What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4640231 about?

The tribunal order states: Waikato Real Estate Limited and Shivam Verma must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4640231?

Compensation: Bedroom 3 uninhabitabl…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Breach Of Maintenance: $3,350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Mould Testing Report: $6,503.83 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4640231?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4640231?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10495527-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4640231 about?

The tribunal order states: Waikato Real Estate Limited and Shivam Verma must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4640231?

Compensation: Bedroom 3 uninhabitabl…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Breach Of Maintenance: $3,350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Mould Testing Report: $6,503.83 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4640231?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4640231?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10495527-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

17 Manor Place, Bader, Hamilton 3206 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4640231 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4640231 — net $12,874.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Mould testing report	$6,503.83	Mould testing report
Compensation: Breach of maintenance	$3,350.00	Breach of maintenance
Compensation: General damages	$2,000.00	General damages
Compensation: Bedroom 3 uninhabitable	$1,000.00	Bedroom 3 uninhabitable
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$12,874.27
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$12,874.27

[The tenant/s] applied to the Tribunal in July 2023.

She asked for orders to fix and investigate mould, gaps, and leaks throughout the house that she and her two young children lived in, and for financial remedies.

Her main reason for acting was that both children have been repeatedly unwell since living in this house. Her youngest (under two years of age) has been hospitalised multiple times for breathing-related illnesses.

The tenant’s application repeatedly refers to mould. She says that she wants the house properly assessed and that although she has raised her concerns many times, “they covered the mold with plaster and jib and act as though it’s not there”.

The landlord, Shivam Verma (SV), attended, or was represented by his agent, Waikato Real Estate Limited, Shivam Verma, at the three hearings. References to landlord in this decision mean both SV and WRE unless one or the other is specifically referred to. Introduction (WDWTW)

[The tenant/s] first lived at this house with her pre-school aged son from February 2022. 1 Her youngest child (E) was born soon after moving in.

The 1980’s built, hardiplank house has been affected by leaks. It is situated on the edge of a tree-filled gully.

On two occasions, rainwater has come through the ceiling and run down the walls into [The tenant/s]’s son’s bedroom, saturating the carpet. There have been plumbing leaks under the house affecting the bathroom, laundry, toilet, and kitchen floors.

SV lives overseas. His agent manages all dealings with the tenant, but he makes the ultimate decisions on repairs.

Maintenance issues have been ongoing and, although dealt with by the landlord, [The tenant/s] became concerned that remedial work was inadequate to deal with the cause of leaks, and with mould and damp evident in the house. She sent numerous emails and texts, a 14-day notice of breach, and applied to the Tribunal for help.

When E was hospitalised for the 5 th time, [The tenant/s] and E’s doctors decided that they must try to find out whether the house was causing or contributing to her daughter’s repeated and serious respiratory illnesses.

The landlord was reluctant, so [The tenant/s] engaged a mould-testing company herself. The expert report was that very high levels of mould spores in the children’s bedrooms were likely to cause respiratory health effects and that high moisture levels indicated that mould could continue to grow.

It was agreed at the second hearing that the tenant and her children should move out to avoid any further risk to health. I made an order that no rent was payable from that date, 8 December 2023. 1 Except for a period of 3 months from August 2022 to November 2022 while the house was on the market for sale. It did not sell, and the tenant moved back in to start this tenancy from 5 November 2022.

This order deals with the tenant’s applications for compensation and exemplary damages alleging that the landlord has failed to reasonably maintain the premises and breached the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

What is the law that applies?

Landlords must:- a. Provide and maintain tenancy 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; section 45(1)(b) RTA, b. Comply with the healthy homes standards (HHS); s45(1)(bb) RTA, c. Comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety; s45(1)(c) RTA.

To fail to do so is an "unlawful act" and exemplary damages can be awarded. Schedule 1A of the Act sets out the maximum penalties for this breach which is $7,200.00 for the worst cases.

A tenant also has obligations. They must keep premises reasonably clean and tidy and tell the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, about any damage or the need for any repairs; s40(1)(c) and 40(1)(d) RTA.

A landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to fix things before being held to be in breach of its maintenance duty. What is reasonable will depend on how serious or urgent the issue is.

Sometimes, part or all of premises become so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. If this is the case, the rent must abate (reduce); s59 and s59A RTA.

What are the issues to be decided?

The tenant says the landlord has not properly addressed leaks and mould in the premises.

It is her claim which means that she has the task of proving that it is more probable than not that there were leaks and mould because the premises were not in a reasonable state of repair, and that the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to investigate and remedy the issues.

If there is a breach, should compensation be awarded? Compensation is usually to recover expenses or loss, or as a lump sum or reduction of rent, where the tenancy agreement or the law has been breached.

Should exemplary damages be awarded? Exemplary damages are like a fine or a penalty and can only be awarded for an intentional breach of specified “unlawful acts” (which are listed in Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The Tribunal must decide whether it is just to award these after considering the breaching party’s intent, the effect of the act, the interests of the innocent party, and the public interest; see s109(3) RTA.

Even if there is no breach by the landlord, if part or all of tenancy premises are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable, the rent may be reduced; see s59 or s59A RTA.

What are the maintenance issues at the house?

The evidence documents the following maintenance issues and action taken by the landlord: a. A plumbing leak under the bathroom is fixed in June 2022 after being noticed by insulation contractors. b. On two occasions (November 2022, May 2023) rainwater enters “bedroom 1” 2 through the ceiling, running down walls and saturating the carpet and floor. Professional air-blower machines were used to dry the room on both occasions. Parts of the walls and ceiling were replaced in July 2023, and these were repainted in September 2023. An area of mouldy carpet was replaced in September 2023. c. The ranchslider door lock did not work. The tenant reported this to WRE in May 2022 and it was fixed in August 2023. d. The entire toilet floor was replaced on 18 September 2023 as it was mouldy, and water damaged. At the same time, the contractor discovers that the toilet is cracked. Neither the toilet nor lino in that room are replaced. e. A split pipe is discovered and repaired under the kitchen floor at the time that the toilet floor is replaced. It is not known how long the pipe had been leaking. f. The bathroom vanity wastewater was repaired on 26 September 2023 as it was overflowing outside instead of into the gully trap. g. A small area of the kitchen floor is replaced pursuant to a work order made by the Tribunal (due by 6 October 2023) as it had rotted through. The lino is not replaced. h. The window frame in bedroom 1 is replaced pursuant to a work order made by the Tribunal (due by 13 October 2023) as it was water damaged and had come apart at one corner. 2 The tenant’s son’s bedroom. Referred to as “bedroom” in WRE inspection reports and as “bedroom 1” in the mould inspection report.

These events are not disputed.

However, at the time of the first hearing, the landlord did dispute the tenant’s claims that there was a significant mould problem in the house.

The tenant presented a written “Biological Assessment Report” (“mould report”) dated 29 November 2023 3 at the second hearing. The report gives findings and recommendations from observations, non-invasive moisture testing, and air spore and tape sampling of mould carried out by an environmental technician on 13 November 2023. I also heard oral evidence from two expert witnesses 4 from the mould-testing company.

In summary, some of the evidence is:- a. The spore levels of aspergillus/penicillium mould (a fast-growing mould) are very high in the five rooms tested and especially in bedroom 3. In this room, spores are measured at around 19,000 spores per cubic metre (s/m3) compared to normal outdoor levels of between 50 and 200 s/m3. Indoor results should be similar or below the outdoor level in homes without mould issues. 5 b. “Do not use bedroom 3 until the mould issue has been addressed.” 6 This warning is in bold in the mould report. Bedroom 3 is E’s room. c. Aspergillus/penicillium mould results from the other rooms are 3100 s/m3 in the bathroom, 1193 s/m3 in the laundry, 1027 s/m3 in the kitchen, 600 s/m3 in bedroom 1. This type of mould is a known allergen causing asthma and hay fever-like symptoms. High exposure can result in sensitisation meaning those people can experience health effects from even small amounts of the mould. 7 d. The presence of stachybotrys mould spores in bedroom 1 and the laundry are significant as this is a slower growing mould (takes about 3 months) and is the toxic black mould sometimes referred to. It can cause a burning sensation in the mouth, throat and nasal passages. 8 e. Mould spore levels such as those measured in bedroom 3 “will likely have respiratory health effects”. A hole in the wall in bedroom 3 (in the wardrobe) may be allowing mould spores to enter the room. f. There is a high level of mould growth in the house and evidence that this is a long-term issue caused by historical leaks, guttering and drainage issues. 3 Prepared by [mould testing company]. 4 The author of the report and the Managing Director of [mould testing company]. 5 Mould report at 5.1, page 34. Also in the Air Spore Sampling Results table at page 30. 6 See the Executive Summary at page 1 of the mould report. 7 Ibid at 5. 8 Mould report, Appendix C, ‘Guide to Microbes’. Although visible mould may seem minimal, the spore levels are very high meaning that there is likely to be hidden mould inside the wall cavities. g. Building materials including insulation, flooring and wall materials previously affected by water leaks have not been replaced. For example, part of the toilet wall is crumbling, and the lino is mouldy underneath. h. Moisture testing in the toilet indicates a possible ongoing leak. i. Moisture testing in the bathroom, laundry, and kitchen (behind fridge) show elevated levels meaning that mould could still grow. j. The effect of mould comes mostly from the chemicals it gives off (mycotoxins). The health impact of mould is different for different people. An example was given of some people being unaffected by peanuts and others having a life- threatening allergic response. k. The Managing Director of the mould testing company said that he would not go into this house without wearing protective breathing equipment.

The written and oral expert evidence proves that, as at 13 November 2023, there is a high level of mould in the premises that has not been remedied and is most likely still growing. This is an ongoing maintenance issue.

I have also decided that, based on the expert evidence and warning in the mould report, bedroom 3 must be declared to be uninhabitable. It should not be used until the very high mould spore level is remedied. Have the landlords failed to take reasonable steps to investigate and remedy the leaks and mould?

It is proven that there were two significant leaks into bedroom 1 and several plumbing leaks elsewhere in the house. It is also proven that mould spores are present at high levels in the premises.

A landlord must investigate and repair leaks or water entry into a house. It is not always so clear what to do about mould. Low levels of mould are relatively common in houses in New Zealand especially in temperate climates and in rooms where moisture is generated such as bathrooms and kitchens.

Where a property has an inherent problem or a leak causing mould, then the landlord will have a responsibility to remedy the fault. Houses must be able to be used and lived in, in the normal way, without excessive mould developing. If this cannot be done, then the problem of mould falls on the landlord to remedy under their obligations to maintain the property; see Hullia v Tran & Vu [2018] NZTT Manukau 4138867 and also Semmens v Wadman [2022] NZTT Manukau 4310605.

After careful consideration of the evidence, I have decided that:- a. The leaks into bedroom 1: the landlord acted reasonably up until the second leak in May 2023, but failed to adequately repair and remove mouldy and damaged building materials after that date. b. Other plumbing leaks: appear to have been repaired as they were discovered so there is no breach proven. c. Repair and removal of damaged building materials affected by leaks: the landlord has failed to adequately repair moisture affected areas which has allowed mould to grow to high levels. This is a maintenance breach. d. Uninhabitability of bedroom 3 due to very high mould spore levels: this is most probably caused by the failure to repair and remove damaged building materials from rooms adjacent to this room. e. The work to repair bedroom 1, including installing new downpipes (drainage), most probably breaches a requirement to obtain a building consent for work to repair a drainage system that has failed to keep external moisture out of the house.

My reasons for the above decisions are set out below. The leaks into bedroom 1

The tenant first alerted the landlord to mould and a possible leak from the ceiling in bedroom 1 in May 2022. A contractor checked the internal gutters but there is no evidence of the outcome of this check, or of the tenant raising the concern again until the first leak happens.

On 19 November 2022, rainwater comes through the lowered ceiling and runs down the walls, saturating the carpet and floor. The plumber who attends this leak notes in his invoice that there is a lot of damage to the room, and that the leak has been caused by overflow from blocked “fascia gutters”. He recommends the gutters are cleaned every 6 months and that “overflows into fascia would help”.

The landlord arranges for the carpet and walls to be professionally dried with commercial dryers and dehumidifiers, which takes 3 days, and schedules the gutters to be cleaned every 6 months.

I find the landlord’s actions to be reasonable up to this point.

There is a second significant leak on 16 May 2023. The commercial dryers are again arranged and WRE initiate an in-depth investigation into the cause of the repeat leaks. WRE obtain quotes and written recommendations from tradespeople (HTPC and PLtd) to repair bedroom 1 and prevent future problems.

WRE emphasises to SV that it is important to investigate the causes thoroughly and prevent further leaks. The advice and actions taken by WRE are prudent and appropriate.

SV decides to engage his own alternative contractors (MC) to do the remedial work. This is his right. However, my conclusion is that the work by MC is inadequate to repair or remove damage from the two leaks. My reasons for this are:- a. HTPC’s recommendation is for full replacement of the worst affected wall 9 and up to 1 metre into the two side walls, and removal of all gib in the lowered ceiling. b. HTPC say that there is evidence of prior remedial work in this room and “building paper has been placed against the gib to help hide the water damage issues.” c. MC patch the exploratory holes cut in the gib by HTPC 10 and do not remove or replace any additional areas of wall or ceiling. Mouldy gib is left in place and there is no evidence that the framing timber or insulation is investigated (as recommended by HTPC). The mould report notes that thermal imaging suggests that insulation has not been replaced over the lowered ceiling. d. Photographs and notes from a WRE inspection done on 30 August 2023 (8 weeks after MC’s work) record mouldy carpet in bedroom 1 and mould visible on the ceiling, and that the top corner of the window architrave is water damaged. None of the carpet or underlay is replaced or removed until WRE arrange for part of the carpet to be replaced at a later date. e. HTPC and PLtd recommend preventing further leaks by installing overflow pipes into the internal gutter that runs adjacent to bedroom 1 and a new external downpipe. PLtd refer to needing a new stormwater drain under the house. f. MC do install new external downpipes but there is no mention of overflow pipes, or a new stormwater drain. At least one downpipe is not connected to a drain and discharges onto the ground very near to the house. g. I find it unlikely that the work done by MC is done by a registered plumber. SV refers to MC as his “builder and plumber” but the invoice from MC does not include the name of any tradesperson or company. Neither does it include an IRD or GST number.

Not only is the remedial work inadequate but the tenant is left to monitor its quality. SV is not in the country. WRE do not inspect or view the work until after [The tenant/s] again writes to express her concern that the mould inside the walls and ceiling has simply been covered up. It is at this point that she makes this application to the Tribunal. 9 In which the window is located. 10 HTPC had cut 4 holes into the walls and ceiling to see inside the walls and assess the extent of damage and remediation to be recommended.

When WRE do visit the property on 11 August 2023, about 6 weeks after the MC remedial work has been done, they agree that the work is inadequate. They clearly communicate this to SV however he continues to insist that all remediation work has been done. Bedroom 1 is then repainted.

I find that the remedial work done in bedroom 1 is most probably inadequate to prevent mould growth and that this is a breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations.

It is unknown whether the cause of the leaks has been remedied by the installation of the additional downpipes. I do note that there have been no new leaks or overflows reported into bedroom 1. Other plumbing leaks

There have been several plumbing leaks during the time the tenant has lived at the house. These have affected the bathroom, kitchen, toilet, and laundry.

On the evidence available, leaks have been repaired as they are discovered, so there is no maintenance breach proven. Repair and removal of damaged building materials after leaks:

What has not been dealt with is to adequately repair and remove moisture affected building materials after leaks have been fixed. My conclusion is that this failure has allowed mould to develop to the high levels shown in the mould report. This is a maintenance breach.

The mould report and photographs, an inspection report from WRE on 30 August 2023, and emails from contractors engaged to do repairs, show that mouldy or moisture damaged building materials are not removed from the house. The affected areas include:- a. Mouldy lino in the toilet that has not been removed, b. A cracked toilet which may still be leaking, c. An area of crumbling wall in the toilet from a previous leak, d. Soft and moisture damaged areas of wall, floor, and cabinetry in the laundry, e. An unsealed and mouldy bathroom door, f. A hole in the wardrobe in bedroom 3, g. The bottom edge of the shower wall is crumbling.

Mould is something that should be considered whenever there has been a leak or other moisture problem. In this case, there have been multiple leaks in multiple rooms.

The landlord is also on notice because the tenant has repeatedly made it clear that mould is a problem in the house and that her children are sick. A doctor treating the family took the unusual step of making a written request to the landlord to review the insulation, heating, and ventilation in the house in an effort to identify any contributing causes to E’s hospitalisations.

In the tenant’s words: I’m unsure as to why the old mold is of no concern to you when the old mold just states how bad things really are underneath the underlay and lino .... The least I deserve as a renter who has always paid rent is to have the concerns checked especially due to the health of my child ... There is definitely still mold in that house. Evidence can be made clear from one proper professional check [sic]

Despite this, the landlord did not investigate the mould further. The tenant arranged the mould report herself. This mould testing was expensive. A landlord or agent may be able to arrange less costly investigation and preventative work to minimise mould growth should avoid the problem. I find this failure to monitor and check for mould after the history of leaks to also be a maintenance breach. Uninhabitability of bedroom 3 due to very high mould spore levels:

Both parties agreed at the second hearing that the tenancy would terminate because of the mould spore levels.

I have made a declaration in this order that bedroom 3 is uninhabitable until it has been proven that mould spore levels have been reduced. This is because of the warning in the mould report and so that any future tenants and the landlord are on notice that this is an issue that still needs to be monitored.

The landlord should also continue to monitor the mould spore levels in the rest of the premises and take expert advice.

Sections 59 and 59A RTA apply if premises are so badly damaged as to be uninhabitable. The difference between the two sections is whether the damage has been caused by a breach of one of the parties or is not because of a breach (for example, the damage can be caused by a natural disaster such as a flood or earthquake).

My conclusion in this case is that the uninhabitability of bedroom 3 was most probably caused by the landlord’s failure to repair and remove damaged building materials from rooms adjacent to this room and failure to repair the hole in the wardrobe. I base this on the evidence in the mould report and because the wardrobe in bedroom 3 shares a wall with the bathroom. There were repairs to plumbing connected to the bathroom in June 2022 and September 2023.

My decision that the uninhabitability of bedroom 3 is caused by a breach by a maintenance breach by the landlord means that s59A RTA applies. The tenancy has already terminated so the only other consequence of this is that the rent must abate or reduce. I consider this in the compensation part of this decision (below). Repair work to bedroom 1 and drainage probably required a building consent:

Work done to install new drainage or to repair or replace any building product or assembly that has failed to keep external moisture out of buildings requires a building consent; see clause 32 of Schedule 1 of the Building Act 2004.

I consider that the work to repair bedroom 1, including installing new downpipes (drainage), most probably required a building consent. The purpose of this must be to make sure that the repairs will solve the problem.

There is no indication that the landlord obtained a building consent before MC did the remedial work. It is a breach of the Building Act 2004 to do work without a building consent when one is required.

This breach was not raised in the application, so I do not award compensation or exemplary damages but raise it so that the landlord is aware. Healthy Homes Standards

The tenant’s application refers to the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), so I discuss these here.

The HHS are a set of specific compliance requirements. They set firm standards for heating in the main living area, ceiling and underfloor insulation, ventilation from windows and bathroom and kitchen extractor fans, draught stopping, an efficient drainage system and a moisture prevention barrier under the house.

The HHS became law in 2019. Private landlords must make sure their rental properties comply within 90 days of the start date of any new, or renewed, tenancy that commences on a date between 1 July 2021 and 27 August 2022 and within 120 days of the start of a tenancy that commences on a date from 28 August 2022 to 2 March 2025. The final compliance date is 1 July 2025. 11

The HHS apply to this tenancy. The HHS compliance statement in the tenancy agreement is fully completed and states that the premises fully comply with all standards.

The evidence proves the landlord installed additional insulation, a heat pump in the lounge, a rangehood and a bathroom fan in the bathroom in May and June 2022 to comply with the HHS. Window and door draught proofing were also installed. 11 Clause 2 of Schedule 1, Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.

A report completed by a third-party HHS inspection company on 10 June 2022 reports that the house complies with draught proofing and drainage requirements.

The draught stopping HHS requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes. 12

The moisture ingress and drainage HHS requires efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water to “an appropriate outfall”, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. 13 The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.

Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).

The evidence shows that unreasonable gaps along the floor in the hallway and toilet were exposed once carpet and lino were lifted after leaks. These were filled with expanding foam by 13 October 2023 to comply with a previous work order.

The leaks into bedroom 1 turned out to be caused by overflowing internal gutters. I find this to be a breach of the drainage Standard.

Also, at least one of the new downpipes installed by MC discharged directly onto the lawn very close to the house. This is not “an appropriate outfall”. The Building Code states that a surface water outfall may include a natural water course, kerb and channel, or soakage system. I have previously made a work order requiring all downpipes to be connected to a suitable outfall and this is done by a registered plumber on 26 September 2023.

There are breaches of the draught stopping and drainage HHS. There may also have been a breach of the insulation standards as there is reference to underfloor insulation not being replaced after repairs, and ceiling insulation possibly not being reinstalled in bedroom 1 after repairs.

However, [The tenant/s]’s main concerns were leaks and mould. The breaches of the HHS were caused by the lack of maintenance. Mould is not specifically covered by the HHS although the Standards operate to keep houses warm, well- ventilated and to avoid moisture inside. These will all help to avoid mould growing.

Where there are overlapping breaches, the Tribunal can choose to award compensation in a global way and not separate this out. It makes sense to do this here. Compensation and abatement of rent 12 Clause 26, Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. 13 Clause 27, Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.

If one party breaches the RTA or tenancy agreement, then the other party may be entitled to compensation for any loss or detriment that they suffer because of the breach; s77(2)(n) RTA.

I award the below compensation to the tenant for the maintenance breaches by the landlord: a. Reimbursement for the cost of the mould report which is $6,503.83. I find this to be a reasonably foreseeable cost in this case of multiple leaks, repeat hospitalisations for respiratory illness, a medical request for review of the house, and the tenant’s numerous requests for investigation of the mould. b. A rent rebate of $75.00 per week for not being able to reasonably use bedroom 1 for a period of 30 weeks. 14 [The tenant/s] said that her son shared her room from at least after the second leak and it is from this date that the landlord failed to take reasonable action. The room was either wet, being repaired, or the tenant was not confident that it was healthy to be used. This is $2,250.00. c. Compensation of $750.00 (equal to 3 weeks’ rent) for loss of amenity, time cleaning up, and inconvenience for dealing with moisture damaged areas including soft floors and mould in the kitchen, toilet, bathroom and laundry. The tenant dealt with leaks from the start of the tenancy and with mould for most of the tenancy. 15 d. An award of $350.00 as the ranchslider lock was not working for 15 months.

I also make an award of general damages which relate to less tangible loss such as stress and emotional detriment. The very high mould spore results show that the tenant was right to be so persistent in calling for the damage and mould caused by leaks to be properly investigated. This award also in part recognises the recurrent illness suffered by E, the tenant’s son, and the tenant. It is not possible to clearly link this with the mould levels, but I am satisfied it is appropriate in all the circumstances. I award $2,000.00.

I have made a finding that bedroom 3 was uninhabitable due to mould spore levels. The mould testing was done on 13 November 2023, but it is not known for how long the mould levels were high or the exact source or cause of these. I award compensation of $1,000.00 which is $300.00 as an abatement of rent for 4 weeks 16 and $700.00 to recognise that this room was quite probably unhealthy for a period before the mould testing was done. 14 There are 29 weeks and 3 days from the date of the second leak on 16 May 2023 up until 7 December 2023. No rent was payable from 8 December 2023 after the mould report was heard in evidence. I have allowed 4 days after the first leak when the room was being dried out. 15 See the list of unrepaired areas in paragraph 49. 16 $75.00 per week from 13 November 2023 to 7 December 2023.

The total compensation is $6,350.00 excluding the cost of the mould report. Exemplary damages

Exemplary damages are an additional penalty that may be awarded for an intentional breach of a landlord’s maintenance or HHS obligations.

Intentional does not mean that someone set out to breach the law but that they deliberately decided not to do, or to do, something. In this case, the landlord deliberately decided not to replace certain moisture damaged building materials or investigate whether mould was an ongoing problem.

The Tribunal must decide whether it is just to award these after considering the breaching party’s intent, the effect of the act, the interests of the innocent party, and the public interest; see s109(3) RTA.

Intent: the landlord did take action to repair leaks but took short-cuts in repairing damage caused by the leaks and did not understand the seriousness of ongoing mould growth.

Effect: the piecemeal repairs allowed mould to grow to very high levels which was most probably the cause of serious illness to the occupants of the house.

Interests of the tenant: are that landlords and their representatives understand better how moisture damage can lead to mould which may cause serious health issues and work with their tenants to monitor and remedy this.

Public interest: mould is common but not easily measured or understood. Mould testing is not easy to arrange and there may be limited options available and at high cost. The link between housing conditions and poor health is known and was the reason for the Healthy Homes Standards. The place of moisture damage and mould in considering the health of a house is important.

I have decided that it would not be just to award exemplary damages in this case. The issue of mould is important and the effect in this case was significant. However, I am satisfied that the compensation awarded, and the cost of the mould report, are remedy and penalty enough. Landlord and agent

SV lives overseas and is legally required to have an agent in New Zealand; see section 16A RTA.

WRE acted as SV’s agent throughout this tenancy. WRE entered into the tenancy agreement as agent for SV.

The usual position, under the law relating to agents and principals (an owner), is that an agent who acts merely as an intermediary is not a party to the contract between the principal and the other party (the tenant).

However, section 16A(5) RTA says that an agent appointed under that section “has, as against the tenant, all the rights and obligations of the landlord.”

For this reason, I am satisfied that both SV and WRE are properly named as landlords in these proceedings. Suppression of names

The tenant has been substantially successful in her claims, so her name is suppressed. The landlord’s name is not suppressed. WRE sought name suppression but as agent it has the same obligations as the landlord so its name is published. Final comment

Mould is a relatively common problem in New Zealand however it can be underestimated as a potential contaminant and health issue.

The tenant’s persistence has quite possibly saved her daughter’s life.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4640231 — net $12,874.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Mould testing report	$6,503.83	Mould testing report
Compensation: Breach of maintenance	$3,350.00	Breach of maintenance
Compensation: General damages	$2,000.00	General damages
Compensation: Bedroom 3 uninhabitable	$1,000.00	Bedroom 3 uninhabitable
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$12,874.27
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$12,874.27