The lack of consent was instead "no more than a technical breach" and Parry "could not argue she had suffered detriment" as a result.
"There is no evidence that the tenant made complaints concerning the health of the tenants, dampness, mould or any issues relating to the sanitary operation of the area in question.
"There was no ingress of dampness or mould.
"The overall situation therefore, is that the premises were deficient only in regard to a formal certification."
There was photographic evidence the work in question had been done to a "high standard" and it was certified only days after Inglis became aware of the issue and applied.
This certification rectified the "technical breach".
Parry was ordered to repay Inglis $10,960.44.