Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5561241 — Healthy homes at 9 Wright Street, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014
Decided 21 Sept 2026 · Published 21 Sept 2026 · Application 5561241
- Healthy homes
- Property damage
- Smoke alarms
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Lower Hutt
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
B Smallbone
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $4,184.00
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $4,184.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compensation: Smoke alarm | $29.00 | Smoke alarm | |
| Compensation: Damage to tenant possessions | $1,655.00 | Damage to tenant possessions | |
| Compensation: Premises that breach HHS | $2,500.00 | Premises that breach HHS | |
| Net award | $4,184.00 | ||
| Total payable by Landlord to Tenant | $4,184.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5561241 — net $4,184.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Compensation: Smoke alarm
- Amount
- $29.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Smoke alarm
Compensation: Damage to tenant possessions
- Amount
- $1,655.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Damage to tenant possessions
Compensation: Premises that breach HHS
- Amount
- $2,500.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Premises that breach HHS
Net award
Tenant $4,184.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant
Tenant $4,184.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Avery Rental Maintenance Limited As Agent For Shuying Sun must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $4,184.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation: Damage to tenant possessions $1,655.00 Compensation: Premises that breach HHS $2,500.00 Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS - drainage/moisture $0.00 Compensation: Smoke alarm Filing fee $0.00 $29.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $4,184.00
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- Both parties lodged applications.
- The landlord’s application is not a request for the Tribunal to make orders against the tenant. It is a statement of defence to the tenant’s claims. The matters raised in the landlord’s application have been addressed when considering the tenant’s application.
- The tenant’s application is for compensation and exemplary damages and the filing fee.
- The issues to be determined are: a. Should a work order be made for the landlord to carry out repairs? b. Should an order be made regarding the landlord providing the property in a reasonably clean state? c. Did the property comply with HHS and if not, is it just to order compensation and exemplary damages? d. Were the tenant’s possessions damaged during the tenancy as a result of a HHS breach and if so, should compensation be ordered for the damage? e. Is the tenant entitled to compensation for a smoke alarm?
Should a work order be made for the landlord to carry out repairs?
- Section 10 of the tenant’s application set out maintenance she wanted the Tribunal to address by way of work orders. However since making her application on 7 August the fixed term tenancy has ended by agreement. It is appropriate for the Tribunal to consider work orders where a tenancy is in place. However when a tenancy ends, the Tribunal does not make work orders. Should an order be made regarding the landlord providing the property in a reasonably clean state?
- The emails show that the parties sorted a cleaning issue on move in with a payment of $230.00 to the tenant for cleaning. The Tribunal makes no order about that matter which was settled. Did the property comply with HHS and if not, is it just to order compensation and exemplary damages?
- In section 11 of her Application to the Tribunal, the tenant claims that the property did not meet HHS.
- The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant considers that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard. The tenant claims that the HHS failure was known to the landlord prior to her tenancy. The RTA requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
- The HHS 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. HHS requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
- 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 history of the property regarding HHS is as follows. The landlord contracted a HHS inspection company to report on the property in October 2023. The report passed all areas including Moisture and Drainage. However in the report it stated that: ‘There was a pool of water in the subfloor space. It is recommended to resolve the water pooling and install a moisture barrier to prevent future moisture ingress.’
- Following this report in 2023, the landlord employed a contractor to clear a blocked downpipe. He also placed tape on windows in the bedroom and kitchen to comply with HHS. He checked water pooling under the house and noted that the relatively new sump appeared to above the level of the ground under the house.
- In November 2025, about 2 weeks before the tenant began her tenancy, the landlord employed a plumbing contractor to check drainage at the property. Hutt Gas and Plumbing recommended cleaning the stormwater drain every couple of years. There was no report of water collecting under the house. The stormwater drains were running freely.
- In her first email to the landlord on 2 December 2025 the tenant referred to a broken hose tap causing flooding before the rain started. The tenant’s email of 8 December to the landlord thanks him for sending a plumber to look at the water on the back yard. She commented that the plumber told to get back to him if water didn’t dry up. There is no reference to water under the house at that stage. The tenant’s photos taken on 29 November 2025 do not show water pooling under the house or in the yard.
- In February there is an incomplete email trail about windows and a door leaking. The property manager emailed back the same day saying he would stop by. There are no other emails. In May 2025 the landlord employed CBD Building Service limited to carry out remedial maintenance work on windows and doors for draught prevention. The tenant pointed out that the contractor sealed an opening window with silicon.
- In her application the tenant stated that, “Throughout the tenancy I raised concerns with the landlord/property manager regarding ongoing mould, dampness, water ingress and the condition of the property. These concerns were communicated on multiple occasions and photographic evidence was provided.” There does not appear to be evidence sent to the Tribunal in support of ongoing complaints to the landlord about mould. That does not mean those contacts didn’t happen. I means that that there is no evidence in support that submission. From the evidence, the first indication that the tenant was having problems with mould in the house came in an email dated 21 July 2026. The tenant requested being allowed to end the fixed term early due to ongoing issues with mould. She stated that she had failed in efforts to manage mould and it was affecting the health of her and her children. She provided photos of the mould on her personal items and offered to provide more photos if the landlord requested more photos. Phone conversation/s and emails followed. The property manager offered to pay $50.00 towards power with the tenant leaving the heat pump on. The property manager suggested that heat and ventilation would solve the problem.
- The tenant provided photos show water pooling under the house and some areas where the under-floor insulation was dislodged.
- The cause of the water pooling under the house relates to the location of the property. It is the lowest property on the street and surface water from other properties that is not entering drains, moves towards this house. The property is below the street level. Water from the roof drains through stormwater drains but surface water accumulates under the house.
- There is clearly a problem at the property that shows a failure to meet HHS regarding drainage and moisture. While the property manager’s suggestion may be true, that heat and ventilation may address the problem, the problem of moisture entering the house by water ponding under the house should not occur in the first place. In Wellington there is enough of a problem in houses with moisture and high humidity from normal weather and living without adding moisture from water pooling under the house and on the section.
- Since the tenant’s email to the landlord about the mould and drainage problem, the landlord has been exploring ways to try to remove the water that pools under the house. There is no easy solution.
- I have considered whether the tenant is entitled to compensation for the environment she was living in. I am satisfied, on balance of probability, that the lack of drainage leading to water ponding under the house resulted in the tenant living in an unhealthy environment. The landlord has suggested that the tenant could have brought mouldy goods with her however I am not persuaded about that. It is more likely that the extensive mould, seen in the photos, came about by excess moisture coming into the house from ponding water.
- When the tenant said she would move out, the landlord wrote up a settlement document. In it the landlord agreed to reduce the fixed term from 29 November to 30 August and stop charging rent from 5 August to the end of the tenancy. The tenant moved out on 5 August but some of her goods remained in the premises after that date. The tenant declined to sign a settlement agreement and paid rent to the end of the tenancy.
- I have considered the amount of compensation that is reasonable in this case and have made an order for $2,500.00. I have taken into account that it is likely that the mould did not appear overnight and the tenant had been living with the adverse effects of poor drainage for months. I also have taken into account that once the tenant requested to be landlord released from the fixed term, the landlord agreed.
- I do not accept the finding of the HHS Report dated 2 September 2026. The report stated that the property was compliant regarding drainage. The HHS that rental properties must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water. The property manager stated that the inspector was aware of the problem of pooling. It is difficult to understand how he could pass the property knowing that problem.
- Breaching the drainage obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A). I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act regarding moisture and drainage HHS.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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.
- When considering whether it is just to order exemplary damages, I must first determine whether the landlord intended to commit an unlawful act. In other words, that the landlord knew that the property failed HHS and decided not to comply with its obligation.
- The tenant has submitted that the landlord knew the property flooded under the floor before her tenancy but still rented the property to her without rectifying the problem. The property manager stated that the owner had the drainage checked and cleared after finding out there was a problem with the property she had purchased and believed that the problem with water under the house had been rectified. She referred to the plumber who attended just before the start of the tenancy stating to have the drainage checked every two years.
- I am satisfied that after the owner purchased the property, she was made aware of the problem of water under the house by the HHS report in October 2023. She had work carried out to check and remedy observed stormwater drainage issues. I am willing to accept that the landlord believed the plumber’s report prior to the tenancy meant that it would be two years before there would need to be a check for a drainage issue. There is sufficient doubt that the landlord intended to commit an unlawful act when renting the property to this tenant and therefore an award for exemplary damages cannot be made. However, if the landlord rented the property again without significant alteration to surface water drainage, a Tribunal would most likely order exemplary damages.
- Regarding the requirement for a ground moisture barrier where there is an enclosed subfloor space, both HHS contractors noted that it was not required because the subfloor was not enclosed. If a moisture barrier was installed it is likely that water would accumulate under and on top of the moisture barrier and be of no effect. Were the tenant’s possessions damaged during the tenancy as a result of a HHS breach and if so, should compensation be ordered for the damage?
- The tenant has provided photos and an estimate of her loss due to mould.
- I have assessed the claim and accept it is more likely that the damage to the tenant’s goods came from a landlord breach than the tenant’s use of the premises. As a result it is reasonable to order compensation.
- It is difficult to give an exact value for the tenant’s loss. She has set out items that were damaged. In the hearing she reduced the amount claimed, referring to the first list of items in the email to the landlord dated 6 August 2026. I have considered the items and amounts claimed in that list and find the claim reasonable except for the lowboy drawers. The total claimed is $1,805.00. I have ordered 1,655.00.
Is the tenant entitled to compensation for a smoke alarm?
- The tenant claimed $50.00 toward the purchase of a smoke alarm. There was insufficient evidence provided about this claim for an order to be made regarding a smoke alarm. Unlawful entry
- In the tenant’s submissions for the hearing, she raised the issue of unlawful entry. However this issue was not raised in her application and therefore is not part of this decision.
- Had unlawful entry been raised in the application it is unlikely that an order for compensation would have been made. The tenant was not living at the property and the landlord wanted to check the condition of the property every 2 days. That was understandable in the circumstances. The landlord had taken over the power account and had the heatpump on in the premises full time. If the tenant had been living at the property this could have been seen as a breach of her quiet enjoyment. Filing fee
- Because the tenant has been successful with the claim the filing fee of $29.00 is ordered to be paid by the landlord. Name Suppression
- The tenant has not applied for name suppression.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s10, s109(3), s11, s45(1), s45(1A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: smoke alarms
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: healthy homes
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5561241 about?
The tribunal order states: Avery Rental Maintenance Limited As Agent For Shuying Sun must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $4,184.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
How much money was awarded in case 5561241?
Property Damage: $1,655.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Premises that breach H…: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $29.00 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5561241?
The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage, Smoke alarms.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5561241?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14235069-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.
For landlords & property managers
Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.
Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.