What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5083208?

The tribunal order states: Cara Louise Korach and Karl Michael Winslow to pay Dave Cray $244.15 from

How much money was awarded in case 5083208?

Cleaning: $284.05 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $632.00 awarded to tenant; Bedroom 2 Wardrobe: $224.10 awarded to landlord; Walls: $368.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5083208?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5083208?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12087147-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5083208?

The tribunal order states: Cara Louise Korach and Karl Michael Winslow to pay Dave Cray $244.15 from

How much money was awarded in case 5083208?

Cleaning: $284.05 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $632.00 awarded to tenant; Bedroom 2 Wardrobe: $224.10 awarded to landlord; Walls: $368.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5083208?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5083208?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12087147-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12 Rhodes Avenue, Mount Albert, Auckland 1025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5083208 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5083208 — net $244.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning: curtains	$284.05		Carpet Cleaning: curtains
Repairs: walls	$368.00		Repairs: walls
Repairs: bedroom 2 wardrobe	$224.10		Repairs: bedroom 2 wardrobe
Compensation: overpaid water rates		$632.00	overpaid water rates
Total award	$876.15	$632.00
Net award	$244.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$244.15

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5083208 — net $244.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning: curtains	$284.05		Carpet Cleaning: curtains
Repairs: walls	$368.00		Repairs: walls
Repairs: bedroom 2 wardrobe	$224.10		Repairs: bedroom 2 wardrobe
Compensation: overpaid water rates		$632.00	overpaid water rates
Total award	$876.15	$632.00
Net award	$244.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$244.15

Order

Cara Louise Korach and Karl Michael Winslow to pay Dave Cray $244.15 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $244.15 (3454932-013) to Dave Cray immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,435.85 (3454932-013) to Cara Louise Korach and Karl Michael Winslow immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 26 May 2025.
The tenancy was from 16 December 2023 until 26 November 2024. 5083208, 52003512
The tenant claimed for compensation for mould from a leaky roof, breach of quiet enjoyment, excessive water charges, unlawful premise and breach of Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”).
The landlord made a cross-application for water arrears, compensation for lamps replacement, smoke damage to lounge curtains, repainting a wall, bedroom wardrobe damage, rehanging curtains, front entry step damage, and travel and disbursements.
I deal with the tenant’s application first. Mould
The tenant claimed that there was mould in the house and that the roof may have been leaking due to the mould having been found high in the ceiling. The tenant’s twin daughters both got asthma and the tenant believed that they were constantly sick from the mould in the house. The tenant sought $50.00 compensation per week for the duration of the tenancy totalling $2,500.00.
To support the tenant’s claims, the tenant provided photos of the internal walls where it seems to show mould on the walls at the top near the ceiling.
The tenant said that the mould was noticed by the tenant’s cleaners during the exit cleaning. The tenant said that the house smelled musty and was given a dehumidifier by her parents about halfway trough the tenancy for it.
The tenant had no other evidence to prove that there were any leaks in the roof or the ceiling.
The landlord responded by saying that there was no mould in the house when the tenant moved in and that she never raised any mould issues during the tenancy. The tenant had never shown the landlord any mould during inspections.
The landlord had rented the property for over 20 years and there had not been any mould observed during previous tenancies.
The landlord claimed that there was lack of ventilation and airflow by the tenant that has caused mould to grow.
Mould is the joint responsibility of both parties. The landlord must provide the premises free from mould and the tenant needs to maintain the premises so that it does not suffer from mould. If the mould is caused by a structural issue, then the landlord needs to fix the problem that is causing the mould.
In Auckland, it is very common for mould to appear in homes. It does not necessarily mean that the premises itself suffer from mould or has a structural issue. 5083208, 52003513
In this case, the tenant has failed to prove that the premises was suffering from mould.
I dismiss this claim. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant claimed that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
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 (“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.
Specifically, the tenant claimed that the landlord requested the neighbours to monitor the tenant’s activities. The neighbour down the same driveway was the landlord’s own daughter. There was another neighbour who prepared a letter documenting the tenant’s activities to support the landlord’s cross-application which the tenant relied on as proof of request for monitoring.
The tenant also claimed that the landlord unlawfully entered the property without required notice on numerous occasions on the pretence of visiting his daughter down the driveway. The tenant claimed that the landlord engaged with the tenants through windows and inspected the premises.
The tenant says that the landlord harassed the tenants regarding outdoor tobacco smoking and that their visitor who smoked had to go out onto the footpath to smoke.
The landlord disputed this claim and said that he never requested any neighbours to monitor the tenant’s activities. The neighbours were asked to offer comments after the tenant made this claim against the landlord and they commented accordingly.
The landlord disputed the unlawful entry claim and said that he never engaged or inspected through windows at all. The landlord accepted having left a bag of fruit in passing when he was visiting his daughter. The landlord said that when he visited his daughter he would reverse back down the driveway so he would not see much. 5083208, 52003514
The landlord said that smoking issues only came to light after the tenant had vacated the premises and enquiries to the tenant regarding this was only made via email.
I do not find that the tenant has proven these claims to the required standard. There is no evidence of unlawful entry of the premises or breach of quiet enjoyment to the point of harassment. This claim is dismissed. Excessive water charges
The tenant claimed for compensation for excessive water bills totalling $2,252 during the 11 months of the tenancy which the tenant believed resulted from a leak that was first mentioned to the landlord in March 2023.
The water invoices for this tenancy were calculated by working out the main water meter reading minus the sub meter reading.
There was a leak between the premises and the public road which was discovered at the end of April 2024. The leak was repaired by the landlord.
Prior to 7 June 2024, the water meter had not been read and payment for water was based on a “fair usage” calculation. It was calculated by the tenant’s household average used over several months of “post leak repair” and then reconciled with the Watercare estimated invoices pre-leak.
Section 39(3) RTA states that the tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or the tenant’s use of the facilities.
This means that anything that are not exclusively attributable to the tenant’s use cannot be charged to the tenant. Therefore, any water calculation prior to 7 June 2024 cannot be charged to the tenant as it is based on estimated calculation only and not actual usage.
Therefore, the tenant is not liable to pay any of the water rates before 7 June 2024. The tenant is liable for everything after then.
The tenant claimed that post-repair water invoices were still too high. However, there was nothing to prove that the repair had not been done properly by the landlord.
Of the $2,252.00 for eleven months, the tenant is liable for $1,185.00 only.
Having seen the spreadsheet of calculations, I find that there was an overpayment of $632.00 for water by the tenant.
I order the landlord to pay this amount to the tenant. 5083208, 52003515 Unlawful premises
The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises. See section 77(2)(ac) RTA. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
Where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful, it must not make an order for rent arrears or compensation against the tenant unless, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, it would be unjust not to make the order. The Tribunal may order the return of all rent paid by the tenant, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. The Tribunal may also make a work order requiring the landlord to remove any impediment to lawful occupation or to comply with any building, health or safety requirements. The Tribunal may make any of these orders on its own initiative, even if the tenant has not applied for a particular order. See sections 78A(3)(a), (4) and (5) RTA.
