What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5379183?

The tribunal order states: Willie Poynter and Rick Poynter must pay Camila Antonia Fachinetti Fuenzalida

How much money was awarded in case 5379183?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379183?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379183?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13560915-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5379183?

The tribunal order states: Willie Poynter and Rick Poynter must pay Camila Antonia Fachinetti Fuenzalida

How much money was awarded in case 5379183?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379183?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379183?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13560915-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1385A Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, Kumeu, RD 2, Kumeu Tenancy Tribunal Case 5379183 — Mould

Order

Willie Poynter and Rick Poynter must pay Camila Antonia Fachinetti Fuenzalida $1,306.29 immediately for her loss of amenity in the premises.
The landlords must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by qualified professionals by 3 July 2026: a. Carry out an HHS inspection with particular attention to be given to possible water ingress into the ceilings and whether insulating the ceilings is practicable. If water ingress is found, the landlords must repair the issue. If the insulating the ceiling is practicable, the landlords must insulate the ceilings. b. Investigate and test the water pump and water supply system for any potential faults that may cause the pump to trip off. If any faults are discovered, the landlords must repair the faults.

Reasons

I heard this claim on 7 May 2026 at the Waitakere District Court.
All the parties attended the hearing. Background
The premises’ house is a circa 1960’s two-bedroom cottage with board and vertical baton cladding, terracotta roof tiles, wooden joinery, and sloping skillion rooves. The location is semi-rural, and the section is more than two acres. The landlords live nearby and maintain the grounds and the house.
The tenancy began on 14 August 2025 and is continuing. The rent is $480.00 per week.
The landlords have rented the cottage out from time-to-time over the last 15 years to about seven different tenants without issue. The landlords are handy and do much of the maintenance themselves. The photographs indicate the house has been reasonably well maintained and is generally in a reasonable condition.
The house has a skillion ceiling. Typically, skillion rooves are exempted from the requirement that ceilings are insulated because they have no appreciable cavity between the internal ceiling lining and the exterior roof. However, Mr Poynter devised a solution: He installed a “false” ceiling underneath the existing ceiling to create a cavity large enough for insulation to be installed. (More on this later).
When the tenant moved in and shortly afterwards, a variety of maintenance issues arose. The most pressing issue was mice or rats in the new ceiling cavity. The rodents must have been there for some time because there were many droppings in the cavity, some of which fell from ceiling gaps into the bedroom, kitchen, and other places. The tenant says the premises’ water pump regularly cut off. The tenant also notified the landlords about other various other issues including bathroom leaks, the hot water cylinder failing, a ceiling leak, draughts, and shower issues.
Mr Poynter promptly attended the premises to fix these problems himself or occasionally instructed professionals when the landlords considered greater expertise was required.
However, the tenant considers the landlords should have instructed professionals more often, including for pest control, and says Mr Poynter failed to clean up properly after doing work, and has not effectively eradicated the pest droppings and odour.
The tenant highlight that not only did she have to deal with the repair and maintenance issues but also had to endure many intrusions from the landlords and their contractors to fix the issues and ongoing loss of amenity and inconvenience.
On 25 October 2025, the tenant issued the landlords with a “7-day” notice stating: Dear Rick and Willie, After numerous attempts to resolve this issue in good faith according to the tenancy law, I am writing to let you know that you are in breach of your responsibilities as a landlord by: •Not maintaining the property up to the healthy homes standards. •Failing to keep house free from pests, draughts and mould *before and during* tenancy.
The issues for determination are: a. Did the landlords fail to provide the premises in a reasonable clean condition? b. Did the landlords fail to maintain the premises? c.Did the landlords comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) for insulation, draught stopping, and water ingress? d. Should the Tribunal make work orders?

Did the landlords fail to provide the premises reasonably clean?

The tenant claimed the landlords did not provide the premises reasonably clean. In particular, she says in the days after she moved in, she had to clean pre-existing mould, spider webs, and rodent droppings.
Under s 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), landlords must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
“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, commercially clean, or hotel standard. It is the overall standard of cleanliness of the premises that matters. One or two isolated areas of minor uncleanliness do 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.
There are no texts or written communications from the tenant at about the beginning of the tenancy complaining about the premises’ cleanliness. The landlords instructed a professional property management company to let the premises. The letting agent took photographs of the premises shortly before the tenancy began for advertising purposes, which indicated the premises was reasonably clean. The landlords say the letting agent mentioned to the landlords that there were some cobwebs in the house, which they removed before the tenancy began.
The tenant inspected the house twice before the tenancy began, but did not notice any signs of rodents on those occasions. The tenant soon after moving in became aware that rats or mice droppings, but I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that there were any visible droppings inside the house at the time the tenancy began.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the premises were not reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlords fail to maintain the premises?

Legal principles

Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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 such known defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. The author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 1 1 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. 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: 2 “...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...”
Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord of damage to the premises, or of the need for any repair promptly after they discover the damage or disrepair. 3 Notwithstanding the tenant’s duty to notify, Landlords have an independent obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 4 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...
If a landlord breaches their duty to maintain the premises, the Tribunal may order compensation; and if the failure is intentional, exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 5 Pest problem
Prior to the tenancy beginning, mice or rats made a home for themselves in Mr Poynter’s improvised insulation cavity. The tenant became aware of the rodent’s presence soon after she moved in and told the landlords who were unaware of the infestation until then.
The landlords promptly responded by blocking possible entry points, laying bait, and employing an ultrasonic pest repelling device.
The tenant has not seen any mice or rats within the house but says rodent droppings have fallen from the ceiling cavity including onto the kitchen counter between 23 October and 18 December. The tenant says has continued to smell the droppings. 2 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 3 RTA, s 40(1)(d). 4 See n 1. 5 RTA s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A.
The landlords eventually removed the insulation with the intention of eliminating the droppings, but the tenant still reports an odour. Mr Poynter’s theory is that the smell probably emanates from the LDF ceiling panels which emit a urine-like odour when damp.
After Mr Poynter removed the insulation, the ceiling panels became less secure, and several panels fell down, much to the tenant and the tenant’s mother’s chagrin. Mr Poynter has since devised a better method to secure the panels.
The landlords have taken decisive steps to address the rodent issue. I do not consider they failed to maintain the premises by electing to carry out the eradication themselves. They have lived in the country for many years and are well schooled in pest control techniques. Further, they successfully eradicated the rodents that had been living in the ceiling. Water pump
The tenant says that the water pump has been intermittently cutting out one or twice per week.
The landlords have had the pump thoroughly looked at and no fault could be found.
Notwithstanding that, since the tenant reports ongoing problems, I am going to make a work order that the landlords instruct their contractor to further explore the issue. Other maintenance and repair issues
The tenant experienced a variety of other repair and maintenance issues. Early in the tenancy, the toilet floor was damp due to an external leak and the washing machine tap dripping onto the floor, affecting the adjacent wall and leading to the toilet door not closing properly. The landlords promptly addressed those issues.
The tenant also reported she was experiencing excessive draughts, which the landlords addressed by installing additional draught seals. The tenant complained about the shower not draining sufficiently and the shower mixer was leaking. The landlords fixed those issues within a reasonable time.
The landlord’s say they remedied an historical leak near the front entrance due to a guttering defect that was caused the ceiling to sag. Assessment
I am not satisfied that the landlords failed to maintain the premises. Repair and maintenance issues arose. However, the landlords responded in a timely way.
The resolution of the pest control/roof insulation issue has been lengthy, but the protracted time was due to the complications attendant on meeting the tenant’s concerns. The landlords’ repairs were carried out within a reasonable time in that context.
Although the landlords are not in breach of their repair and maintenance duties, the tenancy contract has an implicit term that the premises will remain in a reasonable state of repair. The landlords were in breach of that term because of the pest control problems and other issues.
I assess the tenant’s loss of amenity in the premises at 15 per cent of the weekly rent for the period 14 August to 18 December 2025. That is $72.00 for a period of 18 weeks and one day. The total amount is $1,306.29.

Does the premises comply with the HHS?

The tenant claimed the landlords did not comply with the HHS for insulation, draught stopping, and drainage and water ingress.
Under s 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 landlords must insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. 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.
In this case, the landlords provided an HHS assessment from a professional contractor that assessed the premises as exempt from the requirement to insulate. Mr Poynter used his ingenuity to solve the impracticability of insulation, but he removed the insulation at the tenant’s request because of the pest infestation.
I am not satisfied the landlords are in breach of their insulation duties. However, the landlords should revisit whether they can reinstall insulation now the pest issue is resolved.
The tenant reported draught issues. The landlords were unaware there were any draught problems but addressed the draughts by installing further window seals.
There was a roof leak which bowed the ceiling near the front entrance. Once again, the landlords were unaware of the leak but addressed it promptly once they became aware of it.
The water ingress and draught stopping were in substance maintenance issues which the landlords addressed. The landlords’ HHS report assesses the premises as compliant.
I am not satisfied that the landlords failed to comply with the HHS beyond technical and transitory non-compliance due to having to address maintenance and repair issues that had arisen due to ordinary fair wear and tear.

Should the Tribunal make work orders?

The tenant says the pump that supplies water to the premises cuts off once or twice per week. The landlords have had the pump taken away and thoroughly checked. They surmise the tenant is not opening and closing off taps correctly as a pump system requires. The tenant insists she is using the taps correctly.
I have the power to make work orders under s 78(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am going to order the landlords instruct their contractor to investigate this issue again to identify the cause of the problem and (if any fault can be identified) fix it.
It is not entirely clear that insulation is impracticable now that Mr Poynter has contrived a solution to the skillion roof problem. Further, given there was some evidence of dampness in the ceiling, I consider the possibility of undetected water ingress should be thoroughly investigated.
I am also going to make a work order that the landlords investigate those issues and remediate them if required. Filing fee
I make no order for the filing fee because the tenant has succeeded in her claim only in part. The success of the parties in the proceedings is shared equally.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379183 — Mould at 1385A Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, Kumeu, RD 2, Kumeu

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379183 — Mould at 1385A Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, Kumeu, RD 2, Kumeu

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlords fail to provide the premises reasonably clean?

Did the landlords fail to maintain the premises?

Does the premises comply with the HHS?

Should the Tribunal make work orders?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlords fail to provide the premises reasonably clean?

Did the landlords fail to maintain the premises?

Does the premises comply with the HHS?

Should the Tribunal make work orders?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions