with a builder and it was agreed that repairs would be conducted. Door seals were placed and a scriber was added to the doorframe, and the window hinge was replaced in bedroom two. The landlord submitted and this was not opposed by the tenant that the steps had resolved the draft issues.
In this case I have determined that there were draughts, however these related to door seals and the window hinge wearing out. These issues were promptly addressed by the landlord as soon as they were notified.
I declined to award exemplary damages. Maintenance/Moisture ingress
The tenants say that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard, in particular due to issues with modern condensation in the main bedroom. The standard requires that tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The argument made is that there was a damp-rid type chemical dehumidifier present in the wardrobe in the second bedroom, and that this, but condensation on the main bedroom window and the mould on the ceiling strip referred to above show that the landlord knew or should have known that there were moisture issues at the property. The tenants have sought a 10% reproduction through the life of the lease as loss of amenity.
The landlord says that the mould issues were related to a lack of ventilation and were in part due to the fact that the tenant did not regularly run the DVS ventilation system. The landlord points out that this was an upstairs tenancy, that it is in a sunny North facing site, and that had the bedroom been properly ventilated there would be no issue with moisture or mould.
Listen to the parties and viewing the photos provided I conclude that these issues relate to condensation. Condensation is an inevitable fact in any premise with single glazed windows. There is no requirement in the RTA or related legislation that landlord provides premises free of condensation. In this case the strip of uninsulated ceiling has also contributed to this issue. While I note that this was an issue for the tenants, I note that the home was provided with a DVS system and was compliant with the heating requirements of the healthy homes standards. I cannot find the landlord was in breach of their obligations nor that there was a loss of amenity for the tenants. Break lease issues
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations relating to the break of the lease by unreasonably refusing to accept the first two sets of prospective new tenants, and that the $300 break lease fee was excessive.
With regard to the rejection of the first two sets of prospective new tenants, during the hearing the landlord explained that the references for the first two sets of tenants were not acceptable to the landlord. In considering this I note that both the third and the successful sets of tenants were acceptable. I also note that there was no financial loss to the tenants as they were paying rent while living, and that the landlord acted promptly in each case.
With regard to the break lease fee, I note that the $300 fee was set out in the tenancy agreement, in this instance involved $95 worth of reference checks, and that there was a reasonably large amount of administration involved. The tenants argued that this administration would have been necessary had the lease ended in October. However, I note that the tenants agreed to the fee. It is not the Tribunal’s place to step into contractual arrangements which are not in breach of the RTA. I dismissed this aspect of the application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5509809 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5509809 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions