What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4991748?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4991748?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4991748?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4991748?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11592499-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4991748?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4991748?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4991748?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4991748?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11592499-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 28 Athlone Crescent, Boulcott, Lower Hutt Tenancy Tribunal Case 4991748 — Mould & damp

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Smith representing the landlord.
The tenant, Ms McKessar, has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s alleged failure to maintain the premises and she seeks work orders to have the problems fixed. She also seeks compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s alleged failure to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment of her by neighbouring tenants. Background
This is a long-running tenancy which commenced on 23 March 1990, almost 35 years ago. At the time, the property was newly constructed, and Ms McKessar is the only person to have lived there. Ms McKessar’s main complaint is that despite on-going and persistent complaints she has made to Kainga Ora (KO), they have failed to address multiple defects with the premises over a lengthy period. She says that KO offered to transfer her to another property so that they could conduct overdue maintenance. However, she says none of the properties they offered have been suitable to meet her needs.
KO say that they have addressed matters raised by Ms McKessar and dispute the claims. They say in recent years Ms McKessar has prevented contractors from entering the premises to carry out maintenance including work. They have tried to work with Ms McKessar to resolve the issues, to no avail. As a last resort, KO served her with notice to end the tenancy effective 14 June 2024 and transfer her to another property under section 53B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). However, Ms McKessar rejected the homes offered and has remained at the premises. KO chose not to enforce the termination notice. Ms McKessar then lodged these proceedings.
At the case conference hearing scheduled on 25 September 2024, Ms McKessar indicated that she would like to be re-housed. KO also agreed that this was the best solution as the landlord would like to conduct extensive maintenance at the property which could not be easily achieved with the tenant in occupation. I adjourned the hearing to enable the parties to explore that option more fully. An agreed timeline and process was recorded in the decision issued. Unfortunately, the parties were unable to resolve the issue. Ms McKessar says the properties offered were unsuitable and KO suggest that Ms McKessar is being unreasonable.
I now consider each of the tenant claims in turn.
The standard of proof required is the usual civil standard of ‘on the balance of probabilities’. Put another way, Ms McKessar must persuade me that what she says is more likely than not to be the case. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than not.
In deciding any claim I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral testimony) and whether there is corroborating evidence to strengthen the evidence given. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be taken into account when weighing all evidence
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

Has the landlord failed to maintain the premises?

Under section 45 RTA a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 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) and Schedule RTA.
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s45 is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so. Tenant evidence
Ms McKessar has several maintenance complaints. She says that she reported these matters to KO but does not have a copy of any complaint in writing (e.g. a letter, email, or text). She says that she made complaints by ringing KO or by advising tradespeople sent by KO to the premises. She also approached her local MP and sometimes wrote to other MPs and the Prime Minister. A summary of the tenant’s complaints follows.
Bathroom wall near window: Water enters under the windowsill and runs down the wall and pools on the floor. Several tradespeople have advised the tenant the wall has no lining. It has been like this for 18 months to 2 years, and started after the bathroom was renovated.
Window flashings and windowsills: There are no flashings above the windows and therefore water enters causing windowsills and window frames to become wet, mouldy, and swollen. Ms McKessar signed an agreement for maintenance authorising a contractor to investigate and remedy this problem on 9 December 2020. This was signed by Carra from contracting company, Spencer Henshaw (Spencers). The contractor from Spencers advised the tenant they believed water ingress was caused because there were no window flashings. However, nothing has been done to remedy the issue. Recent photos produced of windowsills and window frames at the premises show signs of deterioration from moisture and mould and they should be replaced. Some contractors sent by KO have said there is nothing wrong and flashings are not required. Ms McKessar engaged someone to check the issue recently and this person advised her that there was a possible problem with the roof lining collapsing. She did not obtain any report or statement from this person to support her oral evidence.
Ground subsidence: Sewage has been leaking into the ground from manholes installed by KO causing both a health issue and ground subsidence. In July 2024, ground testing found the presence of e-coli. Nothing has been done to address contamination and ground subsidence.
Dirt in water: In January 2019 dirt and “gunk” was coming through the kitchen tap. However it cleared. While the tenant collected a sample, Wellington Water could not test it because it was not collected in a sterile container. Wellington Water advised the tenant to install a water filter because her tap was at “the end of the line.” The tenant had her own filter installed. Later it was removed when the kitchen tap was replaced. KO agreed to reinstate the tenant’s water filter and their contractor arranged to do the work on 19 March 2021. The tenant says no-one turned up to do the work. When they contacted the tenant 5 weeks later to do the work the tenant refused to make another time and told then they could come any time when she was home. She complains that the work was never done.
Carpet: The hallway and main bedroom carpet is threadbare in places and requires replacement.
Ms McKessar arranged a witness summons requiring Rhys Finlay, (licensed building practitioner) owner of Rhys Finlay Contractors Ltd (RFC) to attend the hearing, as she believed he had been to her property and completed a maintenance report for KO.
Mr Finlay attended by telephone. He confirmed that RFC has done a lot of building maintenance work for Kainga Ora under contract since 2006. They predominantly work under head contractor, Spencers, who scope and organise any work over $700. RFC are usually instructed directly to conduct standard building maintenance (taking less than 4 hours) such as catches, door handles. They have done dozens of jobs at KO properties over the years including Ms McKessar’s property. They have not done any roofing or window flashing work.
Mr Finlay said he has never been to Ms McKessar’s property and confirmed that RFC have not prepared any maintenance report on this property. Ms McKessar asked Mr Finlay to advise whether the windows at her property should have a head flashing. He advised that if there was no flashing when the house was built (35 years ago) but it complied with Building Regulations then, it will still be compliant today. If a window leaks, it must be fixed but the option is to repair “like for like” or bring it up to code. He said without seeing Ms McKessar’s windows, he could not comment further about whether they complied with code and were in working order. Landlord evidence
Ms Smith produced a report recording relevant notes found on various Kotahi notepads (a digital diary/property management system used by KO) since 13 June 2018. Kotahi records interactions concerning the tenancy. This includes telephone calls to KO made by Ms McKessar; meetings held with her; notes made by case managers and other senior housing managers following communications/ and meetings with the tenant; and communications with tradespeople. Ms Smith also produced a report listing all work orders authorised and completed at the premises since 13 June 2018. Taking both reports together, it is possible to identify a complaint raised by the tenant (by telephoning the KO call centre) and then view the corresponding work order. For example, on 13 June 2018 Ms McKessar called KO to report that her mail was getting wet, and the letterbox needed to be repaired or replaced. A work order was authorised the same day and the record shows a replacement mailbox was installed with the job completed on 26 June 2018.
In relation to the specific claims raised by Ms McKessar, Ms Smith referred to the above reports, various property inspection reports completed at the premises and a moisture test report conducted at the premises to support her responses. These were all produced as evidence. Ms Smith also called David Pollak a Senior Project Manager, Special Projects, employed by KO, as a witness.
Ms Smith’s submissions follow.
Bathroom wall: There are no records of Ms McKessar reporting an issue with water running down the bathroom wall. In December 2018, the bathroom was renovated because the dux quest pipes (which were by then recognised as a defective plumbing system) were replaced. This entailed significant work in the bathroom to replace the pipes, walls, flooring, and joinery. On 9 January 2020, the tenant reported a leaking shower rose and subsequently advised KO that she believed there were major plumbing issues at the property. The records show that a plumber was sent to the premises and reported after inspecting the shower and hot water cylinder that there were no issues, although he tightened the shower rose. The reports also confirm that a plumber checking the premises earlier in November 2019 also determined there were no plumbing issues.
Window flashings and windowsills: The maintenance agreement Ms McKessar referred to dated 9 December 2020 has a job reference number and Ms Smith says the job number does not relate to this issue but was to check weatherboards.
However, the Kotahi notes record that Ms McKessar did raise the windows issue. In an email on 10 December 2020, a contractor asked for an onsite meeting with the tenant and KO managers “to manage this customer’s expectations. Customer is frustrated about her house foundation, heat pump not working and a drain at the exterior......The window frames are also swollen which seem to be from a lack of flashings. The current job description is for weatherboards. Supervisor noted that this customer has the probability of becoming difficult. How would you like to proceed?” A subsequent entry records after an on-site meeting that the tenant did not want any work done on the windows that she raised as an issue.
Ms Smith advised that Mr Pollak would give evidence about the windowsills and flashings in more detail. However, KO’s position is that window flashings are not required; that deterioration of windowsills and frames is from condensation and wear and tear; that the condensation problem has likely been caused by the tenant failing to ventilate and use the rangehood. While KO agrees that work should be done to maintain the windowsills and frames, they assess that the windows are not at the end of their life such that they require immediate attention. KO has offered to do the upgrade work anyway, but Ms McKessar will not allow access for that purpose. This is because she believes there are other inherent defects causing leaks that must be remedied first. KO also note that the work will be noisy and take at least 2 weeks. Ms McKessar confirmed that she would not be able to stay at the property while this work is done due to her hearing issues.
Ms Smith produced a Chemdry moisture test report conducted in August 2022 after Ms McKessar continued to make claims about leaks and plumbing issues at the property. The report says: “Talking to tenant..... She also informs me that builders and plumbers have been out in the past However, they have not found anything wrong, but both have made the same comments that something is very wrong with the house but will not say what it is. Tenant is very opinionated on what she thinks is wrong and what should happen. But very difficult to talk to......property.....presents very well and is in a very tidy condition. I have checked over all areas of the property. I am unable to find any moisture readings above 16%....There is, however, multiple window frames (MDF construction) that have swelling to the base plates and the verticals. The damage visible in my opinion looks to be related to a condensation issue, there is slight deterioration on the outside of the window frames. However, given the age of the property this would be a general maintenance repair and not the source of the moisture ingress.” Other comments in the report recommended that a rangehood and HRV heating system be considered and the roof and windows checked by a builder.
A rangehood and heat pump were installed as part of Healthy Homes compliance requirements and KO contractors have determined that the windows and roof are in good working order after multiple visits to the property over the years.
Ground subsidence: Ms Smith confirmed that ground testing was conducted, and the presence of e-coli was within permitted levels. She also presented a drainage plan for the property. She noted that the KO drains and other privately owned drains are connected to the main council-owned sewage pipe running through the property. In that regard, she said sewage issues are Council responsibility and if Council determined that there was any issue caused by the KO drains -Council would have told KO and issued a notice to fix. There is evidence that the ground was checked for subsidence in 2018 with some repairs completed including installation of a new gully surround and topsoil to make the area level. Topsoil has been added from time to time to level ground.
Dirt in the water: Ms Smith notes that water quality is an issue for Wellington Water not KO. Furthermore, KO does not install water filters but did offer to reinstate Ms McKessar’s filter. However, she did not allow access for the work. In any event, the landlord is not responsible for installing water filters.
Carpet: The work orders report shows that the lounge carpet was replaced in December 2018. Ms Smith says that the latest inspection report photos show some minor marks and wear on the hallway carpet. However, the landlord’s position is that the carpet damage is minor and does not need replacing.
Mr Pollak’s evidence: Mr Pollak is a Senior Project Manager, Special Projects, at KO. He is a licensed building practitioner by trade with a degree in business and has owned a rental property company for many years. He visited Ms McKessar’s property on 27 August 2024, and one year prior to that, to investigate the complaints made by Ms McKessar. She was present at both visits, and he talked to her about her concerns. He explained that a property/tenancy will be referred to him when the case manager cannot resolve issues with the tenant. Where a tenant disagrees with trades sent to assess the property and pushes back against the advice of trades, someone specialist is sent to review the case. His evidence is summarised as follows: a. His focus was to assess damp in the house, windows, and water ingress from ceiling; b. He spoke to the tenant about how she lives to determine whether the environment, the building structure, or the way she lives may be contributing to the issues raised. She also explained her concerns. When asked, Ms McKessar told him that she does not open windows during the day because of safety issues, and she does not use the kitchen rangehood because in the past there was an ants nest in there; c. He stated that the house was 34 years old; healthy homes compliant; kept in immaculate/amazing condition by the tenant; no marks on ceilings or walls; wallpaper in great condition, carpets in good condition apart from expected wear; outside ground undulations which are not unexpected and a new roof in the last 6 years; d. He walked around the property with a Zip level to measure floor levels and any ground movement. The zip test is accurate to 1.5mm over 25m distance. Overall, there is subsidence across the house of 10mm, which is well within building tolerances of 20mm and MBIE guidelines of 50mm across a house. He noted that all houses subside but there are no concerns with subsidence at this house; e. He looked at ceilings to see if there were signs of leaks; checked whether there was mould on walls because wallpaper will absorb moisture; checked carpets and the back of furnishings for mould and moisture; checked all windows to assess their make-up and whether leaks around or through the windows; checked the bathroom wall and the exterior weatherboard cladding. f. He found no signs of leaks in the ceiling or water ingress through the windows or bathroom wall. The windowsills were scored, marked and chipped with some mild swelling of the MDF surrounds but not an excessive amount. There were no signs of excessive water ingress. Water will come down walls and break down the board, but this problem was not present. He also confirmed that the exterior cladding overlaps by 60mm and there were no signs of damage where water might enter the walls. There were no signs of mould or moisture ingress on wallpaper, carpets, or furnishings in the house. g. Mr Pollak says that because the house is insulated and has a new roof, it does not “breath” which means that ventilation is necessary to prevent condensation. Mr Pollak concluded that the windowsills and frames have become worn and showing signs of swelling because condensation and wear. h. He explained that normal living activities (e.g. breathing, cooking, showering) will fill a space with moisture. When the heat pump is turned off and the house cools down at night the temperature reaches “dew point.” This means the air cannot hold any more moisture and it converts to condensation or water which will track to the coldest surfaces in the house (windows). The water then pools and runs down the surfaces. i. In summary, he concludes that moisture in the house is condensation caused by Ms McKessar’s failure to adequately ventilate the house because she is not opening windows and is not using the rangehood extractor fan. However, he also said that the windowsills and frames are fit for purpose and do not need immediate repair. KO would look at replacing the MDF bottom sill with solid wood and repainting them to look nicer if the tenant wanted them to do so. However, Ms McKessar has been adamant that there is no point refurbishing the windows until the “leaks” are fixed, and she insists that window flashings are missing and must be installed. j. Window flashings: Mr Pollak explained that there are no window flashings at this property, but they cannot be added and are unnecessary because the windows are hard up against the soffit. There is no room to install a head flashing but also it is not possible for rain to enter the top of the window. Rain would have to travel up from the bottom which is not possible. Because the barge board and gutter falls 20mm below the top of the window, it is also not possible for horizontal rain to enter the top of the window. There are no signs that water is entering at the top of the window because there is no expansion in that area and no mould. This reinforces Mr Pollak’s finding that deterioration of the windowsills and surrounds is because of condensation and wear. k. He also clarified that black cross marks applied to some of the exterior weatherboards recently is evidence that KO contractors have carried out a paint patch test at the property. KO properties are on a 14-year exterior painting maintenance cycle. Contractors conduct a patch test to determine adhesiveness and whether new paint can be applied on top of the existing paint or whether the boards should be completely stripped back first. The black crosses are visual evidence that testing has been completed. The crosses are not an indicator that weatherboards are rotted and require replacement as suggested by Ms McKessar. Although, the boards will be further assessed and replaced if necessary before painting. Discussion and findings
After carefully considering all the available evidence and oral submissions of the parties, I find that the landlord has discharged their maintenance obligations in relation to this property. When Ms McKessar has raised complaints, they have been immediately investigated and reasonable steps have been taken by KO to authorise contractors to determine if repairs are required and any necessary work orders. That conclusion is supported by the extensive Kotahi diary notes and list of work orders actioned over the years.
Mr Pollak’s evidence following his visits to the tenancy with Ms McKessar present is very persuasive in refuting her claims. He is a qualified builder with vast experience in the building and tenancy management sectors. I found that his evidence was thorough, carefully considered, and credible. I accept his expert assessment that the property is reasonably maintained and there are no issues of immediate concern to remedy regarding water ingress and subsidence.
I also accept that KO are not responsible to install a water filter nor for water quality issues and there is insufficient evidence to establish that KO have breached any obligations in relation to sewage pipes and ground subsidence.
For the above reasons, the claims for failing to maintain the property are dismissed. It follows that the application for work orders is also dismissed.
It is evident that Ms McKessar is unhappy in her home and has continued to raise many issues over the years, some of which have been justified, and some not. She is to be admired for her ability to advocate strongly for herself. However, a recurring theme from the evidence presented is that she has little regard for opinions from contractors (with the relevant qualifications) that differ from her own; she is difficult to communicate with; and there is a pattern of her continuing to report and complain about issues that have already been investigated/fixed. This is also the impression she conveyed during the hearing.
If Ms McKessar is unhappy and wishes to be transferred to another home, KO will assist her to do so and will also do their best to find a home that suits her needs. It is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine “appropriate housing” for a tenant or to make directions about the process. However, there has been much said during this hearing about alternative housing offered to Ms McKessar. Therefore, I offer some comment. KO say they have made multiple offers (at least 10) that Ms McKessar has turned down suggesting her requirements are unreasonable. She complains that the housing offered so far is not suitable for her needs. I urge Ms McKessar to understand that she will have to compromise on her housing requirements. Both parties must work together to identify the housing needs that take priority. KO is a social housing provider with limited housing stock and will not be able to accommodate every tenant wish.
If Ms McKessar is to stay at the premises, then she must accept the findings of this decision. In that regard, she needs to ventilate the premises by opening windows and use the heating and extractor fans that have been installed to combat condensation and humidity in the home. She also needs to ensure that she cooperates with the landlord and allows their contractors access for scheduled maintenance as required.
The social housing termination provisions of section 53B RTA have been repealed. 1 However, if Ms McKessar impedes KO from conducting required maintenance, she may well find that they exercise their right to give a 90-day notice terminating the tenancy under section 51(1) RTA 2 which has been reinstated under the recent amendments.

Did the landlord fail to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment?

Ms McKessar claims that her neighbours, also KO tenants, harassed her for a long time and on reporting this, KO did not take reasonable steps to stop the harassment.
A landlord must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA. 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. 1 Repealed on 30 January 2025 by Section 27 Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024 2 Replaced on 30 January 2025 by section 26(1) Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024 Tenant evidence
Ms McKessar’s premises are on a back section with a shared driveway and the neighbours in front of her were also KO tenants. She said that they moved into the property over 6 years ago but problems with them harassing her began around Christmas of 2022. She gave evidence of the following behaviour by these neighbours: a. They were doing burn-outs in their cars on the shared driveway area; often blocked the drive with their cars and parked where not permitted; b. Rubbish was thrown into her backyard; dead mice were placed on the porch and a frozen dead rat was put on her doorstep; rubbish bins were turned over; water and power were turned off to her property; c. A carving, hose and other items were stolen from the backyard and light bulbs taken from the back porch; d. They used abusive, and aggressive language; e. The female tenant (mother of the other occupants) would walk up behind Ms McKessar in the driveway in an intimidating manner, sometimes staring at her and sometimes screaming at her. Some of this behaviour, including being shoved and her walking stick kicked from her, occurred in the local shopping mall. Ms McKessar says when on a bus, she saw the female tenant driving the other way in a car and she appeared to scream at Ms McKessar on the bus; f. They would sit in their cars at night and flash red lights into Ms McKessar’s windows; g. She was sprayed with a hose; On one occasion, the female tenant sprayed her with a bottle of bleach causing her clothes to discolour; h. She believes the neighbours had security cameras trained on her property and were always watching her; i. She reported the behaviour to her KO case managers and made reports to Police; j. She provided photos and some video footage of the neighbours in support of her allegations against them.
Ms McKessar claims that KO did not take reasonable steps to stop the harassment by their tenants. Landlord evidence
Ms Smith referred to the Kotahi notes recording reports from Ms McKessar and steps taken by KO. The first complaint about these neighbours was on 16 November 2022.
The Kotahi Notes show that KO spoke to the neighbours. They also offered to transfer Ms McKessar to another property. She agreed to a transfer but declined several housing offers. KO also installed some film on the windows at the premises to allow Ms McKessar to see out but prevent neighbours from seeing in to give her further privacy.
The neighbours started complaining about Ms McKessar’s behaviour noting that she was taking videos of them on her phone.
Ms Smith said that it was difficult to establish that the neighbours were responsible for stealing things from the property; throwing things onto the property or turning off the power and water because they were not seen doing those things. There was no evidence to establish that they were responsible.
A meeting with Police, KO and Ms McKessar took place on 30 April 2024. Police noted that they investigated her assault complaint against the neighbour but could not take any formal action because there was no evidence to support her complaint. KO advised that they had spoken to the neighbours and obtained their agreement to ignore Ms McKessar and not engage with her. Ms McKessar was asked to do the same and stop taking videos of the neighbours on her phone. However, she refused to stop taking videos of them. This is recorded in the Kotahi notes from the meeting.
Further complaints from both parties continued. KO served breach notices on both Ms McKessar and the neighbours asking them to stop their behaviour towards one another, as they were unable to determine who was causing the problems. Each was accusing the other of harassment. KO also worked on finding alternative housing for both parties.
A new home was found for the neighbours who moved on 21 June 2024. Findings
After carefully considering all the available evidence, I accept that KO took all reasonable steps to deal with the harassment allegations raised by Ms McKessar. However, there was a lack of evidence to enable them to determine that the neighbours were responsible for some of the alleged behaviour. Even the photos and video footage produced at the hearing are not conclusive. The neighbour did flick a water hose at Ms McKessar and there is some “mouthing off” but this is not enough to establish harassment and who is to blame for the situation. Once both parties began complaining about the other, KO took the only reasonable steps they could, which was to breach both parties and warn them to stop their behaviour. They also set about to find alternative housing for both tenants. While a period of some 18 months elapsed between the first complaint and the matter being resolved when the neighbours moved, I am not satisfied KO are liable to compensate Ms McKessar for that delay because it is not clear that she was blameless in the situation. For that reason, the claim against KO is dismissed.
As I explained at the hearing, the claim being dismissed is not to say that Ms McKessar was not harassed by the neighbours, but that there is insufficient evidence for me to find on the balance of probabilities that she was harassed by these neighbours and that KO failed to take reasonable steps to address the matter.
As Ms McKessar’s claim has not succeeded, she is not entitled to suppression of her name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4991748 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 28 Athlone Crescent, Boulcott, Lower Hutt

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4991748 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 28 Athlone Crescent, Boulcott, Lower Hutt

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to maintain the premises?

Did the landlord fail to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to maintain the premises?

Did the landlord fail to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions