What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5455236?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,170.00 (BN-10045555) to Charles

How much money was awarded in case 5455236?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5455236?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5455236?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13466831-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5455236?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,170.00 (BN-10045555) to Charles

How much money was awarded in case 5455236?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5455236?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5455236?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13466831-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

19 Taraire Street, Ostend, Waiheke Island 1081 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5455236 — Mould

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,170.00 (BN-10045555) to Charles Allen Walsh and Petrina Ninette Skelley immediately.
The application by the Tenants is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tenant filed an application for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The Landlord filed an application for access to the property and reimbursement of the filing fee. As the tenancy had ended, the claim for access was withdrawn.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
It was difficult to confirm the exact dates of the events, as neither the Tenants nor the landlord provided a clear timeline, and the question was not directly answered by either party.
The Tenants state that on or about 20 February 2026 they were advised by the landlord that the roof would be washed. Instead, they submit there was extensive and noisy roof work carried out over approximately one and a half weeks.
They say the work involved drilling, hammering, and removing roofing materials, with noise occurring daily between approximately 8:00am and 6:00pm. As the Tenants wife stays at home on ACC, she was exposed to the disturbance continuously.
The Tenants argue that this level of noise substantially interfered with their right to quiet enjoyment. They state that the Tenants wife has a history of neurological issues and is highly sensitive to noise. They say the ongoing disturbance aggravated her condition, causing migraines and requiring medical attention, and raised concerns that the stress could trigger a seizure.
Between 20 and 23 February 2026, the Tenants took a series of steps to address the issue. On 20 February, they issued a 14-day notice to remedy, stating the landlord was in breach of quiet enjoyment by repeatedly carrying out unnecessary maintenance and requesting that work on the roof and cladding stop due to the impact on his wifes health. On 21 February, they sent a cease and desist letter, reiterating that they had only agreed to roof cleaning and that the constant noise was causing migraines. On 22 February, they issued a trespass notice, and on 23 February, they reported the matter to Police.
The Tenants state that despite these actions and repeated communication, the work continued and no reasonable steps were taken to minimise disruption or reach an arrangement.
The Tenant claimed $4,000.00 in compensation. He stated that he had to take time away from work to care for his wife, including driving her to the police station and attending to her during periods of distress caused by the noise. He provided evidence from his accountant that he earned approximately $1,500.00 over three days and, given the disturbance lasted around one and a half weeks, estimated his loss at $4,000.00.
In support of their claim, the Tenants provided a medical certificate confirming that his wife had experienced neurological issues over the past 10 years requiring surgery. The Tenant also submitted that she suffers from misophonia; however, this condition was not specifically confirmed in the medical certificate.
The Tenants further stated that the impact of the noise was severe. On one occasion, his wife was unable to remain at the property and arranged for her step-daughter to pick her up and take her away for approximately three hours. They also reported that their dog stopped eating during this period.
The Tenants witness, Mr Ross, an experienced builder of 40 years, gave evidence at the hearing that he had inspected the roof and there was no urgent work needed to be done immediately. There was no leaking, there were some nails that appeared as if they had popped off but nothing required fixing immediately otherwise he would have reported it to the Tenants.
Overall, the Tenants argue that the landlord’s actions—carried out over an extended period of approximately one and a half weeks—resulted in ongoing, excessive disturbance and constituted a breach of their right to quiet enjoyment, for which they seek compensation.
The landlord stated that the roof work was necessary and not limited to simple cleaning as initially expected. During the process, severe rust was identified in the roof nails, which made the roof no longer watertight. As a result, the landlord says it became necessary to replace all nails with screws to preserve the structural integrity of the roof and prevent further deterioration and water ingress.
The landlord argued that the work was therefore urgent and largely unforeseen. She stated that rust, lead residue, and paint dust were present in the gutters, creating a risk of contamination to the property’s rainwater supply. She says the roof required cleaning and the gutters needed clearing to ensure safe water collection and compliance with health standards.
She further submitted that leaving the roof partially completed—particularly with exposed or half-primed areas—posed a risk of leaks and further damage if rain occurred. Accordingly, she says the priming of the roof were necessary to protect the structure and maintain weather-tightness.
The landlord relied on her obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act and the Healthy Homes Standards, stating she is required to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, including ensuring the building is weathertight. She also notes that if issues such as mould arise from a leaking roof, she has a duty to remedy the underlying cause.
The landlord stated that she provided multiple 24-hour notices before attending the property, although she considers formal notice was not strictly required as the work was external. She says access was generally limited to certain periods, including approximately 8:00am–11:00am and 3:00pm– 5:30pm, to reduce disruption.
She acknowledged that the work created noise but stated this was unavoidable due to the nature of roof repairs. In communications with the Tenants, she apologised for the disruption and asked for patience while the necessary work was completed.
The landlord also stated that she attempted to minimise disruption where possible. She offered to delay cladding work until after the Tenants vacated and proposed completing remaining roof work (including priming and painting) in shorter sessions using minimal equipment, such as ladders and hand tools where possible.
In response to the trespass notice issued by the Tenants, the landlord sought legal advice on 2 March 2026. She maintains that she did not agree to any restriction that would prevent her from carrying out necessary repairs, given her legal obligations to maintain the property and prevent further damage.
The landlord disputed that all aspects of the work were unnecessary. However, she acknowledged that priming and painting may extend beyond immediate repairs, while maintaining that completing the roof coating was still important to protect the structure and ensure durability.
In support of her position, she referred to photographic evidence showing rusted nails and signs of water penetration, including affected insulation (pink batts), indicating the roof was not adequately sealed prior to the work. She also provided written text messages however because these were not original messages.
The Landlords witness Mr Blake, who was a coast guard, skipper and support worker attended the property on 20 February 2026 to assist the Landlord. He confirmed they were not present for full days and recalls being there on three occasions for a maximum of four to five hours. He stated they did make noise pulling out the rusty nails and the work should have been done immediately. He confirms they were there to paint the roof but after seeing the rusty nails, the roof was unsafe and susceptible to blowing off from high winds.
The Landlord submitted she was not a builder but had a lot of experience working on yachts and as a Handyperson. She lived in Italy and had flown to New Zealand after eight years to see the house was not maintained properly.
Overall, the landlord argued that the work undertaken was necessary, reasonable, and carried out to meet her legal obligations, and that any disruption caused was an unavoidable consequence of essential maintenance rather than a breach of the Tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment.
A Tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption from the Landlord or by any person claiming through the Landlord. See section 38(1) RTA. 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) RTA.
In considering the evidence, I find that the Landlord did not interfere with the Tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy. While the Landlord acknowledges that the roof work involved noise, including hammering and nailing, I do not accept that this level of noise occurred continuously over the entire period of approximately one and a half weeks. I accept the Landlord’s evidence that work was not carried out on all days and that there were breaks in attendance, including due to weather conditions such as excessive heat.
While I accept that the Tenant who remained at home would have been affected by the noise, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the interference reached the threshold of a breach of quiet enjoyment. In particular, there was no medical evidence confirming that the Tenant suffered from misophonia or that she was at risk of epileptic seizures triggered by noise. The medical certificate provided confirms a history of significant neurological issues requiring surgery but does not support the specific claims made regarding noise sensitivity or seizure risk.
I also note that no clear timeline was provided by the Tenants as to the exact days and times the work was carried out. While the Tenants state the disturbance lasted approximately one and a half weeks, I am not satisfied on the evidence that the Landlord was present for extended hours (such as 8:00am to 7:00pm daily) carrying out consistently noisy work over that entire period.
In relation to the Tenants’ claim for compensation for loss of income, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the Tenant had confirmed work scheduled during that time or that income was actually lost as a direct result of the disruption.
Although I accept that some of the roof work may not have been urgent, I also accept that the Landlord has an obligation to maintain the property and that the work undertaken formed part of that responsibility.
The Tenants also claimed exemplary damages for an alleged breach of quiet enjoyment and for excessive mould in the lounge, bathroom, and bedroom. The Tenants state that issues with mould date back to 2017.
Section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a landlord or Tenant may not apply for exemplary damages more than 12 months after the date of the alleged unlawful act. As the mould issues were said to have arisen in 2017, the Tenants are out of time to bring this claim.
Accordingly, the Tenants’ claims are dismissed.
The Landlord’s claim for reimbursement of the filing fee is also dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5455236 — Mould at 19 Taraire Street, Ostend, Waiheke Island 1081

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5455236 — Mould at 19 Taraire Street, Ostend, Waiheke Island 1081

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