If the landlord has applied for termination for rent arrears, and the Tribunal declares the residential tenancy to be unlawful, the Tribunal may order termination, but it is not required to do so. See section 78A(3)(b) RTA.
In this case, the tenant claimed that the premises down the driveway was an unlawful premise. The tenant did not contend that her tenanted premises was an unlawful premise.
The tenant argued that shared rubbish facilities, not being permitted to park in the driveway, having to report the electricity submeter reading, and often being monitored by the landlord’s daughter was all part of the issues related to the premises down the driveway being an unlawful premise.
I do not find that the tenant has standing to make the application for another house being an unlawful premise. If she was tenant of a supposedly unlawful premises, this claim would have been considered.
The Council has already been made aware of this allegation and was investigating at the time of the hearing. However, I do not find that the shared rubbish facilities and non-parking in the driveway are issues that are even enough for consideration for a loss of use claim.
This claim is dismissed. Breach of HHS
The tenant claimed that the premises was not compliant with HHS. 5083208, 52003516
Breaching the HHS compliance 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 1A RTA.
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) RTA.
The tenant had obtained an HHS report dated 11 August 2023 from the previous tenants.
The premises had passed the heating and ventilation requirements but had failed in insulation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage.
The HHS report noted: Insulation: The ceiling glass wool + polyester insulation has a thickness of 160 mm compared to a required thickness of 120mm. However, the insulation needs tidying/patching and top-up in some areas if required. The insulation must be placed uniformly thought the ceiling. The underfloor polyester insulation installed has an assumed R-value of 1.5 compared to a required R-value of 1.3. Draught stopping: There are multiple noticeable gaps around windows or doors which could cause draught into the property. Must seal all the draught failures to be compliant. Refer to the report for exact draught locations. Moisture ingress & drainage: The ground moisture barrier is exempted from the requirements due to low working height. All gutters, down pipes and drains, are sufficient for all storm and groundwater. However, gutter observed to be blocked by plant debris and moss which can potentially cause the gutter to leak. However, gutters need general flushing and cleaning.
The landlord said that work had been done to rectify the minor issues raised in the HHS report from August 2023 before this tenancy began in December 2023. The landlord did the work himself.
It is not ideal that the landlord does not have an updated HHS report confirming that the work that he had done to rectify the issues were enough to satisfy HHS compliance. However, given that the issues raised in the HHS report were minor, I do not find that the premises was in breach of the HHS to the state of 5083208, 52003517 requiring an order for compensation or exemplary damages even if they had not been rectified to the required standard.
The landlord should take this as a warning and ensure that there is objective evidence of HHS compliance for the next tenant. Landlord’s cross-application
I now turn to the landlord’s cross-application. Water arrears
The landlord’s water arrears claim is dismissed for the reasons outlined above. The tenant was not responsible to pay for the period before the water meter reading took place. Lamp replacements
The landlord claimed for lamps replacements at the cost of $299.00.
The tenant says that there were 2 that were not working which were noted already in the inspection report as requiring maintenance but the landlord claimed that there were 4 that were not working by the end of the tenancy.
There was no evidence of any sort by the landlord to prove on the balance of probabilities that there were 4 lamps that were not working at the end of the tenancy.
I dismiss this claim. Lounge curtains
The landlord claimed that the lounge curtains were damaged by the tenant or the tenant’s guest having smoked cigarettes.
The landlord claimed $284.05 for getting the curtains washed.
Given that the tenant had raised issues with where the cigarettes could be smoked and close proximity with the footpath out the front, I find it more likely than not the curtains required cleaning from cigarette smells.
I grant this claim. Repainting wall 5083208, 52003518
The landlord claimed $368.00 to repaint a wall in bedroom 2. The landlord provided final inspection report along with photos and invoices for the damage on the wall which was more than fair wear and tear.
I find that the landlord has proven this claim to the required standard.
I grant this claim. Wardrobe damage
The landlord made claim for damaged wardrobe in bedroom 2.
The photos proved that the wardrobe had been damaged and was beyond reasonable wear and tear.
I award the landlord $224.10 which is the value of the wardrobe that had been damaged after depreciation.
I do not grant any compensation for delivery and installation which was calculated to be more than the actual flatpack wardrobe itself. I do not find those amounts to be reasonable. Bedroom curtains
The landlord claimed for $74.75 for rehanging curtains in bedroom 2.
The tenant said that the curtains were never hung properly and they were just sitting on the rails and never fixed to it.
The tenant said that the cleaner had taken it off entirely and was left just sitting on the corner of the room against the wall.
The landlord could not rebut this.
I am not satisfied that the curtains were hung properly in the first place. I dismiss this claim. Damage to front entry steps
The landlord claimed that there was damage to the front entry concrete steps.
The tenant claimed that it was general wear and tear.
I could not find that there was evidence of the concrete steps being anything more than general wear and tear.
I do not find that the tenant or anyone at the address with the tenant’s permission had carelessly or intentionally damaged the steps. Other costs 5083208, 52003519
The landlord claimed for travel and disbursement costs. I do not find the costs reasonable given the limited claims that I have granted for the landlord.
I do not grant any other awards for the landlord.
As neither party has wholly nor substantially succeeded with their applications, I do not make an order for reimbursement of the filing fees.
As neither party has substantially succeeded with the claim, I find no reason to suppress any details regarding this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5083208 — Property damage at 12 Rhodes Avenue, Mount Albert, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5083208 — Property damage at 12 Rhodes Avenue, Mount Albert, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions