What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5096832 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5096832?

Compensation: $570.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5096832?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5096832?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11715607-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5096832 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5096832?

Compensation: $570.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5096832?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5096832?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11715607-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5096832 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5096832 — net $597.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for failure to maintain	$570.00	Compensation for failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$597.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$597.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5096832 — net $597.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for failure to maintain	$570.00	Compensation for failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$597.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$597.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $ 597.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

[ Tenant] appeared. [ Property Manager(s)] appeared for the landlord.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).
The tenant claims that despite being notified of black mould in the toilet, the landlord has failed to address the issue. As compensation, the tenant is seeking a full rent refund from the start of the tenancy on 23 May 2024, to the date of the application on 04 December 2024, as well as a work order.
The onus of proving this claim rests with the tenant. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The tenant must establish more likely than not that the landlord has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Act.
The parties advise that subsequent to filing the application, Ms Clarke has recently served the landlord with notice to withdraw from the joint tenancy due to domestic violence, effective on or about 28 March 2025. Law
Under section 45 of the Act, a landlord must: i.Provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (45(1)(b), ii.Comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Home Standards) Regulations 2019 (“HHS”) and (45(1) (bb), iii.Comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety, such as those contained in the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 which also sets out minimum standards for houses (“HIR”) and (45(1)(c).
In Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV 2009 085-001431, 24 February 2010, the Court stated: “I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair the defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”.
Whether the landlord has failed to meet their obligations will require an objective assessment.
The HHS standards concerning smoke alarms and insulation applied at the commencement of the tenancy. The HHS concerning minimum standards for ventilation, draught stopping, heating, and moisture ingress and drainage for this tenancy came into effect on 20 September 2024. Regulation 15 of the HIR states that every house shall be free from dampness.
In addition to compensation for loss, including loss of amenity, breaching any of these obligations is also an unlawful act for which depending on the intention of the party breaching, exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded. In this case there is no claim for exemplary damages.
Where the Tribunal finds that the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) of the Act.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) of the Act. Mould in the toilet
The tenant states that shortly after moving in, they noticed a dark coloured substance, which they claim was mould, in the toilet bowl and on the wall behind. The tenant has produced photographs they claim were sent to the landlord. Two show a dark coloured substance near the inside of the rim, and two show a dark substance on the wall immediately beneath the cistern. The substance appears to be mould. Although the tenant cleaned and removed the mould, it returned. During a property inspection they showed another property manager, who they state suggested using stronger chemicals. The tenant states they did but the substance returned.
In July 2024, they sent the landlord another photograph showing mould on the inside of the bowl and on the back wall. Again, the landlord suggested that the tenant clean the toilet. Unhappy with the response, on 28 August 2024 they issued a 14-day breach notice. The notice states “get the black mould permanently removed.” The tenant stated that nothing happened.
On or about 25 November 2024 the tenant states they sent more photographs showing some minor damage. The photographs included one of mould on the wall under the cistern.
On 03 December 2024, a contractor for the landlord visited the property to repair the damage. The tenant has produced a text message from the contractor sent the day before, stating “.... they’ve (the landlord) let me know the following repairs are needed, please repair the door handle which has come loose. Please re nail the wooden window frame that has come off. Please check the toilet for any leaks. The tenant reports issue with mould”
The tenant states that while at the property, the contractor looked at the wall and advised that the substance appeared to be black mould. On 04 December 2024, the tenant filed an application for compensation and a work order.
The landlord stated that they received photographs in July 2024 showing what appeared to be mould inside the bowl only. They showed these to a plumber, who suggested the tenant clean the toilet. Upon receiving the 14-day notice, they asked the tenant for more photographs. The ones sent were similar to those previously provided and simply showed a dark coloured substance in the bowl. Again, they state they showed the photographs to their plumber who again suggested cleaning the bowl.
The landlord then states that they heard nothing more until the application on 04 December 2024, which for the first-time, mentioned mould on the wall behind the toilet. Prior to this, they claimed to have not been made aware of the issue. They claim that the first time they have seen mould on the wall is in the photographs produced at the hearing.
They deny receiving any photographs on 25 November 2024. They accept that the contractor had been to the property on 03 December 2024 to complete repairs but had not reported any mould.
The landlord initially stated that following a report of “drain worms”, and not mould, that a plumber had been sent to the property on 23 January 2025.
However, the landlord then produced a work order which showed that on 10 January 2025, they had instructed the plumber concerned to inspect the toilet for mould, leaks, signs of dampness, and “drain worms”.
On 16 January 2025, the landlord asked the plumber not to discuss matters with the tenant, and to report only to the landlord. The plumber visited the property on 23 January 2025.
In a message from the plumber to the landlord dated 24 January 2025, the plumber states “Went and had a look. No sign of anything out of the ordinary.” The plumbers invoice dated 29 January 2025 states “Inspected toilet. Everything appears to be in a normal condition with no obvious signs of a leak. Checked for drainage worms however nothing was found.”
[ Property manager] stated that she personally conducted an inspection on 14 February 2025 and could not detect any mould in the toilet. The landlord has produced the inspection report, including photographs of the toilet, which do not show the presence of mould. Decision
The mould is located beneath the cistern and is obstructed from view. Viewing the mould, and taking the photographs requires a close inspection behind the toilet. Unless pointed out, the mould would not be visible with a cursory inspection.
Although the tenant claims to have sent photographs in July and August showing the mould on the wall, there is insufficient evidence to support this. I am satisfied that the first time the tenant actually sent the landlord a photograph showing mould behind the toilet was on 25 November 2024.
The landlord clearly received the message and photographs, and as a result, sent the contractor on 03 December 2024, whose instructions are reflected in their text message to the tenant. It is unclear why the contractor did not report the matter to the landlord.
Although the landlord initially denied receiving the photographs on 25 November 2024, they later conceded that they had, but claimed to be unaware of them until the hearing.
The plumber who visited the property on 23 January 2025 had instructions to investigate for mould but not discuss the matter with the tenant.
There is no evidence that the tenant showed the plumber the wall underneath the cistern. However, a proper inspection by a qualified plumber would have revealed the mould.
In summary i.The first time the landlord was sent a photograph showing the mould on the wall was on 25 November 2024, ii.The mould is obscured from view and unless pointed out, would not be visible with a cursory inspection unless specially pointed out, iii.On 03 December 2025, the landlord sent a contractor to the property with instructions to investigate any mould related issues, iv.The tenant showed the contractor the mould, v.The contractor is the only person whom I am satisfied has had the mould pointed out to them, vi.It is unclear whether the contractor reported the matter to the landlord, if they did, it appears to have been overlooked, vii.The location of the mould is clearly stated in the application dated 04 December 2024, viii.The plumber who visited the property on 23 January 2025 with instructions to investigate for mould but not engage with the tenant. An inspection by the plumber would have revealed any mould issues. The plumber did not report any. Decision
I am satisfied that there has been a breach, specifically regarding the delay. Although the landlord was made aware of the matter on 25 November 2024, the landlord has failed to properly address it until the plumbers visit on 23 January 2025.
Apart from a contained area of mould beneath the cistern, there is no other evidence suggesting that the property otherwise suffers from excessive moisture or dampness. There is insufficient evidence to question the accuracy of the HHS compliance statement. The tenant seeks a full rent refund, alleging that the tenant and other occupants have become unwell. There is no evidence to support this assertion.
Nevertheless, the delay has clearly affected the tenant’s enjoyment of the property. I award the tenant compensation for loss of amenity of $570.00, which is one weeks rent.
The landlord has stated they intend conducting another investigation as soon as possible. This is a prudent course of action. On that basis, I decline to make a work order. Costs
Because the [tenant] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
In this case I consider that both parties have been sufficiently successful, and both are entitled to name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5096832 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5096832 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions