How much money was awarded in case 5307940?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,427.14 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $385.71 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $214.29 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5307940?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5307940?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13281630-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5307940?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,427.14 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $385.71 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $214.29 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5307940?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5307940?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13281630-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

26 West Harbour Drive, West Harbour, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5307940 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5307940 — net $2,555.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for cleaning	$250.00	Compensation for cleaning
Compensation for flea infestation	$250.00	Compensation for flea infestation
Compensation for FTM 17/2 – 7/6/25	$1,427.14	Compensation for FTM 17/2 – 7/6/25
Compensation HHS 8/6 – 16/6/25	$385.71	Compensation HHS 8/6 – 16/6/25
Compensation for 19/8 – 28/8/25	$214.29	Compensation for 19/8 – 28/8/25
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$2,555.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,555.14

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5307940 — net $2,555.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for cleaning	$250.00	Compensation for cleaning
Compensation for flea infestation	$250.00	Compensation for flea infestation
Compensation for FTM 17/2 – 7/6/25	$1,427.14	Compensation for FTM 17/2 – 7/6/25
Compensation HHS 8/6 – 16/6/25	$385.71	Compensation HHS 8/6 – 16/6/25
Compensation for 19/8 – 28/8/25	$214.29	Compensation for 19/8 – 28/8/25
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$2,555.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,555.14

Order

1 Uno Property Management Limited as agent for JK WHD Ltd must pay Jaroslava Nicole Vastagova $2,555.14 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionTenant Compensation for cleaning $250.00 Compensation for flea infestation Compensation for FTM 17/2 – 7/6/25 Compensation HHS 8/6 – 16/6/25 $250.00 $1,427.14 $385.71 Compensation for 19/8 – 28/8/25 Filing fee $214.29 $28.00 Total award$2,555.14

Reasons

Ms Vastagova attended the original hearing on 20 December 2025 for herself. 2 1 The original order dated 20 December 2025 ordered release of the full bond to the tenant. In fact, the Bond Centre had already released the bond to the parties pursuant to an agreement between them. The original order is recalled, and the order is amended to omit the order for release of the bond. 2 She did not attend the rehearing application hearing on 13 March 2026. See para 69 below.
Marcus Wong and David Liu of Uno Property Management Limited attended for the landlord.
The tenant claims: a. The landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, including in respect to a flea infestation. 3 b. The landlord failed to comply with the HHS standards for insulation, drainage, and draught. 4 c.The landlord failed to provide and maintain the premises to a reasonable state of repair. 5
For remedy, she seeks exemplary damages and compensation. Background and issues for determination
The tenancy began on 8 February 2025 and was for a fixed term that due to end on 7 August 2025. However, the tenant did not fully move in until about 17 February 2025 and remained for a further month beyond the intended end date.
The tenant had recently returned from overseas with her partner and children aged about four years and one year. They lived in cramped conditions with the tenant’s family on their return and were keen to find their own home.
The tenancy was an unhappy one from the outset. The tenant and her family could not move in on 8 February 2025 because the landlord could not provide the keys until a couple of days later on 10 February 2025 when after a locksmith rekeyed the locks.
Then, the tenant found the premises were infested with fleas and considered they were not reasonably clean. The tenant used flea bombs, and the landlord had the premises professionally fumigated. The tenant delayed her move in until 17 February 2025. However, there were still fleas for more than a week afterwards.
By June, the tenant was experiencing mould and damp issues that were affecting her children’s health. The tenant says: 6 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 45(1)(a). 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 45(1)(bb), Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. 5 RTA, s 45(1)(b). 6 Tenant’s application dated 6 August 2025. By June, severe mould began growing on 25th of June inspection was done but nothing was said about mould so I emailed them but was ignored. On July 3rd, [the property manager] dismissed the mould as grass or ventilation-related - only taking me seriously after I sent photos. I hired an independent inspector, and on July 9th, the home officially failed the Healthy Homes Standards. My children have been constantly sick, and my 1- year-old has secondary mould exposure. Multiple unprofessional visits followed, with Amber bringing the same builder who faked moisture tests and did poor repair work without our agreement. Repairs were substandard, and the draughts, and cold remain. Despite paying $600/week, we’re still sleeping in the living room as of July 22nd.This property has failed its legal responsibilities. I have submitted medical, photos and emails as evidence. I am seeking a full bond refund and compensation for the uninhabitable conditions and the suffering caused to my family...
Uno has over time accepted the premises had defects and has remedied them and compensated the tenant to some extent. The property manager eventually emailed the tenant apologising for the problems: 7 I want to sincerely apologise for what you and your family have been going through. I understand the situation and I’m truly sorry for the impact it has had on your home life. ...At the moment, I’m in discussions with the owner about a rent reduction for the period affected... ...could you please let me know when the mould issue first started? This will allow us to and do the calculation accordingly of the period of rent reduction.
The landlord has given the tenant a 9-day rent rebate to reflect that the tenant’s move- in date was delayed by 9 days, compensated the tenant $150.00 for excess power use due to draught and cold, and credited her with a 50 per cent rent reduction for the period 17 June to 18 August 2025, to a total of $2,700.00.

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

The tenant claims that at the start of the tenancy, among other things, the walls were dirty, the carpet was smelly, and the blinds were covered in fly spots. Also, the tenant discovered, the house was infested with fleas.
She reported the issue to the landlord on 10 February. The next day, 11 February, the property manager suggested the tenant flea bomb the house with six flea bomb cannisters. The same day she attended the premises with a pest controller who professionally treated the premises. 8 7 Email dated 16 July 2025. 8 Invoice Green Idea Services dated 11 February 2025 for $250.00.
The tenant returned to the house the following day, on 12 February 2025, but finding the fleas were still active, the tenant and her family had to delay their move in.
The property manager contacted the pest control contractor to make contact with the tenant. On 17 February she advised the tenant: They mentioned that the thing that they spray will last for 3 months and that if fleas come into contact with the medication, they will be killed. The process will take about a week.
The tenant finally moved in on 17 February, but she says there were still fleas. The entire family slept in the living room because it had less fleas than the bedrooms. The tenant mentioned “they are still reappearing” in an email to the landlord on 24 February 2025. Legal principles
Landlords landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. 9
“Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard an objective bystander would consider was reasonably clean. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, hotel or motel standard.
It is the overall standard of cleanliness of the premises that matters. One or two isolated areas of minor uncleanliness does not mean the premises are not reasonably clean overall.
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the onus is on the tenant to prove the premises was not provided reasonably clean. Discussion
The tenant and all her family helped her clean. Her father is a qualified heat pump contractor and professionally cleaned the heat pump. Her mother, who has been a professional cleaner, provided professional cleaning assistance.
The property manager and the tenant separately filled out a property inspection report. The report includes about 50 pages of photographs. The property manager filled out the tick-box section of the report on about 5 February 2025. The tenant did so on about 22 and 27 February 2025. The property manager assessed the premises as reasonably clean. However, the tenant considered they were not. The landlord’s many 9 RTA s 45 photographs do not indicate the premises was less than reasonably clean, but the photographs’ resolution quality is poor, so they do not greatly assist.
I find it more probable than not that the premises was reasonably clean for the most part. I am satisfied however that the heat pump was not reasonably clean and that the carpets were not reasonably clean given the presence of fleas and the necessity to use chemicals to exterminate them.
I also accept that there were still fleas in the house when the tenant eventually moved in. They were likely to active no later than about 3 March 2025, one week after the tenant reported on 24 February 2025 that fleas were still active. Remedy
I order the landlord to compensate the tenant $250.00 for the cleaning.
There was still flea problem despite the pest control contractor’s efforts commencing 11 February. The tenant eventually moved in properly on 17 February but was still contending with fleas until about 4 March. As a reference point, loss of amenity at 15 percent for that 16-day period between 17 February and 4 March would be $205.71. The tenant also paid for flea control but did not keep the invoices to prove the amount she spent. Having regard to the reference point and that the tenant incurred other expenses to control the fleas, I order and $250.00 for loss of amenity for the flea problem.
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. 10
I am not satisfied that the landlord intentionally failed to provide the premises reasonable clean. The failure to check the cleanliness of the heat pump was probably an oversight. The property manager took many photographs to support her assessment of the premises being reasonably clean and the premises does appear from them to be reasonably clean for a premises of this type and age.
The tenant believes the property manager knew the premises was infested with fleas prior to the tenancy commencing, but I do not find that probable. If the property 10 RTA s 109(3). manager had known of the fleas, it is likely she would have had the premises treated immediately before the infestation got worse.
Because I am not satisfied that the cleanliness breaches were intentional, exemplary damages are not available.

Did the landlord fail to comply with HHS?

In respect to her HHS claim, the tenant states: The property was required to meet Healthy Homes compliance by 1 June 2025, but it has failed to do so twice now. An assessment confirmed that the property does not meet the required standards, particularly in relation to heating and insulation. As a result, the house remains excessively cold, especially in the bedrooms, which are too cold to safely sleep in. Due to these conditions, my children and I have been forced to sleep in the living room, which is the only area we can keep warm. This ongoing situation has led to frequent illness among my children and significant disruption to our daily lives. The landlord’s failure to comply with legal obligations under the Healthy Homes Standards has created an unhealthy and unsafe environment for my family.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires landlords to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. The regulations set out minimum standards for heating, insulation, moisture ingress and drainage, ventilation, and draught stopping.
Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repair. 11 However, Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 12 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation...
Breaching any of these obligations intentionally is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 13 41. Discussion
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For private rentals, the compliance dates are: 11 RTA, s 40(1)(d). 12 See n 5. 13 RTA s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A. a. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or b. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. c.All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
In this case, the premises’ compliance date was 120 days after 8 February 2025, so the premises had to comply by no later than 7 June 2025.
Some years earlier, the landlord had commissioned an HHS assessment. Healthy Homes New Zealand assessed the premises for compliance on 3 June 2022. It issued a report dated 15 July 2022, which found that the premises fully complied with the HHS.
However, the tenant commissioned her own HHS inspection which was carried out by Affordable Energy Solutions who reported on 9 July 2025 that the premises did not meet the HHS for: a. Insulation: some sections of insulation had fallen down and needed to be put back in place. b. Drainage: guttering at the back of the house was blocked with debris and weeds and a downpipe at the front of the house had broken. c.Draught: the lounge windows had excessive gaps that required draught seals.
The landlords responded by completing repairs as follows: a. Insulation: repaired by about 16 July 2025. b. Drainage: fixed on about 16 July 2025. c.Draught: fixed on 26 July 2025.
Following completion of the repairs, the landlord commissioned its own new HHS report which was conducted on 30 July 2025 by Healthy Homes New Zealand. Its report dated 31 July 2025 found that the issues identified by the tenant were no longer present. However, it identified that the sleepout downpipe discharged water onto the ground next to the sleep out and water was pooling on top of the ground moisture barrier.
Healthy Homes New Zealand issued a second report dated 28 August 2025 that confirmed that the premises now fully complied.
To their credit, the landlord has responsibly accepted the house was not HHS- compliant and has brought the house into compliance and provided some compensation to the tenant. Remedy
The landlord has already compensated the tenant for the period that it believed the tenant was impacted at the rate of 50 per cent of the weekly rent. The Tribunal needs to consider whether further compensation should be ordered.
The tenant found the experience of damp and mould and its impact on her children distressing. One particularly traumatising event for her was finding mould in her infant’s cot. She said in an email to the property manage on 9 July 2025: I only lived here for couple of months and had so much issues and mostly was only using one room in this 3 bedroom house. This was my sons mattress [a photo showing mould- infused bedding was attached] had to get rid of literally everything...
I consider the 50 per cent rate of compensation was apposite for the period compensated for (17 June to 18 August 2025). However, the tenant should also be compensated for the period 8 June (the HHS compliance date) to 16 June 2025. I order compensation at the same rate for that period, which amounts to $385.71.
The landlord itself also uncovered the other HHS issues not picked up by the tenant’s HHS assessor that impacted the main house and the sleepout. Those issues were not resolved until 28 August 2025. I also order the landlord to compensate the tenant for this later period between 19 and 28 August 2025 at the lower rate of 25 percent of the weekly rent to account for the substantial compliance already achieved.
The landlord relied on its 2022 HHS report. The previous tenants had not reported any problems with the premises. I am not satisfied that the landlord intentionally breached the HHS. Therefore, exemplary damages are not an available remedy.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

The tenant’s claims also raise the more general obligation that landlords have to maintain the premises. Legal principles
Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1969 (RTA), landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) ... (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes...
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 14 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: 15 “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, 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, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be...” Discussion
The fact that segments of floor insulation had fallen down, the gutters needed cleaning, and some of the windows allowed in draft were not only HHS issues but also maintenance issues. That means that even though the compliance date for the HHS was 8 June 2025, the premises were not in reasonable state of repair even prior to the compliance date.
In addition to those issues, the tenant claimed that one of the second bedroom’s walls was leaking and the wall surfaces of the bedrooms, especially the master bedroom were bubbling up due to moisture. The landlord submits that although there was moisture on the wall it came from dampness within the house and there was no water ingress from the outside of the house. The landlord’s contractor inspected the roof and found there was moss on the roof tiles but that the tiles were not leaking. 14 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. 15 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15].
The tenant believes the landlord is being disingenuous about the presence of a leak. She produced at short video of the landlord’s contractor using a non-invasive moisture testing device. In the video the tenant videos on her phone the contractor’s testing and the moisture readings. At one point the electronic gauge registers a “red” result and the contractor appears to quickly move the gauge to another spot. While that is happening, the tenant is issuing instructions to the contractor calling his testing into question.
The contractor’s actions appear evasive, but the commentary and videoing made for a tense exchange in which the contractor behaved reactively. More significantly, I cannot conclude from the video the central matter in dispute, namely that the wall was leaking. There is a lack of evidence in that regard. Mr Wong submitted that the dampness of the wall and ceilings was likely due to humid moisture within the room’s atmosphere being attracted to the coolest parts of the walls and ceilings.
Mr Wong suggested that the tenant may not have ventilated the premises adequately. In that regard, two adults and an infant slept in the master bedroom, so the moisture levels were liable to be higher in that room. However, the tenant denied failing to ventilate the premises adequately and there is no proof that she did not.
The evidence does not satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that the bedroom wall was leaking. It is more probable there was no leak but the combination of missing insulation, draft, and possibly water trapped in the guttering would have contributed to high moisture levels and mould.
I find that from the beginning of the tenancy, the premises was not provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair. Remedy
The mould and damp problems became acute in June. However, it is likely that the premises was colder and damper than it should have been prior to then.
It is appropriate to order compensation for the period from the time the tenant moved in on 17 February to the HHS compliance date of 7 June 2025.
I set the tenant’s loss of amenity for that period at 15 percent of the weekly rent. The amount awarded is $1,427.14.
Again, I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair intentionally. The issues were of a kind that could be easily overlooked and the property manager’s prompt response to being told about the issues or discovering them suggests that the landlord proactively addressed maintenance issues when it became aware of them.
Therefore, exemplary damages are not an available remedy. Filing fee
The landlord must reimburse the tenant for their filing fee. 16 Bond – further hearing held
In its original order directed the Bond Centre to return the bond to the tenant. However, the Bond Centre had already released the bond in accordance with an agreement between the landlord and the tenants.
The tenant applied for a rehearing evidently wanting the Tribunal to order the landlord to pay the bond amount. Such an order would be inappropriate. The Tribunal’s order for release of a non-existent bond can have no effect. It was made because the parties did not provide the Tribunal with accurate information.
Amber Chen and Mr Wong attended a video hearing before me on 13 March 2026 and explained the situation. The tenant did not attend. The hearing proceeded in her absence. However, the tenant earlier submitted an email from the Bond Centre confirming it had already released the bond.
The Tribunal’s original decision is amended to remove the order for release of the (non- existent) bond. The Tribunal granted the rehearing. I rehear the matter to amend this rather basic error. 17

Tenancy Tribunal case 5307940 — Healthy homes at 26 West Harbour Drive, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5307940 — Healthy homes at 26 West Harbour Drive, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

Did the landlord fail to comply with HHS?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

Did the landlord fail to comply with HHS?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions