Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5475772 — Mould at 7 Inglis Street, Phillipstown, Christchurch 8011
Published 5 May 2026 · Application 5475772
Dismissed
- Mould
- Healthy homes
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Dismissed
From published order
Location
Christchurch
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
R Merrett
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- The application is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Morel and Mr Wilson represented the landlord.
- The tenant, Ms Clark, has a fixed term tenancy of the premises commencing on 3 June 2025 and ending on 28 September 2026. The premises consist of one unit of six owned by the landlord and managed by A1 Property Managers.
- Ms Clark applied, in her application to be released from the fixed term tenancy. However, she did not pursue this at the hearing. Rather she sought an order changing the tenancy from a fixed term one to a periodic tenancy. She also claimed compensation for failure by the landlord to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards and for interfering with her right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.
Is the landlord in breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?
- Ms Clark believes that the premises do not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards with respect to underfloor insulation. However, a Healthy Homes inspection was completed by JBC Builder Ltd on 13 December 2024 and the report detailing that inspection and the accompanying Compliance Certificate records that the premises comply with the Healthy Homes Standards in all respects, including the underfloor insulation standards.
- This claim is therefore dismissed on the basis that Ms Clark has not provided sufficient evidence to support her belief that there is a breach of the Standards. Did the landlord interfere with Ms Clark’s right to quiet enjoyment?
- The right to quiet enjoyment is found in section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Ac t 1986 (the Act). Section 38(1) provides that a tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or the landlord’s agent. In addition, a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises: section 38(2) of the Act.
- The roofing on the six units, including Ms Clark’s unit, was repaired during the months of August and September 2025. The work included replacing some of the roofing iron, replacing the guttering, and resecuring some of the roofing nails. Ms Clark was unsure how many days the roofers were at the premises completing the work, but Ms Morel and Mr Wilson said that the work was completed over four days in August and September. Ms Clark claims that the noise and inconvenience of having workers at the premises during that time was stressful and upsetting. She said that she sometimes had to leave the premises for the day because of the noise.
- I accept that Ms Clark did experience inconvenience while the roofing work was being completed. However, a landlord is required to repair and maintain the premises and this is particularly important when repairs are required to ensure the weathertightness of the premises (such as roofing work). Most repairs or maintenance are likely to cause some inconvenience to the occupiers of a property and I do not consider that roofing work on six units (four of the units are in separate buildings to Ms Clark’s unit) on four separate days over two months is unreasonable in the circumstances.
- I therefore find that the roofing work did not unreasonably interfere with Ms Clark’s quiet enjoyment and this claim is dismissed.
Should the tenancy be amended to a periodic tenancy?
- Ms Clark is unhappy living in the premises, and she believes that the tenancy is affecting her health due to the stress she said she suffered while contactors were fixing the roof of the units, and because she believes the premises are damp due to the water table in the area being high. She provided letters from her doctor in support.
- The landlord has agreed to the tenancy being assigned but Ms Clark does not want to pay the costs involved with any assignment and she wants the tenancy to be changed to a periodic tenancy so that she can find more suitable premises in her own time.
- The Tribunal cannot amend a tenancy agreement changing it from a fixed term tenancy to a periodic tenancy without the consent of the other party, and Ms Morel and Mr Wilson confirmed that the landlord does not wish to amend the tenancy to a periodic one.
- The claim for an order amending the tenancy to a periodic tenancy is therefore dismissed.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s38, s38(1), s38(2)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: healthy homes
- Dispute theme: mould
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5475772?
The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.
How much money was awarded in case 5475772?
Verified claim lines are listed on this page.
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5475772?
The primary dispute was Mould. Related themes: Healthy homes.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5475772?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13545238-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.