What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5118477 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 5118477?

Cleaning: $621.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5118477?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5118477?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11703429-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5118477 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 5118477?

Cleaning: $621.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5118477?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5118477?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11703429-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5118477 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5118477 — net $621.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Partial refund of carpet cleaning costs	$621.00	Partial refund of carpet cleaning costs
Net award	$621.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$621.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The landlord will dispose of the vacuum cleaner and box of cleaning products left at the premises. The landlord confirmed that the vacuum cleaner will not be sold or given away. 3.

Reasons

Background

This was a fixed term tenancy beginning on 12 August 2024 and ending on 15 December 2024.
About two weeks into the tenancy, [the tenant/s] noticed a “mould bloom” in the shower. [The tenant/s] cleaned the shower immediately. Over the next two days, [the tenant/s] developed unusual symptoms, becoming intolerant to foods and getting dizzy when standing up. [The tenant/s] said that prior to the commencement of this tenancy she was in excellent health.
The food intolerance symptoms got worse over the next few days, then [the tenant/s] throat began to constrict. She went to hospital and was treated with steroids and anti-histamines.
[The tenant/s] involved other health professionals.
[The tenant/s] recovery was slow and difficult. She is still unwell. She was not able to return to the property. She moved into a 1-bedroom unit nearby. Her husband and dog remained in the tenanted premises.
The tenant’s application sought refund of the bond, refund of rent, accommodation expenses, medical expenses, and the cost of purchasing a specialised (anti-allergy) vacuum cleaner.
The landlord’s application sought cleaning costs, carpet and upholstery cleaning costs, and a disposal order for several items that the tenants left behind.
After the applications were filed, the tenants signed a bond release form that granted payment of all of the cleaning and carpet cleaning costs sought by the landlord. The bond was disbursed accordingly.
The hearing for both applications took place at the [Event location suppressed] on 2 April 2025. Ms Grace (Bailey Property Management) and Ms Landrigan attended the hearing in person. [The tenant/s] attended by phone with the consent of the Tribunal.
At the hearing [the tenant/s] explained that she agreed to the bond release because she needed to get as much as she could from the bond for her next tenancy. She said that she did not agree to the costs claimed by the Landlord, and she wanted the opportunity to dispute those costs at the hearing.
I accept that there is a ‘live’ dispute about the cleaning costs claimed by the landlord and that the tenant signing the bond release did not amount to the tenant accepting those costs. It is appropriate to determine that dispute in these proceedings. Landlord application Cleaning, and carpet / upholstery cleaning
The landlord sought $240.00 for general cleaning, $822.25 for carpet, rug, and furniture cleaning, and $90.00 for lawnmowing.
[The tenant/s] did not dispute the claim for lawnmowing.
[The tenant/s] disputed the cleaning and carpet cleaning claims on the grounds that they left the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
I was provided with a brief video recording that [the tenant/s] husband took at the end of the tenancy.
The landlords provided photographs from the final inspection.
The standard required of tenants is “reasonably clean and tidy”. I acknowledge that the photographs provided by the landlord focus on the problem areas and that the tenant’s video gives a more complete, or balanced, picture of the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
However, the photographs show clearly enough that some parts of the property, in particular the bathroom, did not meet the reasonably clean and tidy standard. The landlord could not have re-let the premises in that condition, without carrying out more cleaning.
The amount claimed for general cleaning reasonably reflects the extent of further cleaning required to address those areas.
The photographs also show that carpet cleaning was justified, and this is commonly the case when dogs are permitted in a tenancy.
The part of the landlord’s claim that I consider to be not proven is the claim for professional cleaning of three rugs, a sofa bed, a couch, and cushions. The evidence provided does not show that professional cleaning was necessary in those areas. The total cost of that cleaning was $621.00. The tenant is entitled to reimbursement of that amount. Disposal order
[The tenant/s] left a vacuum cleaner and a box of cleaning products in the property at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has retained those items in case [the tenant/s] wanted to retrieve them.
At the hearing [the tenant/s] confirmed that she did not want to retrieve them.
