What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5028668?

The tribunal order states: The application for compensation is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5028668?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5028668?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5028668?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11238532-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5028668?

The tribunal order states: The application for compensation is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5028668?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5028668?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5028668?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11238532-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

349 Adelaide Road, Newtown, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5028668 — Mould & damp

Order

The application for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Billing and Ms McEwen representing the landlord.
The tenancy commenced on 11 November 2022 for a fixed term expiring on 9 November 2023. The tenancy was then renewed for a further term until 7 November 2024. It has now rolled into a periodic tenancy.
The tenants have filed an application seeking work orders and compensation in respect of various issues and specifically claim that: a. The gutters were not cleaned at the start of the tenancy; b. The premises are freezing and draughty; c. There is poor quality silicone around the bath which quickly develops mould; d. There are rotting skirting boards and peeling paint in parts of the house; e. The ceiling in the living room is damp and mouldy; f. The extractor fans are ineffective g. The sash windows are too heavy to open; h. There is an external power cable hazard.
The tenants claim that the landlord has not addressed the above issues and the tenants want the problems fixed.
At the hearing, the landlord maintained that they have addressed all issues raised by the tenants and says that in respect of some issues, they have not been notified of the exact problems by the tenants until shortly before these proceedings were filed. However, at the last hearing, the landlord agreed to investigate and repair as necessary some items recently raised by the tenants and some issues raised at the hearing. In that regard, I made work orders by consent in my decision dated 28 November 2024 (“the interim order”) which should be read in conjunction with this decision.
In this decision, I consider whether the issues raised by the tenants should have been addressed by the landlord sooner and whether the tenants are entitled to compensation for a failure to maintain the premises and comply with Healthy Homes Standards.
The tenants also seek compensation for unlawful entry and interference with privacy by the landlord or their contractors. Has the landlord failed to maintain the premises and comply with Healthy Homes

Standards?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) in relation to the following provisions: a. Under section 45(1)(b) to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; b. Under section 45(1)(ba) to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 (SAI); and c. Under section 45(1)(bb) which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants claim that the landlord is in breach of the standards regarding draught-stopping, ventilation and moisture ingress and drainage.
The above SAI and HHS obligations may be summarised as follows: Insulation
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zone 2 (Wellington). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions 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. Ventilation
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. Draught-stopping
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. Moisture ingress and drainage
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.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Except for insulation which is subject to an earlier compliance date, the HHS provides that a landlord must comply with the HHS standards by the applicable compliance dates which for this tenancy was 120 days after the tenancy start date. Regulation 6(2)(d) HHS also provides that in addition to complying with the HHS by the due dates, the landlord must ensure that all installed or provided things—are maintained in good working order; or if they cannot be maintained in good working order, they are replaced within a reasonable time.
In relation to any general failure to maintain the premises including things provided as part of HHS requirements, it is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation is to investigate and repair a defect brought to their 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) of the Act. 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. The tenants’ claims
At a routine inspection on 17 September 2024, the landlord’s property manager noticed mould and mildew on the walls and ceilings in the kitchen and bathroom. The property manager discussed this with Mr Silva, at the time advising that he would need to clean the areas and ventilate the areas to prevent mould occurring in future. The manager says Mr Silva advised that he was not willing to clean the areas because he claimed it was not the tenants’ responsibility; he also advised that while they used the extractor fans, they did not open windows in the winter and refused to do so because it was too cold. This resulted in the landlord issuing the tenants with a 14-day notice on 18 September 2024 to clean the mould off the ceilings and walls. They also referred the tenants to a link from Tenancy Services on ventilating, cleaning, and reducing moisture in properties to prevent mould.
The tenants were very upset about the notice as they believe they have taken all reasonable steps to keep the premises clean. They immediately advised the landlord in an email dated 19 September 2024 that they disputed that the mould was caused by any failure on their part. They believe mould occurred because the premises are freezing cold and draughty due to the landlord’s failure to ensure the premises are adequately insulated, have adequate means of ventilation and are free of draughts. They claimed to have raised these issues with the landlord previously and say their concerns were not addressed. They made demands that the landlord attend to remedial work and pay compensation to the tenants for the unjustified breach notice and outstanding maintenance issues.
There were several exchanges between the parties. The landlord’s view is that they had addressed all repairs and maintenance items raised by the tenants during the tenancy but that they had not been notified of the issues now raised by the tenants. The landlord also states, and I accept on the evidence, that the property was fully compliant with the HHS standards at the start of the tenancy as detailed in the Healthy Homes Compliance statement attached to the tenancy agreement.
Ms Billing met Mr Silva at the premises on 2 October 2024 (“the 2 October inspection”) so that they could walk through the property together and he could point out any issues. This resulted in Ms Billing sending the tenants an email on 4 October 2024 recording the maintenance issues raised by Mr Silva and the issues she noticed. She confirmed that she had sent work orders through to the landlord’s contractors who would be in touch to arrange access for the work. She asked the tenants to confirm that the letter recorded what had been discussed and whether any items were missed.
The tenants replied by email on 4 October 2024 requesting copies of previous work orders done at the property to prove it complies with HHS and advising that they would respond to her letter once that information was provided. The tenants were dissatisfied with the landlord’s subsequent responses and lodged this application.
I deal with each of the specific claims raised by the tenants. Gutters
The HHS compliance statement attached to the first tenancy agreement recorded that a gutter clean was required and there was a leaking downpipe that needed to be fixed before the tenancy start date. The tenants claim that the gutters were not cleaned until September 2024.
There is no evidence that the tenants complained about the gutters being blocked at all during the tenancy, and they only raised this as an issue in an email to the landlord on 26 September 2024.
The landlords provided evidence that the compliance statement about the gutters was based on an HHS assessment report completed for the property on 21 June 2021 which recorded that “Gutters have plants growing in them and are leaking at the downpipe connection along the alleyway”. The landlord then raised a work order with their contractor dated 26 October 2021 to clean the gutter at the premises. While they could not provide an invoice for the work, they believe the work was completed before the tenancy started. The landlord also produced a property inspection report with photos completed on 9 February 2023, three months after the tenancy started, which records that the gutters were clean.
The landlord also provided evidence of other work done during the tenancy on the roof and gutters. Some roof repairs including replacing a downpipe and roof flashing was completed on 4 April 2023; work to locate and fix a leak from the chimney into a bedroom wardrobe was fixed in April 2024; and work to clear a blocked downpipe was done in early September 2024.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord has maintained the gutters and downpipes throughout the tenancy and is in not in breach of their obligations. Therefore the claim for failing to maintain the gutters and downpipes is dismissed. Freezing conditions and draughts
The tenants complain that the house is “freezing cold” during the winter due to air leaks from doors and windows. They say that they reported this issue to the landlord by email on 16 October 2023. The email they produced is a response to the landlord’s enquiry about whether they wished to renew the tenancy. The tenants replied saying they had two concerns: First about lack of carparking and secondly, they stated: “....our house’s insulation is not adequate, making it difficult to stay warm during the winter season. These two factors have become increasingly problematic for us. Due to these concerns we are actively looking for a place with off-street parking and improved insulation to ensure a more comfortable living environment, particularly during the colder months.”.
The tenants indicated that they would prefer a periodic tenancy in those circumstances. Subsequently, they advised Ms Billing in an email dated 6 November 2023 that they would sign a renewal for a further fixed term of one year and asked : “Additionally, we would like to address another matter that would greatly improve our living conditions. The heating in our home has been somewhat inadequate, particularly during the colder months. To enhance the comfort of the property, we kindly request that you consider upgrading the heatpump in the living room to a higher capacity unit. We believe this would significantly improve the warmth and coziness of our living space.”
The landlord produced an email they sent the tenants on 21 December 2023 which reads: “I believe you had some questions are [sic] heating and insulation at the property as finding cold in winter. I can confirm that there is adequate heating as requires 7.7kW heating device for living room and an 8kW heatpump was installed here in October 2022 before you started your tenancy. With insulation this is also compliant and where it should be, a top up ceiling insulation was also done in March 2022 before your tenancy started.”
The tenants say they told the landlord verbally at inspections during winter 2023 that they were finding the house “freezing cold” but the landlord just kept responding that the house complied with HHS. The landlords say that the tenants only ever asked about heating and insulation (as shown in the above emails) which comply with HHS and the tenants never mentioned issues with draughts and ventilation until it was raised in emails sent by the tenants between 19-26 September 2024.
Ms Billing gave evidence that she checked all windows and doors for draughts at the 2 October inspection by running her hand over the areas and checking curtains for movement from draughts in Mr Silva’s presence. Ms Billing agreed to address some draughts identified during the inspection which included a window in the front left bedroom and a draught coming through the lower area of the front door. These items have been included in the previous interim order.
The tenants produced photos of other areas in the house taken a few days before the hearing which they say show gaps causing unreasonable draughts. The tenants say there is a gap between the window frame and the wall in the dining room, a gap in the exterior back door off the kitchen, and a gap between the skirting and the wall in the hallway, which might also be rotten. Ms Billing says the dining room window frame and the back door were not raised by Mr Silva at the 2 October inspection. However, she agreed to check those areas and it is included in the previous interim order. I accept Ms Billing’s evidence that the hallway skirting is not rotten and there is no gap allowing in a draught, but the paint has cracked at the join between the wall and the skirting. She says she discussed this with Mr Silva at the inspection and they both agreed it was not an issue.
I find that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the tenants specifically advised the landlord about gaps and draughts at the property prior to their emails between 19-26 September 2024 and the 2 October inspection and some items were only raised at the hearing. The landlord has agreed to investigate and repair gaps and draughts as necessary and as set out in the previous interim order. In that regard, I consider they are addressing those matters within a reasonable timeframe after being notified.
I am satisfied on the evidence provided by the landlords that they have carried out extensive work since 2021 to ensure that the premises comply with all HHS standards. Of course, normal wear and tear means that maintenance work will be required from time to time. For the most part, a landlord relies on tenants to report issues during the tenancy. The landlord is also required to check for any issues during regular inspections, but some things may not be obvious unless raised by the tenant. In this case, once made aware of some draughts at the property, the landlord has taken steps in a reasonable timeframe to address the issue.
I am also satisfied on the evidence that the premises comply with the HHS standards regarding heating and insulation as evidenced by the compliance statement attached to the tenancy agreement and work orders produced by the landlord showing the work completed since June 2021 to bring the premises up to the required standard.
In summary, I find that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the landlords are in breach of their HHS obligations regarding draughts and the claim is dismissed. Rotting skirting boards, peeling paint & wet ceiling in living room
The tenants claim other issues may be contributing to the “freezing cold’ condition of the house and accumulation of mould from time to time. However, there is no evidence that these specific issues were raised prior to the inspection on 17 September 2024 and/or before the tenants’ emails to the landlord between 19-26 September 2024. Some items were also not raised until the hearing.
The tenants say that there are rotting skirting boards in places in the hallway and a rotten door frame in the living room. Ms Billing says she checked the hallway at the 2 October inspection, and it was not damp or soft, but just cracked paint as detailed above. The tenants did not raise any issue with the living room door frame until the hearing. However, the photo produced appears to be cracked paintwork, not rot.
The tenants produced photos at the hearing showing peeling paint on walls in the dining and living areas which they say is because of damp walls. Ms Billing says this was not discussed at the 2 October inspection and she had not seen the photos prior to the hearing. There is no evidence that the tenants raised this issue prior to the hearing. She noted that the lounge wall area was covered by a couch hard up against the wall at the 2 October inspection, and there was a trestle table in the dining area with cooking equipment on it, all of which may be contributing to moisture and mould in the house.
In relation to complaints of peeling paint in bedroom 2, both parties acknowledge that there was a leak from the chimney into this room in April 2024 which was fixed. Ms Billing says the peeling paint and paint chips is a cosmetic issue only and not deemed necessary by the owner to remedy.
There is paint peeling on the bathroom ceiling which Ms Billing says is also a cosmetic issue, but they are obtaining a quote to repaint it. They will need a clear week to do the work so that it has time to dry.
The tenants claim that the living room ceiling looks wet, covered in mould and the skylight glass is at risk of collapsing. They sent some photos of the living area to the landlord with an email on 19 September 2024. The tenants confirmed when asked at the hearing that no water is leaking through the skylight and no other leaks or water ingress is apparent elsewhere.
Ms Billing says that she has previously checked with the owner who has confirmed that there is an old watermark on the ceiling near the skylight from a previous leak which has been fixed. Also the skylight is clear plastic not glass and there are no signs that it might collapse. Given that there is no report of water leaking in this area by the tenants she says that there is no issue. The watermark is a cosmetic issue.
Ms Billing’s strong opinion is that the mould evident on the kitchen and bathroom ceiling at the inspection on 17 September 2024, is because the tenants failed to open windows and doors to ventilate the premises sufficiently. She says that when she visited on 2 October, it was a sunny, windy day and all the doors and windows were closed with the heat pump running.
After carefully reviewing all the available evidence, I find that there is insufficient evidence to prove that there are leaks or issues with rotten boards at the premises indicative of some defect with the premises for which the landlord is responsible. There is also insufficient evidence to prove the landlord has breached their ongoing maintenance duties. The evidence establishes that the landlord has complied with HHS and has also been appropriately responsive to any reported maintenance either from the tenants or from their own observations at inspections. On the evidence, I find that many issues were only raised by the tenants recently (from 17 September onwards) or at the hearing. The landlord cannot be found liable for failing to fix defects that they have not been clearly notified about, and before they have had a reasonable opportunity to investigate the matters and any remedial work required.
I also find that it is likely the mould in the kitchen and ceiling has occurred because of a failure to ventilate the property enough. Therefore, the 14-day notice was justified. However, I consider that the tenants have not fully appreciated the need to control mould through heating and ventilation (ventilation being the most important) in winter. The tenants cleaned the mould after the notice was issued and the landlord said they have no ongoing concerns about the tenancy and how the tenants are looking after the property. They just need to be mindful of this issue.
The claims of leaks, dampness, or defects with the premises regarding moisture ingress are dismissed. Ineffective extractor fans
The tenants claim that the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen do not provide adequate ventilation and they reported this to the landlord on 10 November 2024, just prior to the hearing.
Ms Billing provided an email dated 14 November 2024 from the contractor sent to assess the oven and the range hood at the property. He stated that it was running correctly.
Ms Billing also produced evidence that in response to the tenant reporting that the heat lamp in the bathroom had blown, a contractor was sent to replace the lamp on 13 November 2023. The invoice for the work records “Attended site and replaced blown heat lamp. Rewired switches so that fan comes on with heat lamps. Tested all ok.”
Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the extractor fans are working and there is no evidence presented by the tenants to prove the extractor fans are inadequate. The claim is dismissed. Poor quality silicone around the bath
The tenants say that the silicone around the bath has been replaced by the landlord several times during the tenancy, but mould develops quickly after it is applied. They say the landlord has failed to provide a proper solution despite the tenant raising the issue multiple times.
The landlord’s evidence shows that the landlord has replaced the silicone at their cost during the tenancy with work orders issued on 20 February 2023, 29 April and 27 June 2024. I accept that silicone is an appropriate remedy. Ms Billing contends that mould will occur on silicone unless the area is cleaned regularly on at least a weekly basis. Despite the landlord’s claim that the tenant may not be ventilating and cleaning the bathroom enough, the landlord has replaced the silicone at the landlord’s cost on request.
There is insufficient evidence to prove that mould on the silicone is developing because of a defect with the premises or failure by the landlord to seal the bath with appropriate materials. I consider the landlord is not in breach of their duties to maintain in this area and the claim is dismissed. Heavy sash windows
The tenants notified the landlord in their email of 26 September 2024 that the sash windows are too heavy to open, preventing proper ventilation. Mr Silva says that when he mentioned this, the landlord suggested using two hands, which Mr Silva says is not a reasonable solution. Mr Silva only reported at the hearing that the dining room sash window cord is broken.
Ms Billing says she opened every single window at the 2 October inspection without difficulty. In some areas, the tenants have placed furniture in front of the windows which makes them more difficult to open but they are otherwise fine. She agreed that the broken cord will be fixed, now that it has been reported, and this is included in the previous interim order. She also agreed to have a contractor check the other windows.
I find that the landlord has agreed to check the sash windows in a reasonable timeframe and there is no breach by the landlord of their obligations in that regard. I also comment that sash windows can be tricky to open, and it does take two hands to open them. However, I would not consider that to be a defect. The claim is dismissed. External power cable hazard
On 23 June 2024, a contractor from Contact Energy attended the premises after a power outage. The tenants said that he advised them that the external power cable was corroded and posed a serious safety risk. Mr Silva reported this to the landlord on 24 June 2024 and the landlord advised that she would talk to the owner and see if an electrician could check it. However, no action has been taken. At the inspection on 17 September 2024, Mr Silva reminded the property manager about this because the landlord had not addressed the hazard.
Ms Billing made enquiries with the power supply company and provided correspondence received from them. Emails from the power company state that the technician attending the property found no issues on the network side but when inspecting the customer-owned service line, he noticed that the point of entry may have contributed to the internal fuse blowing. As a goodwill gesture, the technician replaced the internal fuse at the premises to restore power quickly. The power company stated in an email to Mr Silva on 1 October 2024: “While we are unable to definitively say what caused the issue, from the information we have received, it is possible that an internal wiring upgrade.... may be beneficial for your property.”
The power company confirmed in an email to Ms Billing on 25 November 2024 that that if the technician had any health and safety concerns where there was a danger to life or person, he would not have restored the power supply as was done, and he only provided the advice he gave as a recommendation.
The landlord accepts that they said they would investigate the issue on 25 June 2024 and failed to do so.
I accept Ms Billings submission that had there been a serious issue or hazard and the technician thought it wasn’t safe, he would not have reconnected the power. Therefore, she says that it is not something that the landlord considers needs to be addressed. However, if there was an outage again, they will send an electrician. She notes that there have been no problems since the outage in June.
I am satisfied that while there was a delay in responding to the tenant’s concern, there is no proved defect or serious safety risk as alleged which the landlord needs to address. Therefore, I make no work orders and the claim is dismissed. Has the landlord interfered with the tenants privacy and/or unlawfully entered the premises?
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) RTA.
A landlord must also not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
The tenants complained in an email to the landlord on 19 September 2024 that on multiple occasions the landlord or the landlord’s contractors have arrived at the property without giving prior notice. They gave an example of Ms Billing rescheduling a visit because of illness. She emailed on 2 October 2024 advising that she was back at work and could do an inspection that day. She then turned up at the premises before the tenants had seen the message and given their consent. They let her in but complain about the lack of warning. They say that contractors often do the same thing by turning up and knocking on the door to fix things without prior notice. They have often let them in.
Ms Billing explained that she turned up on 2 October because the parties had been in discussions about the issues that have led to these proceedings. She felt it was a matter of urgency and was concerned to respond to the tenants complaints as soon as possible. However, she acknowledged that the tenants are entitled to strict compliance with the notice provisions in the RTA.
As discussed at the hearing, the landlord should ensure they give clear instructions to the contractors about notice and give the correct notice themselves under s48 before attending at the premises. If the landlord or their contractors turn up without giving the correct notice, the tenants are not obliged to allow entry. However, if they do allow entry, they are deemed to have given consent.
The landlord has raised an issue that on occasion the tenants have been contacted directly by contractors to organise access and the tenants have refused to arrange a time because they have not been informed by the landlord about the contractor in advance. The tenants also complain that when the landlord raises a work order and sends them a copy, it is not clear what work is being done. When the tenants ask the contractors, they sometimes cannot tell them in detail. The tenants are frustrated at what they perceive as a lack of clear communication about who is instructed to attend the property and what repairs are to be carried. The parties discussed this in detail at the hearing. The landlord explained that when they send a work order to their contractors, they also message the tenants with a brief summary of the work order generated by their Tapi system. It only shows a heading with a limited word count, so it might not convey all the tasks listed. For example, the work order message to the tenants might simply say “Various Jobs” or “Replace heat lamp in bathroom.” However, the landlord has advised the tenants that they are welcome to contact the landlord for a full explanation or copy of the work order. Once the work order is sent, the landlord’s contractors will usually contact the tenants direct to arrange access for repairs.
I consider that while there may have been some unannounced visits, the tenants have generally allowed entry which amounts to consent. They have now put the landlord on notice, that they find this disruptive and an interference with their privacy. I am satisfied that the parties know each other’s position regarding the work order process and access for contractors.
While there may have been a breach of the strict notice requirements under s48 and interference with privacy, I consider it is not to the extent that justifies an award of compensation. If the problem persists in future, then the situation will be different. The claim is dismissed. General comments
The tenants complained generally about the landlords failure to fulfil responsibilities, lack of communication and professionalism. However, given that I have dismissed all claims for compensation I find that these complaints are not justified or are not matters that amount to a breach of the RTA for which there is a remedy I can impose. For example, the tenants complain that the landlord does not give detailed feedback after an inspection. A previous manager took the time to do so. They felt that Ms Billing’s comment to them that “no news is generally good news” was not satisfactory. However, Ms Billing explained that they must prioritise so that generally tenants will only receive feedback if something needs attention.
There have been misunderstandings about the work order process and how contractors arrange access.
The tenants also complain that the landlords sometimes do not check in with them after work is done by contractors to make sure they are happy. Ms Billing explained that once a work order is completed and they are invoiced, they trust the work has been done unless tenants notify them otherwise. This may not be a prefect process but that is generally how they work.
Overall, the tenants feel that the landlord’s communication could have been better. The landlord may feel the tenants have not understood the extent of each party’s obligations.
While I consider that there were no breaches by the landlords to justify compensation, there was certainly value in both parties airing their grievances and having work orders made by consent. Hopefully there is now a better understanding between the parties following discussions at the hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5028668 — Mould & damp at 349 Adelaide Road, Newtown, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5028668 — Mould & damp at 349 Adelaide Road, Newtown, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions