What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5317337?

The tribunal order states: Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay Natalie Veronica Czikk

How much money was awarded in case 5317337?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317337?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317337?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13086670-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5317337?

The tribunal order states: Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay Natalie Veronica Czikk

How much money was awarded in case 5317337?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317337?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317337?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13086670-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

37 Cadman Avenue, Greenlane, Auckland 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5317337 — Mould

Order

Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay Natalie Veronica Czikk $250.00 immediately as general damages for breaching the Healthy Homes and Standards insulation standard.
The tenants’ following claims are dismissed: a. Fail to provide premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, b. Fail to maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair, c. Breach of Healthy Homes draught-stopping, and moisture ingress standard, d. Breach of quiet enjoyment.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Campbell attended on behalf of Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities.
The tenancy began on 22 November 2024. A case conference for this hearing was held on 8 October 2025 and at that case conference issues relating to this claim were discussed. Since that case conference the tenancy ended on 8 January 2026. Because of the end of the tenancy, Ms Czikk is no longer seeking a work order.
Ms Czikk made the following claims which were pursued at today’s hearing: a. Fail to provide premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, b. Fail to maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair, c. Breach of Healthy Homes insulation, draught-stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage standards, d. Breach of quiet enjoyment. Preliminary considerations Burden of proof
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these standards is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. That means the party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the burden of proof. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging the is burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
Ms Czikk claims Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) by not providing the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy, and by not maintaining the premises in a reasonable state of repair during the tenancy.
Breaching these obligations 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Fail to provide premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness
Ms Czikk said that at the beginning of the tenancy the windows were mouldy and dirty and there was lichen growing on the gutters. She produced photographs which show dirt on the inner surrounds of some windows, (this is only visible when the windows are open) a photograph she says shows mould and rot in one of the window sashes, another showing lichen growing on a small portion of the guttering, and another showing a window-sill with paint and dirt scrapings on it, (which is the result of Ms Czikk scraping the inside of the sashes.
Although Ms Czikk referred to mould in the photographs, I do not see anything that appears to be more than dirt. Ms Czikk’s photograph of the lichen speaks for itself: Lichen was present on an elevated piece of guttering on the exterior of the house. I consider this minor; it is rarely visible, let alone noticeable, and it causes no detriment to Ms Czikk.
Mr Campbell referred me to photographs from the in-going inspection report. These photographs show an older style state-house (Mr Campbell said built in the 1930’s) that has been freshly renovated. I consider the presentation of the house to be of a very high standard. Mr Campbell said that following the end of the previous tenancy which had lasted approximately 30 years, a complete renovation and refit had been undertaken at a cost of $75,000.00.
Having seen the photographs from both parties, I am not persuaded that at the start of the tenancy the premises as a whole were not provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy.
This claim is not proved.
I am now going to address Ms Czikk’s claims for breaches of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019, and then return to her claim of failing to maintain the premises during the tenancy later. Healthy Homes Standards Insulation
Ms Czikk claims Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities have breached their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Ms Czikk considers Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities’ has failed to comply with the HHS insulation, draught stopping and moisture ingress and drainage standards.
Breaching these standards is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A). Insulation
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
Ms Czikk says that during the tenancy experienced the bathroom to be very cold and subject to a lot of condensation. In August 2025 an electrician attended the premises and took a photograph of the ceiling cavity which showed there was no insulation over the bathroom area.
Mr Campbell said that on 3 July 2025 Ms Czikk reported excessive condensation, and Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities subsequently sent tradespeople who confirmed the missing insulation. New insulation was installed above the bathroom on 25 July 2025. On making a final check however on 28 July 2025, Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities’ noticed there was also some insulation not sitting completely flat over the bedroom due to an “upstand”. A work order was created and the work was completed on 26 September 2025.
I note that the Ms Czikk’s and Mr Campbell’s dates don’t align, but I consider this to be of little consequence.
Ms Czikk said that despite the new insulation being installed, the problem with condensation did not change.
Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities has breached the HHS by not having insulation installed correctly above the bathroom, and perhaps also above the bedroom. In doing so they have committed an unlawful act.
This claim is proved.
Mr Campbell said that the previous tenancy had been a very long-term tenancy and that between that tenancy and this, there had been an extensive amount of work conducted at the premises. The landlord said the insulation was moved when a repair was made to the extractor fan, and the insulation was not replaced. As such the missing insulation was inadvertent and an oversight.
I accept Mr Campbell’s explanation on this.
The extent of this breach is not great; it was not a large proportion of the house that went without insulation, and as the tenant said, replacing the insulation did not change the condition inside the house subsequent to it being replaced.
In considering whether or not exemplary damages are warranted, I have considered the case of Peter Stoekeken v Nykala Toheriri and Vince Aso [2022] NZDC9698. The dispute in that case included a claim for exemplary damages after the landlord had rented the premises with an electrical wire exposed. The District Court accepted the landlord did not know the wire was exposed and confirmed the following: “Section 109(3) of the Act requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the unlawful act was committed intentionally by the person who committed it before exemplary damages can be awarded.”
Because the landlord had not known a wire was still exposed, the District Court found that exemplary damages were not open to be awarded against the landlord.
Following that case, I find that exemplary damages are not available against Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities in this case as they had taken all reasonable steps to ensure insulation was in place.
I do accept however that however small an impact the lack of insulation made to the levels of condensation in the house, it would have undoubtedly had some effect. I determine the tenant should be compensated for this and I award general damages of $250.00 for this. Draught stopping
The draught stopping standard requires residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
Ms Czikk said she first noticed draughts at the property in May 2025. She complained to the landlord about the draughts in June 2025.
In support of this claim, Ms Czikk produced one photograph that shows the exterior of one window. I do not consider there's anything to suggest the gap that is visible in this photograph is not compliant with the draught stopping standards.
Mr Campbell said that prior to the tenant moving in a healthy homes assessment report was completed and the window and door gaps were assessed as being compliant with the HHS.
Mr Campbell said the first complaint regarding draught stopping was received on 17 June 2025. The landlord sent a tradesperson around who put draught stopping strips around the windows, on 30 June 2025. Mr Campbell said they believed that following this work being done the problem had been resolved.
Ms Czikk said that on 2 September 2025 she commissioned a HHS report from a company called Oncore. The tenant said this report drew attention to draught stopping strips being needed around two doors.
Mr Campbell said on 14 October 2025, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Housing Service Manager, an Asset Manager and a Supervisor from the company that undertook work for Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities. A room by room assessment was undertaken and a report was written. The report notes that draught stopping strips have been well installed and there are no noticeable draughts.
The issue that I believe this claim discloses is that no two “experts” assess the same property in the same way. I accept that Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities were actively involved in trying to provide a fully compliant premises to Ms Czikk. Ms Czikk continued to find fault with the property. Whether this was justified or not is a matter for me to decide. I must weigh any expert’s evidence against any other expert’s evidence. And importantly I must be presented with photographs or information than someone else’s opinion, that I can base my determination on.
On the information provided to me, I am not persuaded this property breached the draught-stopping standard.
This claim is not proved. Moisture ingress and drainage standard
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.
Ms Czikk produced a short video which showed a portion of gathering that is dripping. The video is taken during the rain and clearly water is not being drained down at the down pipe. The right of dripping, although heavy, it's still a drip. The tenant
The tenant also produced a photograph showing some water having pulled on a window sill.
Mr Campbell said with regard to the drip from the gutter that a trades person attended on the 26th of March and sealed the end cap. Presumably the end cap to the guttering had not been sealed properly in the first place.
Ms Czikk said that the leak had evidently been going on for some while because the concrete beneath the leak was damaged.
I am not persuaded the leak from the end cap is significant enough to amount to an unlawful act. In my view the leak is very minor; no water enters the house because of it, no flooding is reported because of it and no harm was reported as a result of it.
Ms Czikk said the water pooling on the windowsill was the result of condensation rather than any leak. I am not persuaded this is a case of moisture ingress.
The claim regarding moisture ingress and drainage is not proved. Claims for compensation
Ms Czikk sought compensation for a number of costs associated with the breaches of healthy homes standards. The costs are as follows: a. Statue; $62.00, b. Dress; $119.00, c. Tables; $273.98, d. Four doctors’ charges at urgent care; $120.00, e. 14 July call out, haemoptysis; $145.00 f. 28 July call out, blood pressure; $145.00 g. Healthy homes report, 2nd September: $205.85.
The first three items off this list, the tenant says she discarded because of moisture damage. A photograph was produced that showed the nest tables and from the photograph they did not seem damaged at all. The tenant said the tables were 50 years old and the finishing was damaged. If these were valuable assets, I would be surprised that they would be disposed of prior to a replacement being confirmed.
Ms Czikk said the dress had to be discarded after taking it out from a wardrobe and discovering it was covered in mould, and the statues began to show signs of deterioration due to moisture.
No photograph of the damaged dress was produced.
I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that any of these three items had to be disposed of because of moisture at this premises.
A photograph of the statues was produced, that showed some marks on tissue paper. It is not clear what has happened or what the cause of. Again, if the statues were valued items, I would consider it peculiar to throw them out because of what appears to be their condition in the photographs.
In the first instance I am not persuaded the property suffered from unusually high moisture levels, and second, none of these claims persuade me that damage has been caused by moisture as a result of a breach of the HHS.
This claim is not proved. Doctor’s expenses
In support of the claims for doctors’ expenses, the tenant produced letters from the doctor which refer to “mould identified on photographs, condensation scene and windows, photographs door gaps, significant photographs, water pooling and bathroom and bedroom ledges.”
The letter continues under the heading “Assessment” by saying “Significant draughts and cold and rented property due to lack of insulation and issues with lounge door. Draughts throughout home. Coughing up blood possibly related to environmental factors mould draughts. I have concerns for Natalia's health and safety.”
I am not persuaded by these comments as the information before me regarding this assessment is that the doctor was relying on Ms Czikk’s opinion, in order to form that opinion. The doctor’s conclusion about the property are therefore simply a restatement of the Ms Czikk’s own views regarding the property.
The Tribunal makes its own determinations of fact based on the first-hand information provided during hearings. This information does not gain more weight by repetition.
As stated above there has been insufficient information produced today to prove breaches of the HHS except for insulation being absent from above the bathroom.
Having heard the tenant’s views and seen her photographs, seen the Oncore report, heard the views of the landlord, seen the landlord’s photographs, seen the report from the Housing Support Manager who attended with an Asset Manager and the Spencer Henshaw contractor, I am not persuaded there was any significant problem of mould, nor any significant draught problems caused by a breach of the HHS, nor moisture ingress caused by breaches of the HHS. The only photograph produced that could resemble mould is of the inside edges of the window sashes and frames, but I am not persuaded this is more than dirt.
Whatever conclusions the doctor has drawn about Ms Czikk’s environment is not supported by the information presented to me by Ms Czikk and the landlord today.
I note also that there was no complaint from Ms Czikk about the HHS heating standard.
I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that Ms Czikk’s health problems were caused by breaches of the HHS at this property.
The claims for doctors’ expenses are not proved. Tenant’s Healthy Homes Report
Ms Czikk is seeking compensation for the healthy homes report she commissioned.
Ms Czikk says she commissioned this report because she no longer believed Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities’ report that the premises was compliant with HHS.
The Oncore report which the tenant produced is dated 29 August 2025 and raises two issues; one being lack of compliance with insulation and the other being lack of compliance with draught stopping. No commentary is included in the report on either issue, but I note that by 29 August 2025 the lack of insulation above the bathroom had already been remedied and draught- stopping strips had been placed around the windows. This indicates to me that at most the tenant’s report raised potential draught-stopping issues around two doors, (that the landlord had assessed as not needing further draught-stopping) and insulation to be re-positioned over a two square metre area above a bedroom.
In my view, these are both minor issues. Whether the draught stopping was needed at all in my view is not proved.
Mr Campbell said they had not been notified by the tenant that they were engaging Oncore, and so they were unable to engage with the tenant more around this.
I am not persuaded the tenant commissioning the Oncore report is one that can reasonably be charged back to the landlord, and I decline to order that it be so. Fail to maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair
Ms Czikk says Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
Ms Czikk says at the beginning of the tenancy three problems came to light. They were: a. A circuit breaker in the distribution board burnt out, b. There was no TV aerial, c. The wiring in a socket and the pantry was exposed.
Mr Campbell said when they were notified of these issues, they had the circuit breaker replaced, they installed a TV aerial and they fixed the wiring and the pantry socket straight away. The landlord said that often tenants do not request TV aerials anymore, but if one is requested, they provide it.
These three issues could be categorised as teething issues that are common at the start of a tenancy. The information before me is that the landlord acted on them quickly and fully. I do not consider these problems were sufficient to amount to an unlawful act.
Ms Czikk said across the whole tenancy there were approximately 30 call outs for maintenance, which amounts to about one call out every two weeks. The reason for these call outs included difficulty closing the living room door, the toilet seat being loose, the toilet seat coming off, an outside drain being blocked, the lounge window cracking, window putty needing painting, roof guttering needing repairing, carpet needing checking, difficulty closing a kitchen window, the heat pump not working, draught stopping issues with windows and doors, removing privet bushes from the kindergarten boundary, dining room window jamming, trees touching power lines, and other matters.
These matters involved an issue arising, Ms Czikk logging the job and Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities responding to the her request.
Ms Czikk’s argument is that the premises were in such poor condition that she had no option but to constantly seek remediation.
The photographs of the premises from the start of the tenancy and the nature of the jobs do not persuade me this was the case. Many of the jobs appear to have been such that they could have been addressed in the course of a quarterly inspection but for Ms Czikk calling Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities and requesting immediate action.
I am not persuaded the Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities’ conduct counts against the condition of the premises, so much as in favour of Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities’ conduct in responding to Ms Czikk’s requests for action. Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities proved to be available and responsive to job requests, no matter large or small, at short notice for the duration of the tenancy.
I am not persuaded the landlord has failed to maintain the premises.
This claim is not proved. Breach of 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.
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.
Ms Czikk claims that the repeated need for Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities to attend to maintenance issues amounted to a breach of her quiet enjoyment.
Ms Czikk also referred to one occasion on which she looked up to see a person with their face against her window. She believed this to be a Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities tradesperson as there was a trade vehicle out the front.
Mr Campbell said that tradespeople attended without first making an appointment, but only if they were not successful in making an appointment with the tenant. Mr Campbell said there was no record of a tradesperson attending Ms Czikk’s address on this date.
I consider it somewhat likely this person was a Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities tradesperson who had not been able to contact Ms Czikk by telephone. If so it was poor conduct to behave in such a way. But this does not amount to a pattern of behaviour such as to amount to harassment, and nor do the rest of the call outs, which as I understand it, were in response to job requests from Ms Czikk.
This claim is not proved.
Because the bulk of Ms Czikk’s claims have not been proved, I do not order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317337 — Mould at 37 Cadman Avenue, Greenlane, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317337 — Mould at 37 Cadman Avenue, Greenlane, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions