What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5446812?

The tribunal order states: The claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5446812?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5446812?

The primary dispute was Mould. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5446812?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13409650-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5446812?

The tribunal order states: The claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5446812?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5446812?

The primary dispute was Mould. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5446812?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13409650-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 3, 36 Leighton Avenue, Waiwhetu, Lower Hutt 5010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5446812 — Mould

Order

The claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has claimed that: a. The landlord has breached Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). b. Failed to provide the property in a reasonable state of cleanliness. c. Failed to maintain the premises including: i. Failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair. ii. Failure to fix flickering bedroom lights, sink plug and sink leak. iii. Failure to fix a piece of trim in the pantry. iv. Failure to replace an oven seal. v. Failure to repair/replace windows vi. Hot water vii. Other people using the tenant’s car park. viii. Lawn trimming too short. ix. Water-stained curtains. d. The tenant also claimed: costs relating to preparing for the hearing, the filing fee and name suppression.

Has the property failed to meet Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenant has claimed that the landlord failed to provided premises that meet HHS. She referred to various problems that have arisen since the tenancy began 8 March 2024.
As explained in the hearing, it is important to distinguish between HHS and maintenance obligations. HHS is about building requirements for rental properties regarding ventilation, moisture ingress, heating, insulation and draught stopping. A building that meets HHS at the start of a tenancy may need maintenance during a tenancy to keep the property up to HHS. The fact that a building needs maintenance regarding ventilation, moisture ingress, heating, insulation and draught stopping during a tenancy, does not mean that the landlord has breached its obligation to meet HHS.
In the present case the evidence shows that the building met HHS on 28 April 2021 when it was inspected by Simon Gibbs, trading as Efficient Homes. The landlord indicated in the tenancy agreement that the property was HHS compliant. During the tenancy there have been maintenance issues, some relating to HHS. Whether the landlord met maintenance obligations will be addressed in this decision.
The tenant has not provided a report from a HHS inspector that shows the premises failed HHS. She has provided evidence that the building required maintenance to keep it HHS compliant. The landlord submitted that all HHS maintenance necessary has been completed and a further HHS inspection shows the premises remains HHS compliant.
The tenant has provided insufficient evidence to prove that the premises provided for rental, was not HHS complaint. Failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair. (Section 45(1)(a)&(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986)
The tenant referred to the aluminium windows in most rooms not being in a reasonably clean state, mould stains on the curtains, visible stains and mould on several walls, particularly in the toilet area, and an unclean toilet exterior.
The tenant provided photos of the aluminium window frames taken eighteen months after the tenancy began. She said the photos showed the frames in the same condition they were when the tenancy began. In her words in the hearing she said, “I never touched those windows”.
There is a difficulty with this evidence. The tenant is relying on photos taken too long after the event. It is well known that single glass windows in aluminium frames cause condensation and mould if not cleaned. The tenant’s claim that the frames are no different from when the tenancy began and that she had not cleaned them assumes that the frames had not caused condensation that increased mould in the tracks.
The text and email messages the tenant provided do not assist her with this claim either. On 25 March 2024 the tenant emailed the property manager stating that she, “only began officially living in the apartment today”. In the email she mentioned, flickering lights, a kitchen sink leak, the wrong sized plug for that sink, plumbing, curtains, nails and holes in the wall and ceiling damage/mould. Although she identified many concerns about the premises on moving in, she did not mention the state of windows/frames. Looking at subsequent texts and emails this was not raised until the application to the Tribunal eighteen months after the tenancy began.
The tenant also provided photos taken in October 2025 of mould stains and peeling paint. Her email of 25 March 2024 refers to ceiling “damage/mold”.
Following the email to the landlord on 25 March 2024, the property manager responded the same day thanking the tenant for getting in touch and asking if he could go to the property to check things out the next day. Despite other emails/texts to the landlord after the landlord’s visit, there is no further request from the tenant about mould stains on the curtains, visible stains and mould on several walls, particularly in the toilet area, and an unclean toilet exterior. The landlord’s email stated that he would check with the owner about the ceiling. There is no further communication about that. If these matters were still an issue for the tenant after the landlord’s visit, then that would have been the best time to lodge a claim as far as best evidence is concerned.
I have seen the photos the tenant supplied and am satisfied that they do not indicate that there is an ongoing moisture issue with the premises. That is consistent with the HHS report. A landlord is not required to repaint if there is flaking paint on a ceiling. The flaking paint is minor and not representative of an ongoing problem. The windowsill in the photo will need to be sanded and painted at some time but is not in a condition that shows the landlord has failed to repair the premises.
There is insufficient evidence to prove that the landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and a reasonable state of repair. (Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986) Failure to fix flickering bedroom lights and sink plug and sink leak
Section 45(1)(a) RTA requires a landlord to “maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises”.
There is no dispute that the tenant referred to flickering lights in the lounge and her bedroom on 25 March 2024. The landlord employed an electrician who attended promptly. However on 2 April, after the Easter weekend, the tenant reported that the bedroom light was still flickering after being on for about 20 minutes. The tenant also told the landlord about a plug not being the right size for a sink. The landlord responded on 5 April, apologised for not responding to the 2 April request sooner but that he had been away. He said he would arrange the electrician and the plumber. On 8 April he confirmed with the tenant that he had put in work orders for an electrician and a plumber. On 12 April the landlord contacted the tenant stating he understood the flickering light had been fixed. On 15 April the tenant stated that the light was still flickering. The plumber had been in touch but the time the plumbers wanted to attend the previous week had not been suitable to the tenant. On 29 April the tenant cancelled the electrician because she was putting her son into school. On 30 April the landlord responded that was no problem and gave the tenant the name and phone number to contact the electrician when it suited her for him to attend to the flickering light. The tenant did not contact the electrician.
On 16 May the tenant asked if the landlord had heard from the plumber. The plumber had attended the property and stopped the leak with plumbing tape. The landlord informed the tenant that the sink was old and the only way to permanently fix the overflow leak was to cut out the benchtop. He asked if she would happy if the overflow was blocked to stop any further leaking. The tenant wanted to have a permanent fix for the leak under the sink, stating, that, “eventually the tape he’s put over it will wear out”.
On 18 July the tenant wrote to the landlord stating that the plumber arrived at her house to address the sink issue, but she sent him away because she was not informed about the visit. In the communication she stated, “I have canceled (sic) previous electrical and plumbing visits because these issues should have been resolved during the initial service appointments. Additionally, I do not have any availability for the next few months. I have implemented a temporary solution and am satisfied with it for now. Please ensure that no further service personnel are sent to my house without prior discussion and agreement with me.
The landlord apologised and stated that the contractors should be reaching out to arrange access. He explained that there are occasions when an initial repair may not resolve an issue. He asked if he should close off the old job. The tenant replied that she required at least a week’s notice in advance for any maintenance work.
I am satisfied from the evidence that the landlord attended promptly to the tenant’s requests for maintenance regarding the light, sink plug and leak in the sink. The claim that the landlord failed to maintain these items is dismissed. Note for the tenant on right of entry
It should be noted that a tradesperson or landlord is required to give notice if they are going to enter the property using their key. However it is not a breach for the landlord or tradesperson to knock on the door of the premises and ask for consent to enter the premises. See s.48(1)(a).
If the landlord gives adequate notice of a tradesperson attending the premises to do work, the tenant is in breach if they refuse entry. Failure to fix a piece of trim in the pantry.
The tenant provided a photo of a piece of trim that had fallen off in the pantry. She claimed that the landlord failed to put it back and this caused anxiety.
I find no merit in the claim. The trim served only a cosmetic purpose and did not need to be replaced. The claim that the landlord failed to maintain the pantry is dismissed. Failure to replace an oven seal.
The oven seal separated during the tenancy. The landlord sent a tradesperson who connected it back together successfully. The tenant views it as a temporary repair and believes the seal should have been replaced.
I am satisfied that the landlord could repair or replace the seal to address the problem. If the repair was unsuccessful the landlord would need to replace the seal. The claim that the landlord failed to maintain the oven is dismissed. Failure to repair/replace windows
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to address an issue with the sliding windows. The tenant contacted the landlord on 24 October stating that during a recent storm she noticed water leaking through a few of the windows. She placed towels down to manage the water and prevent further damage to the floor and curtains. She attached photos showing the affected areas. She suggested that the windows needed to be replaced. She asked for the owner to be informed and for the property manager to advise her (the tenant) of the next step for repairs.
The landlord thanked the tenant for letting him know and for putting towels down. He suggested that it could be a case of sideways rain because the wind/rains had been crazy over the last week. He asked if the windows had leaked in normal rain or just last week. The tenant responded that the windows had leaked during normal rain, though not as severely. She added that it had been a problem since she moved in. She said she had noticed condensation and dampness around several window areas.
The landlord responded stating that he could arrange repair, possibly with new rubbers. He stated that condensation is always going to happen. He said he would check with the owners about replacing the windows but that it may be a Body Corp matter that would have to be done for all units and therefore unlikely to happen soon.
The landlord arranged a window repairer who attended on 6 November 2025. On 9 December the landlord informed the tenant that the owner had agreed to replace the windows that were leaking. He told the tenant that the repaired would be in touch to arrange a time.
Following further discussions about the windows affected by rain, the windows have been replaced.
I have considered whether the landlord addressed this issue within a reasonable time. I accept that changing windows in a building is not a quick fix. The windows have to be custom made. The order goes to a factory in a queue with other orders. The decision to replace was shortly before Christmas when there will be delays. There was no damage occurring in the property. The tenant’s email of 24 October stated that the curtains were already damaged. She said, “I placed towels down to manage the water and prevent further damage to the floor and curtains”.
I am satisfied that the landlord replaced the windows to repair and improve the property and that occurred within a reasonable time of it first being reported as a problem by the tenant. The claim that the landlord failed to maintain the windows is dismissed. Hot water.
The tenant referred to the hot water cylinder needing to be repaired. There are no grounds for an order regarding that repair. The number of repairs needed during the tenancy.
I have considered whether the number of repairs warrants an order for compensation. The RTA refers to maintaining the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. The premises is old. There will most likely be more repairs. There was not a repair that constantly failed. The items needing attention were generally minor and were remedied quickly. I am satisfied that the repairs necessary at have not been excessive. The number of repairs needed in two years at the tenancy property does not warrant an order for compensation. Parking
The tenant has been frustrated by random people using the car park that is reserved for her. The car park is clearly marked. Contractors and people who do not live in the building use the park. Although the tenant does not own a car, she has visitors that use it.
The landlord does not have control of who uses the tenant’s car park. The landlord does not have other tenants in the building. The claim is dismissed because the control of random people using the tenant’s park, is not the landlord’s responsibility. Lawn trimming
The tenant has claimed that the lawns are cut too short at the property.
The lawns are managed by the Body Corp. The lawns are not a part of the tenancy. The Body Corp can decide what length the lawns are trimmed to. At a Body Corp meeting any unit owner can request the Body Corp to leave more grass when lawns are cut but no unit owner in the building can independently control the lawn trimming work. The claim is dismissed because lawn work around the building is not a landlord responsibility. Water stained curtains
The tenant has claimed the cost of replacing net curtains that became stained when water came through the sliding window in the storm. She provided a photo of the curtains.
Some curtains were purchased by the tenant.
A landlord does not have liability for damage to a tenant’s goods unless the landlord has breached an obligation that led to damage of a tenant’s goods.
In this case the leak coming through the windows, that initially caused the water stain on the curtains, was not caused by a breach of the landlord’s obligation. The failure of the window seal was not known by the landlord until 24 October 2025. According to the tenant’s correspondence, water had been coming through the window seal for some time. The curtain was therefore damaged before the landlord had the opportunity to repair the window.
The claim that the landlord caused damage to the curtain is dismissed. Tenants are liable for damage to their property when an unforeseen event causes that damage. Costs
The tenant has claimed costs relating to her preparation for the case. Costs are not able to be awarded. Section 102(1) RTA provides that except in a case to which any of subsections (2), (4), or (5) apply, the Tribunal shall have no power to award costs to or against any party to proceedings before it.
Subsections (2), (4), and (5) do not apply in this case. The claim for costs is dismissed. Filing Fee
Because the tenant has not been successful with the claim the filing fee of is not able to be ordered to be paid by the landlord. Suppression
The tenant has applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has not substantially succeeded with the claim and therefore name suppression is not granted. Summary
Not all evidence is referred to in the decision however all evidence and submissions have been considered in reaching these findings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5446812 — Mould at Unit 3, 36 Leighton Avenue, Waiwhetu, Lower Hutt 5010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5446812 — Mould at Unit 3, 36 Leighton Avenue, Waiwhetu, Lower Hutt 5010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the property failed to meet Healthy Homes Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the property failed to meet Healthy Homes Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions