What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5116675 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5116675?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5116675?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5116675?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12253770-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5116675 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5116675?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5116675?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5116675?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12253770-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5116675 — Mould & damp

Order

The application is dismissed.
The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant names and details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
The applicant had sought a series of work orders at the date of application on 19 December 2024. A subsequent 14-day notice from the tenant on 9 January 2025 listed four items for remedy. A detailed list was emailed to the landlord in October 2024 but that was not available. Its existence was apparent in an email dated 19 November 2024 that referred to it.
This application was lodged after an enquiry by the tenants to Tenancy Services. The tenants did comment at the hearing the application was a desire for maintenance rather than any compensation.
A Case Conference was called on 10 March 2025. That confirmed the claims of the tenants but at that time the tenancy was ending so the claims were converted to vacated compensation claims.
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Any reasonability shall have regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
This was a long tenancy of some four years. The premises presented at commencement as somewhat dated in part.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

A tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The landlord responded with details of a number of maintenance tasks completed during the tenancy. A feature of completed tasks appears to be written notice from the tenant to the landlord prior to resolution. It became apparent that several other issues, some apparently from commencement, were at best verbally notified, or pointed out during routine inspections. It was not apparent if the use by the tenant of written communication for some notices reflected a severity of issue but I have considered it open to the tenants to observe such success when in writing and to have modified their approach to any unresolved informal approaches well before this application was lodged.
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to remedy repair issues within a reasonable timeframe. I deal with each in turn. a. Broken Laundry Tub The tenants claimed they were advised at commencement that the laundry tub would be replaced. What does seem pre-existing was a work order for the hinges on the cupboard door to be repaired. The tenant said she did not use the tub although it appeared in working order and watertight. The concern appears to be more that water might enter behind the cabinetry. The photos provided show a dated laundry cabinet and some gaps in sealant between the tub and wall. The landlord submitted it was functional and never seen as requiring replacement. Based on the evidence I do not find the landlord failed to provide a functional laundry tub. b. Back and side shared fence Photos showed one loose fence paling on one boundary fence and cracked concrete post on another boundary wire mesh fence. The tenants claim a neighbour’s dog could access the premises back yard through the loose paling. The issue was never raised with the landlord or local council dog control. Based on the photos, both fences are considered tired but functional. The loose paling would be easily remedied by nailing it back in. I do not find any failure of the landlord here that should be compensated. c. Damaged Range Hood Claim withdrawn at the hearing as it was resolved. d. Damaged lino in the kitchen and dining room The lino in the kitchen and dining room was lifting. A trip hazard between the lino joins existed. The landlord provided an email dated 25 October 2023 regarding the handyman attending to repair the lino. Another issue raised by the tenants was of lino deteriorating in the kitchen, causing some rough surface areas that might cut bare feet. That was remedied by the tenants placing a mat over the area. I did not consider this second issue was raised with the landlord. e. Air bubbles and chipping paint in the lounge due to water leak There was a water leak from the roof. It impacted the lounge wall but it was repaired at the time. This issue did not impact the tenants directly and I do not consider the landlord was advised, or required, to address any legacy wall damage from the leak f. water leaking in the bathroom A possible water leak was reported and inspected. It was believed by the contractor the cause of the water was more likely from use of the bath. The floor had a drop from that to the door and hallway. One tenant had early in the tenancy put a foot through a failed floorboard in the laundry. That was repaired at the time and not a claim here but the legacy was a concern regarding floor stability. However, plumbers and other tradespersons were in regular attendance at the premises on maintenance tasks and no valid concern regarding floor stability was ever identified and no water leak was apparent. g. Hole in the wall in small bedroom At the commencement of the tenancy there was a small area of wall damage in one corner. This was known to the landlord. The photo is uncertain on the original cause, but the paper is compromised and plaster deterioration evident with possible mould showing in a photo provided from during the tenancy. I heard from the tenants that the bed in that room covered the damage but they would pull out the bed and wipe it down occasionally, concerned about mould. It was never formally reported to the landlord as a maintenance task. I have considered the bed placement as a reasonable barrier to any landlord visual observation during the tenancy. I do not find any grounds for compensation here. h. Mould and dampness in bedroom This was claimed in the second bedroom. I had no evidence of this and no notification to the landlord of any problem prior to this application was apparent. I do note the “missing” October email to the landlord was a list of items and this may have been on that. It was not on the January notice to remedy. In Xiao and Zhao v Dong [2021 NZTT North Shore 4219619 at [26], the Adjudicator found that “generally, landlords will only be responsible for mould that arises in the course of a tenancy, if there were some defects with the tenancy, that the landlord would be responsible for. Some level of mould is a reality in residential dwellings, even dwellings that are well build, warm, ventilated and without defects”, deciding that the mould was not the responsibility of the landlord because “the tenants have no identified any pre-existing problem with mould at the start of the tenancy”, “no evidence before the Tribunal that there is any defect with the structure of the building” and that “the problem with the mould may have arisen as a consequence of how the tenants were living in the dwelling”. I do not find any grounds for compensation here. i. Broken window latch A window latch in the main bedroom broke through fair wear. The landlord was notified by email on 9 December 2024. It was repaired 22 January 2025. A photo was provided by the tenants at the hearing. The landlord had not seen it before. That the failure of the latch was a security issue was not clear when notified. The landlord scheduled the repair as routine. In this instance, I find the tenant has not been able to evidence a landlord failure to act promptly once appropriately aware of the issue. j. Broken outdoor tap k. The handle had broken and required replacement. It could be turned using a hand tool and was raised in the January notice to remedy. It was repaired. No compensation is awarded. l. Damp under house The tenant concern re floor stability has already been noted. There was no evidence of dampness under the house that required attention. Again, the nature of a number of trades callouts meant this area (easily accessed as the premises was raised) was observed and no concerns raised. This claim is dismissed. m. Water running on the outside of the house The claim pertained to a “rusty” staining from what appears most likely to have been from some liquid running down the wallboards and exiting to the exterior above the stucco wall in one area below the ground floor level. The tenant said she wiped it away but reappeared another time. She had some concern as to what the staining may be and whether it was a health issue. The area of discoloration was raised but parallel to the stained steps up to the house and the colour was not dissimilar to the stain on the steps. The commencement height of the stained area, compared to the steps, appears to eliminate any correlation. Leaching from timber boards from water was another possibility. Regardless, there was no ongoing water leak observed or significant impact on the occupants from the staining. No grounds for compensation are exist. n. Bedroom light This claim was withdrawn at the hearing. o. outdoor gutters This claim was withdrawn at the hearing. p. Possible water leak high water bills The landlord and tenant agreed on a weekly payment towards future water rates. In this region, water billing is six-monthly. This landlord reads the water meter during inspections and generates an invoice off that read. The rate mirrors that of the local authority water consumption costs. The tenants were uncertain of the basis of their billed costs. They requested the local authority invoices, and these were offered to the tenants. The landlord reconciliation process appears robust and accurate, with a mutual benefit for the owner of future liability for water rates being covered by a regular payment schedule, and the tenant receiving a timelier indication of their consumption and any related costs, allowing consumption adjustment or investigation if necessary. This claim is dismissed. Summary
This tenancy features two work streams of maintenance. The first is categorized as involving written or clear communication from the tenant of maintenance issues, typically responded to in a timely manner (and if inadequately addressed, not raised again by the tenant). The second work stream forms the list here. These typically were not communicated in writing, or if so, with no clear sense of urgency.
That said, the tenant frustration led to this application, and a subsequent notice to remedy so I accept things were occurring. What the application lacked was prior evidence of maintenance issues being clearly raised and then ignored by the landlord. I consider some of these claims, at least in part, were defensive to absolve the tenant from any later liability rather than seeking any specific completion. This is practical but such claims do not easily flow into compensation. Where there is no or little impact on the use of the premises it is for the landlord to manage such maintenance as they deem necessary
The premises were much as presented at commencement and the rent reflected that. The tenant ruefully observed the importance of record keeping and clearly communicating issues as they arise. That conclusion may be beneficial in the future. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenants requested suppression in their application. They have not been successful; therefore, suppression is not ordered of right. I have considered the broader positive experience and operation of this tenancy. I have also considered the tenant interaction with Tenancy Services and the advice that led to this application. Lastly, the lack of success of some claims are possibly a failure to be able to evidence claims to the required standard, rather than a claim without justification. For these reasons, I consider the tenant interests in suppression outweigh any public interest. I order suppression of the tenant details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5116675 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5116675 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions