What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4749771 about?

The tribunal order states: I order suppression of [the respondent/s] names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4749771?

Fying Details. 2. Barfoot & Thompson…: $7,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4749771?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4749771?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11209653-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4749771 about?

The tribunal order states: I order suppression of [the respondent/s] names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4749771?

Fying Details. 2. Barfoot & Thompson…: $7,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4749771?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4749771?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11209653-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4749771 — Mould & damp

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4749771. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
fying details. 2. Barfoot & Thompson Limited are removed from the proceedings. 3. Shane Plummer is to pay [the responden	$7,200.00		fying details. 2. Barfoot & Thompson Limited are removed from the proceedings. 3. Shane Plummer is to pay [the responden

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4749771. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
fying details. 2. Barfoot & Thompson Limited are removed from the proceedings. 3. Shane Plummer is to pay [the responden	$7,200.00		fying details. 2. Barfoot & Thompson Limited are removed from the proceedings. 3. Shane Plummer is to pay [the responden

Order

I order suppression of [the respondent/s] names and identifying details.
Barfoot & Thompson Limited are removed from the proceedings.
Shane Plummer is to pay [the respondent/s] $7,200.00 immediately, being exemplary damages for breaches pursuant to s 45(1)(b) and (1AC) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Bond Services is to release the full bond to [the respondent/s] immediately.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing by telephone. The Tenants appeared remotely from Canada via their representative’s phone link. The Landlord appeared via remote link from Sydney. The property manager appeared by MS Teams, while the property managers attended by phone, but from the courthouse. Agency
The tenancy agreement clearly identifies Barfoot & Thompson as acting solely as agents for Mr Plummer, the Landlord. While Barfoot facilitated the tenancy on behalf of the Landlord, this was in the context of their role as property manager and not as key decision-maker or principal in the arrangement. The agreement consistently uses language that defines Barfoot as an agent, with Mr Plummer clearly disclosed as the principal. This is evident on the front page of the agreement, which explicitly states that Barfoot & Thompson act “as agents for and on behalf of Shane Plummer.”
Barfoot’s representative signed the tenancy agreement as “Property Manager,” further demonstrating the agency’s intent to act as an intermediary rather than contract as a principal. This qualification reflects their limited role in managing the tenancy on behalf of the Landlord, without assuming direct responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The surrounding circumstances, including the tenancy agreement and communications between the parties, support this interpretation. The Tenants were aware from the outset that Mr Plummer was the principal and key decision- maker.
The Tenants’ own communications reference the property manager passing on issues “to the landlord,” indicating their understanding that Barfoot’s role was that of intermediary. Mr Plummer actively participated in the management of the property, including organising repairs, maintenance, and addressing concerns brought to him either directly or via the property manager. He also undertook actions such as meeting with the tenants, hiring contractors, and handling repairs himself, all of which highlight his role as the Landlord and Barfoot’s limited scope of authority.
The Tribunal therefore finds that Barfoot & Thompson acted exclusively as agents for Mr Plummer and did not contract in a personal capacity. There is no evidence to suggest that Barfoot assumed any landlord obligations under the RTA. Applications
The Tenants have applied for a refund of all rent paid during their tenancy and exemplary damages, claiming the premises were unlawful residential premises under section 78A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The Landlord, Shane Plummer, has filed a cross-application seeking costs for cleaning, damage, and unpaid rent.
The Tribunal is tasked with determining the following issues: a. Whether the premises were unlawful residential premises under section 78A of the RTA. b. Whether the Landlord breached his obligations under s 45(1)(b) (and (c)) and s 45(1AC) of the RTA. c. The extent of compensation or exemplary damages, if any, that should be awarded. d. Whether the Landlord’s claims for damages and unpaid rent are made out. Background
The tenancy commenced on 15 July 2022 with weekly rent set at $500. The tenancy agreement states the premises comply with the Healthy Homes Standards and all legal requirements. The Landlord has signed the relevant statement, and there is an HHS Certificate, also signed by the Landlord, confirming the home complies with the Healthy Homes Standards.
The tenancy ended on 6 August 2023 after the Tenants vacated, citing health concerns related to mould contamination in the property. Health Issues and Mould Discovery
In January 2023, the Tenants noticed black mould in the laundry and bathroom areas. On 13 January 2023, they reported the issue to Barfoot & Thompson, providing photographs.
On 3 April 2023, nearly three months later, an inspection and report by Mould Inspections, conducted by Tim Dorrington, identified extensive mould contamination (the Dorrington Report). The Dorrington Report highlighted the presence of mycotoxins and deemed the property unfit for habitation. The report is based on laboratory testing.
The Tenants allege that the Landlord delayed addressing the issue and withheld critical information, including the Dorrington Report, from them and the property manager. Repairs and Continued Concerns
Repairs to address the mould commenced on 25 April 2023. The Tenants temporarily vacated the property for the repairs but reported ongoing mould and health issues upon their return. Dampness and mould were still present.
The Tenants vacated the premises permanently on 6 August 2023, as they continue to have concerns about the property’s safety. Tenants’ Claims
The Tenants seek the following remedies: a. A refund of $11,000 from rent paid during the tenancy under section 78A of the RTA. b. Exemplary damages of $7,200 for failure to maintain the premises as required under section 45(1A). c. Exemplary damages of $4,000 for failure to disclose the mould report under section 45(1AD)(a). d. General damages of $10,000 for harm caused by the landlord’s breaches, including health issues and stress. e. Full refund of the bond of $2,000. Landlord’s Response
The Landlord disputes the Tenants’ claims and asserts the following: a. The mould issue was addressed promptly once reported, with repairs completed in April 2023. b. The findings in the mould report were exaggerated and not based on reliable science. The Landlord is in dispute with Mr Dorrington regarding his report, and there are proceedings in the Disputes Tribunal. c. The Tenants contributed to delays in addressing the issue by failing to cooperate. The Landlord argues that the mould was not reported until 13 January 2023, despite the Tenants noticing issues earlier. This delay allegedly exacerbated the problem and made it more challenging to resolve. d. The Landlord also claims that the Tenants did not vacate the property quickly after it became clear that repairs and decontamination were necessary, thereby delaying the ability to properly remediate the premises. e. Additionally, the Landlord suggests that the Tenants’ reluctance or failure to cooperate fully in facilitating access for inspections or repairs may have further contributed to the delays.
The landlord seeks costs for cleaning, repairs, and a carpet stain allegedly caused by the tenants. Determination
Section 78A of the RTA empowers the Tribunal to determine whether premises are unlawful for residential purposes. Premises are deemed unlawful if they: a. Were not permitted to be used for residential purposes; b. The Landlord failed to comply with s 36 of the RTA (ensuring no legal impediment to occupation) or section 45(1)(c) (complying with all building and health and safety requirements).
Where premises are found to be unlawful, the Tribunal may order the Landlord to refund the rent paid or a lesser amount that reflects the special circumstances of the case.
It is necessary to prove a regulatory breach that renders the whole property unlawful to occupy. 1
The Tenants’ rely on the following evidence and submissions: a. Upon moving into the property in July 2022, the Tenants and their child experienced persistent respiratory issues, culminating in their baby being hospitalised for RSV and bronchiolitis. They have provided medical records obtained from the hospital, consistent with their claims. On 13 January 2023, 1 Parbhu v Want [2018] NZHC 2079; Inglis v Parry [2017] NZDC 26036. they discovered black mould in the laundry and shower areas and contacted the property managers, Barfoot & Thompson, with photographic evidence. b. The Dorrington Report states that the premises were “unfit for occupational use” due to airborne mycotoxins associated with the mould species found. Despite the seriousness of these findings, the Tenants allege the Landlord withheld the report and its conclusions from them and Barfoot & Thompson. c. The Landlord accepts that he did not provide the Dorrington Report to the Tenants. d. In an email dated 24 July 2023, the Landlord admitted that the leak causing the mould had existed since 2017. The Tenants argue this admission demonstrates the Landlord’s failure to provide and maintain the premises in a habitable condition in breach of s 45(1)(c), and by extension, s 78A of the RTA. e. After notifying the Landlord of the mould in January 2023, remedial work was not undertaken until late April 2023, during which time the Tenants had to temporarily vacate the property. The Tenants assert that the delay in addressing the issue exacerbated their health problems and caused significant disruption.
The Landlord disputes the Tenants’ claim and contends: a. The property was in a habitable condition at the start of the tenancy, as evidenced by the Healthy Homes Compliance Statement signed on 21 June 2022, which declared no known leaks or mould issues. He claims the property had been recently renovated, following remediation works undertaken following discovery of a leak in 2017. b. The Landlord challenges the accuracy of the Dorrington report, describing it as exaggerated and methodologically flawed. Specifically, he raises the following challenges: i. Mr Dorrington claims to have consulted with BRANZ, a leading brand in the mould-testing industry, but the BRANZ representatives he has spoken with disclaim collaborating with Mr Dorrington. ii. Mr Dorrington is attempting to gain Tribunal endorsement for his testing methodologies in New Zealand, though they are not supported by BRANZ. Mr Dorrington’s report-findings are commercially- incentivised and lack independence and objectivity. iii. He has spoken with academics and leading experts who discredit Mr Dorrington and his methodologies. iv. Mr Dorrington recommended ‘fogging’ (EC3 Mould Fogging) to remove deleterious mould colonies found inside the premises. Fogging is untested, and unsupported by scientific research, undermining Mr Dorrington’s claimed expertise and the integrity of his report. When the Landlord spoke with a BRANZ representative about Mr Dorrington’s recommendations, the disapproved of the use of fogging.
The Landlord asserts that he acted promptly upon being notified of the leak and mould issues, engaging professionals to investigate and carry out remedial work. He attributes delays to logistical challenges, contractor availability specifically.
The Landlord questioned the Tenants’ credibility, alleging they failed to raise concerns about their health or the property’s condition until January 2023, six months into the tenancy.
The Landlord submits that any rent refund should be minimal given the Tenants derived significant benefit from living in the property and that the issues identified did not render the premises entirely uninhabitable.
Based on the evidence, the Tribunal makes the following findings: a. A leak was present from at least 2017, as admitted by the Landlord. b. The Landlord acknowledged a slow leak existing from 2017. c. The Landlord entered into a dispute with the company he engaged to repair the leak in 2017. d. The Landlord has not provided evidence confirming the leak, including the water damage caused by the leak (contributing to damp conditions in the premises), was properly remediated. e. The Dorrington report unequivocally found the premises unfit for occupation due to toxic mould, with airborne mycotoxins posing health risks, and this is based on laboratory testing; the test results indicate high levels of harmful mould inside the premises. f. The Landlord withheld the Dorrington report from the Tenants, depriving them of critical information about the health risks they faced. g. The Landlord’s delay in addressing the leak and mould issues constituted a breach of s 45(1)(b). h. The Tenants and their young child suffered adverse health effects attributable to the mould and dampness in the premises.
Based on the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the Landlord’s admitted failure to adequately remediate a known leak since 2017 and delay in addressing significant mould issues, as substantiated by the Dorrington report identifying airborne mycotoxins rendering the premises unfit for occupation, constitutes a breach of section 45(1)(b).
Furthermore, the Landlord withheld the Dorington Report from the Tenants when they were searching for answers as to whether the leak, the dampness and mould, were having an adverse impact on their health.
The Tenants have not presented evidence of any regulatory breach required to invoke any of the available remedies under s 78A.
In determining the appropriate remedy under section 45(1A), the Tribunal considers the following factors: a. The mould and dampness posed significant health and safety risks, particularly to the Tenants’ infant daughter, who required hospitalisation. These breaches are serious. b. The Landlord’s withholding of the Dorrington report and delays in addressing the issues demonstrate negligence and a lack of regard for the Tenants’ wellbeing. . c. While the Tenants derived some benefit from living in the property, this was substantially undermined by the adverse health effects and uninhabitable conditions, resulting in loss of utility and loss of amenity. d. There is a strong public interest in deterring Landlords from renting out premises that are unsafe or fail to comply with legal standards. e. Conversely, the Tenants’ use of a dryer inside the premises is concerning. This dryer was venting inside the home, contributing to the damp conditions and health issues the Tenants’ complained of.
I turn to address the Landlord’s contentions: a. I have reviewed text messages between the parties, provided by the Landlord, in which the Landlord outlines the logistical challenges in remediating the premises. Such challenges do not diminish the Landlord’s obligations under s 45(1)(b) or the impact of the Landlord’s breach on the Tenants. The Landlord’s duty to provide and maintain the premises arise before the commencement of the tenancy and end when the Tenants vacate the premises. b. The Landlord claims the Tenants chose to stay at the premises, despite having another place to go. There is no solid evidence indicating the Tenants had an option of suitable accommodation elsewhere. The evidence suggests the Tenant’s remained at the premises because they had nowhere else to go. The offer of BnB accommodation by a family member never materialised. I am convinced, based on the health issues they were experiencing, had there been a suitable place for the Tenants to move to, they would have abandoned the tenancy. c. The Landlord’s critique of Tim Dorrington’s methodology and recommendations lacks supporting evidence. The Landlord cannot discredit Mr Dorrington’s core findings of hazardous mould in the premises because these were based on laboratory testing, the Landlord is not a mould expert, and did not obtain a second opinion. Similarly, the Tribunal lacks expertise in this area and can only have regard to the available evidence, which, on balance, shows unsafe levels of mould contamination. d. Similarly, whether the Tenants disclosed health problems earlier is irrelevant to the Landlord’s obligation to provide a safe living environment. I am satisfied that the medical records independently substantiate the health impacts and there is no evidence as to pre-existing conditions or susceptibilities in the Tenants or their young child. e. The Landlord completed air-testing after the tenancy which showed no contaminants in the air. The test results from Tim Dorrington’s report were obtained from tests taken during the tenancy. This could suggest a number of things, however, I put primary weight on the Tenants’ symptoms and concurrent laboratory testing confirming harmful concentration of mould contaminants. f. The Landlord’s allegations of collusion between the Tenants’ representative and Mr Dorrington lack substantiated evidence. While the Landlord implies a financial or professional motive behind Mr Dorrington’s involvement, there is no direct proof presented to support that these individuals acted in concert to fabricate or exaggerate findings. Decision
The Landlord’s failure to attend the leak, and the damp conditions the leak created inside the home, caused significant hardship to the Tenants, who were unable to safely occupy the premises for much of the tenancy.
The Tribunal orders as follows: a. The Tenant’s request for compensation pursuant to s 78A is declined. b. The Landlord must pay the tenants $7,200.00 in exemplary damages for breaches of section 45(1)(c) and 45(1AC) of the RTA. I have accounted for the Tenants’ improper use of a dryer during the tenancy, contributing to damp conditions inside the premise. c. I make no award for ordinary (general) damages as I have no receipts or records of actual losses incurred.
The Landlord must refund the full bond of $2,000 to the Tenants.
This decision reflects the seriousness of the Landlord’s breaches, the significant impact on the tenants, and the overarching goal of protecting tenants from unsafe residential premises.
Given the Tenants’ have partly succeeded in their claim, I grant suppression of their names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4749771 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4749771 — Mould & damp

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