What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5529820 about?

The tribunal order states: The application by the tenants for exemplary damages for breach of sections 38,

How much money was awarded in case 5529820?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5529820?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5529820?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14155855-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5529820 about?

The tribunal order states: The application by the tenants for exemplary damages for breach of sections 38,

How much money was awarded in case 5529820?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5529820?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5529820?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14155855-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10C Vogel Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5529820 — Mould & damp

Order

The application by the tenants for exemplary damages for breach of sections 38, 45(1)(b)&(bb) and 48 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended both hearings, with two tenants at the second hearing on the telephone.
On 20/6/2026 the tenants applied for a reduction in the term of their fixed term tenancy due to unlawful entry, moving costs, and breach of quiet enjoyment.
The parties attended mediation on 3/7/2026.
Just prior to the hearing on 5 August the tenants amended their application, removed the claims for reducing the term of the tenancy and compensation and added exemplary damages for the state of the premises, and breach of healthy homes standards.
The tenancy is for a fixed term from 1/1/2026 to 31/12/2026 at $700.00 rent per week. 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 hearings 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 claim. If they fail to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.

Did the landlord harass the tenants?

[The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] claim the landlord has harassed them by breaching their quiet enjoyment in the use of the premises.
In particular the tenants were unhappy with the issues that have arisen during the tenancy, including with the neighbouring landlord, draughts from windows, water ingress, rodents and perceived lack of security with the entry door keypad.
The landlord submitted they did not approve of what the neighbouring landlord had done by entering the premises in the way he did.
In acknowledgement of the window issues, and the time taken to replace the original lounge window and newer bathroom window the landlord agreed to a temporary rent reduction of $150.00 per week for nine weeks, totalling $1,350.00.
The landlord explained that the premises were originally part of the Tiger Tea factory in the warehouse precinct of the City and retained many of its original features.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
I am not persuaded by the evidence that the behaviour of the landlord amounted to a breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment in their use of the premises and certainly not in circumstances that amounted to harassment.
The correspondence is clear that the landlord did not encourage or condone the behaviour of the neighbouring landlord and took steps to make sure there was no repetition.
Further I am not persuaded by the suggestion that the age of the entry door passcode pad is more likely than not a safety issue which the landlord had not remedied.
The tenants confirmed that the neighbouring landlord mentioned he had been given the passcode by previous tenants.
The fact that some delivery drivers appear either to know or guess the passcode by itself is not conclusive evidence that the numbers are not secure.
Moreover, the landlord confirmed that they have reversed the numbers and are seeking an entry solution which does not involve replacement of the front entrance door.
In addition, the tenants had, for whatever reason, left the door of their apartment unlocked while one tenant was home alone and asleep, something over which the landlord has no control.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act and the claim for exemplary damages fails.

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

[The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants submitted that at the beginning of the tenancy there were multiple problems with the premises, including multiple holes in walls and floors, a cracked step, two broken windows and a broken communal washing machine, which they felt the landlord had not taken responsibility for.
In particular the latch for the bathroom window had snapped and the lounge window handle was rusty leaving both windows unable to be closed, with the latter letting in rain during the ‘red weather warning’ in July.
The tenants did not believe that the healthy homes standards compliance report was accurate.
On the other hand, the landlord submitted that following the concerns raised by the tenants on 10 January about the two windows repairs were undertaken within a month but when these subsequently proved unsuccessful a decision to replace both windows was made and the work completed by 24 July.
Unfortunately, the landlord suggested that due to an incorrect sizing issue by the tradesperson the bathroom window still needed to be replaced again.
The landlord did not consider the crack in the step was an issue because it was of solid native timber and had been in the building since the late 1800’s, the difficult to access hole in the wall had been repaired as had the cupboard doors and communal washing machine, and a contractor had laid bait.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable.
Section 45(1)(bb) requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping and moisture ingress standards.
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.
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.
All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
In this case I have determined that the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
Considering the age and construction of the premises I am persuaded by the evidence of the landlord that the time taken to effect repairs, especially to the windows, in particular the steel window in the lounge was reasonable.
The landlord explained that the lounge window was original and although they wished to retain this feature a decision was reluctantly made to replace it with an aluminium window which had to be specially made.
At the same time and because of the issues with the latch in the aluminium bathroom window the landlord confirmed that a new aluminium window was also to be installed.
Further, the landlord agreed to a rent reduction as compensation.
While the tenants’ concerns are understandable continual maintenance is to be expected in old premises which retain many original features.
Compliance with healthy homes standards is a continuum which a landlord in particular must be mindful of and address as problems arise.
I find there no breach of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises or comply with healthy homes standards.
The claim for exemplary damages fails.

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

[The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
The concerns of the tenant about the behaviour of the neighbouring landlord are understandable.
While the Tribunal does not in any way condone what the neighbouring landlord did, the evidence from both parties is clear that he did so without notice or consent and without the knowledge or at the behest of the landlord.
In such circumstances the landlord is not liable for the actions of the neighbouring landlord who was not acting as their agent and whom they had previously advised he did not have permission to enter the premises without the consent of the tenant.
There is no breach by the landlord of section 48 and the claim for exemplary damages fails.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

No exemplary damages are available to the tenant because the landlord has not committed any unlawful acts.
While I may have considered the issue of compensation had not the tenants withdrawn that part of the claim, I think the rent reduction by the landlord was reasonable compensation in the circumstances.
As [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] were unsuccessful with the claims I have not awarded the filing fee.

Order

The application by the tenants for exemplary damages for breach of sections 38, 45(1)(b)&(bb) and 48 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended both hearings, with two tenants at the second hearing on the telephone.
On 20/6/2026 the tenants applied for a reduction in the term of their fixed term tenancy due to unlawful entry, moving costs, and breach of quiet enjoyment.
The parties attended mediation on 3/7/2026.
Just prior to the hearing on 5 August the tenants amended their application, removed the claims for reducing the term of the tenancy and compensation and added exemplary damages for the state of the premises, and breach of healthy homes standards.
The tenancy is for a fixed term from 1/1/2026 to 31/12/2026 at $700.00 rent per week. 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 hearings 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 claim. If they fail to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.

Did the landlord harass the tenants?

[The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] claim the landlord has harassed them by breaching their quiet enjoyment in the use of the premises.
In particular the tenants were unhappy with the issues that have arisen during the tenancy, including with the neighbouring landlord, draughts from windows, water ingress, rodents and perceived lack of security with the entry door keypad.
The landlord submitted they did not approve of what the neighbouring landlord had done by entering the premises in the way he did.
In acknowledgement of the window issues, and the time taken to replace the original lounge window and newer bathroom window the landlord agreed to a temporary rent reduction of $150.00 per week for nine weeks, totalling $1,350.00.
The landlord explained that the premises were originally part of the Tiger Tea factory in the warehouse precinct of the City and retained many of its original features.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
I am not persuaded by the evidence that the behaviour of the landlord amounted to a breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment in their use of the premises and certainly not in circumstances that amounted to harassment.
The correspondence is clear that the landlord did not encourage or condone the behaviour of the neighbouring landlord and took steps to make sure there was no repetition.
Further I am not persuaded by the suggestion that the age of the entry door passcode pad is more likely than not a safety issue which the landlord had not remedied.
The tenants confirmed that the neighbouring landlord mentioned he had been given the passcode by previous tenants.
The fact that some delivery drivers appear either to know or guess the passcode by itself is not conclusive evidence that the numbers are not secure.
Moreover, the landlord confirmed that they have reversed the numbers and are seeking an entry solution which does not involve replacement of the front entrance door.
In addition, the tenants had, for whatever reason, left the door of their apartment unlocked while one tenant was home alone and asleep, something over which the landlord has no control.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act and the claim for exemplary damages fails.

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

[The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants submitted that at the beginning of the tenancy there were multiple problems with the premises, including multiple holes in walls and floors, a cracked step, two broken windows and a broken communal washing machine, which they felt the landlord had not taken responsibility for.
In particular the latch for the bathroom window had snapped and the lounge window handle was rusty leaving both windows unable to be closed, with the latter letting in rain during the ‘red weather warning’ in July.
The tenants did not believe that the healthy homes standards compliance report was accurate.
On the other hand, the landlord submitted that following the concerns raised by the tenants on 10 January about the two windows repairs were undertaken within a month but when these subsequently proved unsuccessful a decision to replace both windows was made and the work completed by 24 July.
Unfortunately, the landlord suggested that due to an incorrect sizing issue by the tradesperson the bathroom window still needed to be replaced again.
The landlord did not consider the crack in the step was an issue because it was of solid native timber and had been in the building since the late 1800’s, the difficult to access hole in the wall had been repaired as had the cupboard doors and communal washing machine, and a contractor had laid bait.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable.
Section 45(1)(bb) requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping and moisture ingress standards.
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.
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.
All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
In this case I have determined that the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
Considering the age and construction of the premises I am persuaded by the evidence of the landlord that the time taken to effect repairs, especially to the windows, in particular the steel window in the lounge was reasonable.
The landlord explained that the lounge window was original and although they wished to retain this feature a decision was reluctantly made to replace it with an aluminium window which had to be specially made.
At the same time and because of the issues with the latch in the aluminium bathroom window the landlord confirmed that a new aluminium window was also to be installed.
Further, the landlord agreed to a rent reduction as compensation.
While the tenants’ concerns are understandable continual maintenance is to be expected in old premises which retain many original features.
Compliance with healthy homes standards is a continuum which a landlord in particular must be mindful of and address as problems arise.
I find there no breach of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises or comply with healthy homes standards.
The claim for exemplary damages fails.

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

[The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
The concerns of the tenant about the behaviour of the neighbouring landlord are understandable.
While the Tribunal does not in any way condone what the neighbouring landlord did, the evidence from both parties is clear that he did so without notice or consent and without the knowledge or at the behest of the landlord.
In such circumstances the landlord is not liable for the actions of the neighbouring landlord who was not acting as their agent and whom they had previously advised he did not have permission to enter the premises without the consent of the tenant.
There is no breach by the landlord of section 48 and the claim for exemplary damages fails.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

No exemplary damages are available to the tenant because the landlord has not committed any unlawful acts.
While I may have considered the issue of compensation had not the tenants withdrawn that part of the claim, I think the rent reduction by the landlord was reasonable compensation in the circumstances.
As [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] were unsuccessful with the claims I have not awarded the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5529820 — Mould & damp at 10C Vogel Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5529820 — Mould & damp at 10C Vogel Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord harass the tenants?

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord harass the tenants?

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.