What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5519588 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5519588?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5519588?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5519588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14049229-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5519588 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5519588?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5519588?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5519588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14049229-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 76 Heriot Row, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5519588 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

One tenant and the landlord attended the hearing.

The tenants applied on 11/6/2026 for: a. $2,340.00 compensation being a further 20% rent reduction for the disruption caused during the construction process following water leaks, b. Exemplary damages for failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, c. Work order for replacement of part of the kitchen ceiling.

The tenancy is for a fixed term from 1/1/2026 to 31/122026 at $1,170.00 rent per week.

Due to the disruption suffered by the tenants as a result of the building work to fix the mouldy ceiling the landlord reduced the rent by 35% for the period between 16/2/2026 and 10/6/2026.

The tenants were unhappy with the amount of compensation agreed and believed the landlord had committed unlawful acts. Standard of proof

This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the tenants must establish, with evidence, that their claims are more likely than not.

The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.

Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.

Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.

The onus is on the applicant, in this case the tenants, to provide the necessary evidence to support their claims. If they fail to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not. Did the landlord breach their obligations & fail to comply with HHS?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations by failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and not complying with healthy homes standards.

In support of their claim the tenants provided significant email correspondence between the parties, photographs and three videos.

The tenants submitted that two days after they moved in on 16/2/2026 water leaked through the hallway ceiling.

On 10/4/2026 the tenants submitted that water leaked through the kitchen ceiling affecting their ability to safely prepare food.

Based on a comment from the plumber who attended to the shower leak that he had been to the property in 2025 due to a leak with the manhole, the tenants thought the hallway leak was a pre-existing problem known about by the landlord.

Similarly, the tenants suggested the leak in the shower which caused water to leak through the kitchen ceiling was a pre-exisitng defect known to the landlord as the shower had leaked in September 2025 requiring fixing by a plumber.

The tenants were unhappy that, despite advice from the builder and insurer, no dehumidifier was provided until construction began on 13/5/2026.

During the construction the tenants explained that the builder removed hallway linings, including sarking and the ceiling, exposing significant water staining and mould.

The tenants were unhappy with the five days delay it took from the time the builder identified the mould for cleaners to undertake decontamination and provide a dehumidifier.

While the tenants accepted that the mistakes in the healthy homes standards compliance statement attached to the tenancy agreement had been rectified, they were unhappy with the five months it took to fix the drainage non- compliance.

As the construction work had been completed by the time of the hearing a work order was not necessary, although the tenants did suggest that the replacement kitchen ceiling had not been properly completed.

In response, the landlord denied any record of hallway ceiling leaks in 2025, or that work orders had been issued for any leaks other than in the shower.

The landlord submitted that the leak in the kitchen ceiling in September 2025 was due to a blocked shower drain which the plumber had fixed.

To avoid further problems the landlord had arranged for a plumber to install a step under the door in February 2026, before the waste pipe was upsized in April.

The landlord submitted, based on the comments from the builder, that some of the issues with leakage from the shower were due to water spraying directly from the rose onto the door and also the construction of the shower.

As the ceiling was too soft due to the moisture the landlord submitted that no dryer could be installed in the ceiling.

The landlord was unsure of what was required to fix the kitchen ceiling as the builder had installed hardboard once the area was dry.

While accepting there were initial mistakes in the tenancy agreement about compliance with healthy homes standards, the landlord confirmed that all areas of non-compliance had been accepted after the re-assessment when the construction work was completed.

At all stages the landlord suggested that the builder had tried to mitigate disruption for the tenant during the construction phase.

Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.

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 draught stopping standard 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.

The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential 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.

Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenants’ concerns are understandable, based on the problems which arose with leaks and the disruption to their living arrangements during the first half of their tenancy.

However, I am not persuaded by the evidence that the landlord was aware of any long standing pre-existing problems with water leaks.

The fact that a plumber had attended twice at the premises for leaks in 2025 is not enough to persuade me that the landlord knew there were ongoing existing issues.

The leaks were in different areas and affected different parts of the premises.

Further the landlord took reasonable steps to fix the leaks by having a plumber undertake remedial actions.

In addition, the landlord at the beginning of 2026 attempted to mitigate any future problems by making alterations to the shower as suggested by the plumber.

Nor do I consider the evidence of long standing water marks uncovered during the construction process meant the landlord should have been aware of leaks because the marks were more indicative of a gradual undetected process rather than obvious water ingress.

Although the evidence is unclear about whether the hardboard installed in the kitchen ceiling is painted, I do not consider a work order should be made for the kitchen ceiling.

The evidence supports that the builder installed a new partial kitchen ceiling, which I consider it sufficient to comply with the requirement to draught stopping, even if aesthetically the ceiling is unattractive.

With regard to healthy homes standards compliance the landlord does not dispute that mistakes were made in the statement in the tenancy agreement, including about insurance, which may have misled the tenants.

By their own admission the tenants agreed they did not take much notice of the healthy homes standards statement until problems arose.

While careless with the healthy homes standards statement I consider the landlord has not committed an unlawful act with the inaccuracies because the premises did comply by June 2021, and again in July 2026 after completion of the construction work, as confirmed by a subsequent report.

I find the evidence does not support that the landlord failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and has not committed an unlawful act.

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Exemplary damages are not available to the tenants because I have not found the landlord committed any unlawful acts.

Even if my assessment of section 45 is wrong no exemplary damages could have been awarded because there is no compelling evidence of intent on the part of the landlord.

Although I accept the tenants have suffered considerable disruption from the issues associated with the two leaks, in my view the compensation provided by the landlord of 35% rent reduction for four months is reasonable.

The claims by the tenants fail.

No filing fee is awarded because the tenant was largely unsuccessful with the claim.

For the same reason suppression is not available to the tenant.

Reasons