[The tenant/s] asked the landlord to confirm that they will dispose of the vacuum cleaner and not sell it or give it away, due to concerns about possible mould spores. Ms Grace confirmed that the vacuum cleaner will be disposed of as rubbish.
The costs associated with storage and disposal of these items are minimal and I will not make an award of costs. Tenant application
[The tenant/s] application seeks refund of rent, medical costs, and accommodation costs.
[The tenant/s] provided detailed oral and written evidence about what happened to her, supported by statements and letters from medical professionals.
The evidence provided is sufficient to prove, to the “more likely than not” standard that applies in this Tribunal, that:
[The tenant/s] experienced a medical issue known as Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (“MACS”). a. The trigger for the MACS was exposure to some type of mould. b. The exposure occurred when [the tenant/s] cleaned the shower in the property, as described above. c. The consequence of the MACS was that the premises were effectively uninhabitable for [the tenant/s] from the time that she went to hospital until the end of the fixed term tenancy. d. [The tenant/s] also incurred medical costs and costs for alternative accommodation.
I am also satisfied that: a. The property met the healthy homes standards. There is no proven non- compliance in respect of the heating, ventilation, draught stopping, insulation, or moisture ingress and drainage standards. b. There are no proven leaks at the property. c. There is no evidence of excessive dampness at the property. d. There is no evidence of a general or systemic mould problem at the property. e. There is no evidence to show that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The fact that there was some amount of some type of mould present in the shower does not mean that the landlord has breached their legal obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The RTA requires the landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and to meet the healthy homes standards. The healthy homes standards do not legislate the absence of dampness or mould, but the presence of measures that are intended to minimise / reduce dampness and mould, such as heating and insulation.
I accept [the tenant/s] argument that there is an implied term in every tenancy agreement that the premises are inhabitable at the commencement of the tenancy. However, that implied term can only mean ‘inhabitable’ in a general sense. It is not a warranty by the landlord that the tenant will not experience an adverse reaction to something that is present at the property. A tenant may have an allergic reaction to a bee sting while mowing the lawns. A tenant may react to a chemical that is present in the paint on the walls. A tenant may have a severe reaction to the presence of methamphetamine at the premises, even if the amount of methamphetamine present is below the level that triggers the requirement for de-contamination by the landlord.
Although the premises were uninhabitable for [the tenant/s] after her MACS began, the premises were not (and are not) generally uninhabitable. Ms Landrigan has owned the property for approximately 20 years. It has been consistently occupied over that period by a wide range of people for a wide range of purposes. It has been a family home, a rental property, and a short term ‘holiday’ rental. I accept Ms Landrigan’s statement that there have been no mould-related concerns / issues at the property prior to [the tenant/s] tenancy.
At the hearing [the tenant/s] said that one of the reasons for bringing this application was to prove that her MACS was a consequence of exposure to mould at the premises and not (as the owner and property manager have suggested) due to exposure to pollen or some other type of allergic reaction. I agree that she has proven that.
[The tenant/s] has also proven that she suffered a significant loss. The financial costs that she seeks in this application are only a small aspect of that loss.
However, my finding is that the landlord is not liable to pay compensation. The landlord met their legal duties under the RTA. What happened to [the tenant/s] was not reasonably foreseeable and was not a consequence of the Landlord failing to meet any legal duty. Filing fee, name suppression
Each party must bear its own cost of the filing fee.
The tenant sought name suppression. The Tenancy Tribunal must grant name suppression on application by any party who is “substantially successful” in the proceedings. The Tribunal also has a discretion to grant name suppression to any party “having regard to the interest of the parties and to the public interest”.
Although the tenant was not substantially successful in the proceedings, my finding is that it is appropriate to exercise the Tribunal’s discretion to grant name suppression in this instance. This decision contains personal medical information. The subject matter of the decision is of general public interest, but the particulars of the tenant are not.
Therefore, name suppression is granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5118477 — net $621.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Partial refund of carpet cleaning costs	$621.00	Partial refund of carpet cleaning costs
Net award	$621.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$621.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The landlord will dispose of the vacuum cleaner and box of cleaning products left at the premises. The landlord confirmed that the vacuum cleaner will not be sold or given away. 3.

Reasons

Background

This was a fixed term tenancy beginning on 12 August 2024 and ending on 15 December 2024.
About two weeks into the tenancy, [the tenant/s] noticed a “mould bloom” in the shower. [The tenant/s] cleaned the shower immediately. Over the next two days, [the tenant/s] developed unusual symptoms, becoming intolerant to foods and getting dizzy when standing up. [The tenant/s] said that prior to the commencement of this tenancy she was in excellent health.
The food intolerance symptoms got worse over the next few days, then [the tenant/s] throat began to constrict. She went to hospital and was treated with steroids and anti-histamines.
[The tenant/s] involved other health professionals.
[The tenant/s] recovery was slow and difficult. She is still unwell. She was not able to return to the property. She moved into a 1-bedroom unit nearby. Her husband and dog remained in the tenanted premises.
The tenant’s application sought refund of the bond, refund of rent, accommodation expenses, medical expenses, and the cost of purchasing a specialised (anti-allergy) vacuum cleaner.
The landlord’s application sought cleaning costs, carpet and upholstery cleaning costs, and a disposal order for several items that the tenants left behind.
After the applications were filed, the tenants signed a bond release form that granted payment of all of the cleaning and carpet cleaning costs sought by the landlord. The bond was disbursed accordingly.
The hearing for both applications took place at the [Event location suppressed] on 2 April 2025. Ms Grace (Bailey Property Management) and Ms Landrigan attended the hearing in person. [The tenant/s] attended by phone with the consent of the Tribunal.
At the hearing [the tenant/s] explained that she agreed to the bond release because she needed to get as much as she could from the bond for her next tenancy. She said that she did not agree to the costs claimed by the Landlord, and she wanted the opportunity to dispute those costs at the hearing.
I accept that there is a ‘live’ dispute about the cleaning costs claimed by the landlord and that the tenant signing the bond release did not amount to the tenant accepting those costs. It is appropriate to determine that dispute in these proceedings. Landlord application Cleaning, and carpet / upholstery cleaning
The landlord sought $240.00 for general cleaning, $822.25 for carpet, rug, and furniture cleaning, and $90.00 for lawnmowing.
[The tenant/s] did not dispute the claim for lawnmowing.
[The tenant/s] disputed the cleaning and carpet cleaning claims on the grounds that they left the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
I was provided with a brief video recording that [the tenant/s] husband took at the end of the tenancy.
The landlords provided photographs from the final inspection.
The standard required of tenants is “reasonably clean and tidy”. I acknowledge that the photographs provided by the landlord focus on the problem areas and that the tenant’s video gives a more complete, or balanced, picture of the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
However, the photographs show clearly enough that some parts of the property, in particular the bathroom, did not meet the reasonably clean and tidy standard. The landlord could not have re-let the premises in that condition, without carrying out more cleaning.
The amount claimed for general cleaning reasonably reflects the extent of further cleaning required to address those areas.
The photographs also show that carpet cleaning was justified, and this is commonly the case when dogs are permitted in a tenancy.
The part of the landlord’s claim that I consider to be not proven is the claim for professional cleaning of three rugs, a sofa bed, a couch, and cushions. The evidence provided does not show that professional cleaning was necessary in those areas. The total cost of that cleaning was $621.00. The tenant is entitled to reimbursement of that amount. Disposal order
[The tenant/s] left a vacuum cleaner and a box of cleaning products in the property at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has retained those items in case [the tenant/s] wanted to retrieve them.
At the hearing [the tenant/s] confirmed that she did not want to retrieve them.
[The tenant/s] asked the landlord to confirm that they will dispose of the vacuum cleaner and not sell it or give it away, due to concerns about possible mould spores. Ms Grace confirmed that the vacuum cleaner will be disposed of as rubbish.
The costs associated with storage and disposal of these items are minimal and I will not make an award of costs. Tenant application
[The tenant/s] application seeks refund of rent, medical costs, and accommodation costs.
[The tenant/s] provided detailed oral and written evidence about what happened to her, supported by statements and letters from medical professionals.
The evidence provided is sufficient to prove, to the “more likely than not” standard that applies in this Tribunal, that:
[The tenant/s] experienced a medical issue known as Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (“MACS”). a. The trigger for the MACS was exposure to some type of mould. b. The exposure occurred when [the tenant/s] cleaned the shower in the property, as described above. c. The consequence of the MACS was that the premises were effectively uninhabitable for [the tenant/s] from the time that she went to hospital until the end of the fixed term tenancy. d. [The tenant/s] also incurred medical costs and costs for alternative accommodation.
I am also satisfied that: a. The property met the healthy homes standards. There is no proven non- compliance in respect of the heating, ventilation, draught stopping, insulation, or moisture ingress and drainage standards. b. There are no proven leaks at the property. c. There is no evidence of excessive dampness at the property. d. There is no evidence of a general or systemic mould problem at the property. e. There is no evidence to show that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The fact that there was some amount of some type of mould present in the shower does not mean that the landlord has breached their legal obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The RTA requires the landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and to meet the healthy homes standards. The healthy homes standards do not legislate the absence of dampness or mould, but the presence of measures that are intended to minimise / reduce dampness and mould, such as heating and insulation.
I accept [the tenant/s] argument that there is an implied term in every tenancy agreement that the premises are inhabitable at the commencement of the tenancy. However, that implied term can only mean ‘inhabitable’ in a general sense. It is not a warranty by the landlord that the tenant will not experience an adverse reaction to something that is present at the property. A tenant may have an allergic reaction to a bee sting while mowing the lawns. A tenant may react to a chemical that is present in the paint on the walls. A tenant may have a severe reaction to the presence of methamphetamine at the premises, even if the amount of methamphetamine present is below the level that triggers the requirement for de-contamination by the landlord.
Although the premises were uninhabitable for [the tenant/s] after her MACS began, the premises were not (and are not) generally uninhabitable. Ms Landrigan has owned the property for approximately 20 years. It has been consistently occupied over that period by a wide range of people for a wide range of purposes. It has been a family home, a rental property, and a short term ‘holiday’ rental. I accept Ms Landrigan’s statement that there have been no mould-related concerns / issues at the property prior to [the tenant/s] tenancy.
At the hearing [the tenant/s] said that one of the reasons for bringing this application was to prove that her MACS was a consequence of exposure to mould at the premises and not (as the owner and property manager have suggested) due to exposure to pollen or some other type of allergic reaction. I agree that she has proven that.
[The tenant/s] has also proven that she suffered a significant loss. The financial costs that she seeks in this application are only a small aspect of that loss.
However, my finding is that the landlord is not liable to pay compensation. The landlord met their legal duties under the RTA. What happened to [the tenant/s] was not reasonably foreseeable and was not a consequence of the Landlord failing to meet any legal duty. Filing fee, name suppression
Each party must bear its own cost of the filing fee.
The tenant sought name suppression. The Tenancy Tribunal must grant name suppression on application by any party who is “substantially successful” in the proceedings. The Tribunal also has a discretion to grant name suppression to any party “having regard to the interest of the parties and to the public interest”.
Although the tenant was not substantially successful in the proceedings, my finding is that it is appropriate to exercise the Tribunal’s discretion to grant name suppression in this instance. This decision contains personal medical information. The subject matter of the decision is of general public interest, but the particulars of the tenant are not.
Therefore, name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5118477 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5118477 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions