What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5245811 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 5245811?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,760.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245811?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245811?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11907950-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5245811 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 5245811?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,760.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245811?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245811?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11907950-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5245811 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5245811 — net $2,787.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7/3/2025	$2,760.00	Rent arrears to 7/3/2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,787.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,787.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
James Macalister must pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 immediately, calculated as per the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The application by the tenant for exemplary damages and compensation of $460.00 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 26/3/2025 the landlord applied for rent arrears of $2,760.00 following the end of the tenancy.
In response on 29/4/2025 the tenant applied for exemplary damages for breach of section 45 and compensation of $460.00 for a report on the state of the premises.

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

The tenancy was for a fixed term from 1/2/2025 to 31/1/2026 at $690.00 rent per week.
Three days before the tenancy began the tenant advised the landlord he did not wish to continue with the tenancy because of the state of the premises.
The premises were re-let as at 13/3/2025.
In support of the claim for rent arrears to 7/3/2025 the landlord provided rent records.
The landlord submitted they had undertaken further cleaning on the premises and when it became clear the tenant did not wish to move in, had attempted to mitigate the loss of both parties by finding replacement tenants as soon as possible.
However, the landlord highlighted that the lack of communication by the tenant between 28/1 and 11/3/2025, the fact that furniture was left in the premises for some time and the key not returned until the premises were re-let did not make the process easy.
While agreeing that he had signed the tenancy agreement the tenant submitted that he had told the landlord he did not wish to move into the premises due to cleanliness and mould issues.
In support of his position the tenant had sent photographs to the landlord, which the latter provided to the Tribunal.
As the tenancy was for a fixed term, I find the tenant is liable for the rent until either the end of the term, 31/1/2026 or a replacement tenant was found, 13/3/2025, whichever comes first.
An award has been made for rent to 7/3/2025, as claimed by the landlord.

Has the landlord breached their obligations?

The tenant submitted that the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean condition and were subject to mould.
In support of the claim the tenant provided a mould sample analysis report from Consultex Environmental dated 17/2/2025.
The report noted that three rooms in the premises were inspected on 7/2/2025, the bathroom, lounge, and a storage room.
One sample was taken on the painted surface behind the washing machine in the bathroom. Analysis detected “greater than 1,100 Cladosporium per square centimeter and greater than 1,100 Aureobasidium per square centimeter. The laboratory has detected intact fungal hyphae. This suggests active mould growth.”
Further the report opined that Aspergillus/Penicillium, Cladosporium and Aurebasidium were not desirable indoors and could be associated with health problems in some people.
In addition, the report noted visible mould on the ceiling walls, window and doors of the bathroom, water damage on the lounge windowsills but dry timber, and visible mould on the ceiling and walls of the storage room with borer.
The humidity levels in the three rooms ranged between 59.1% to 60.7%.
At the time of the testing the premises were empty.
In response the landlord suggested that the tenant had not discussed the issue of mould and had they been aware of such concerns they would have rectified the problem.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of 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) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The applicant, in this case for the issue of the state of the premises, the tenant, is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
I find I am not persuaded by the evidence that it is more likely than not that the premises suffered from a mould problem or that this was the issue which made the tenant decide not to continue with the tenancy.
The evidence does support that the tenant did not believe the premises were reasonably clean, and that the landlord immediately remedied that issue.
However, while it is possible there was mould in the premises, at best the report limits this to the bathroom and storage rooms, next to each other with only the bathroom having a confirmed reading for mould in a difficult to access area.
There is no evidence that the landlord knew about the mould behind the washing machine in the bathroom until they received a copy of the report.
Put simply the tenant has failed to provide sufficient persuasive evidence to prove the mould issue is anything other than a possibility, rather than a probability.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
The claim by the tenant for exemplary damages and compensation fails.
As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must award the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the landlord because they were successful with the proceedings.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5245811 — net $2,787.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7/3/2025	$2,760.00	Rent arrears to 7/3/2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,787.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,787.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
James Macalister must pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 immediately, calculated as per the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The application by the tenant for exemplary damages and compensation of $460.00 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 26/3/2025 the landlord applied for rent arrears of $2,760.00 following the end of the tenancy.
In response on 29/4/2025 the tenant applied for exemplary damages for breach of section 45 and compensation of $460.00 for a report on the state of the premises.

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

The tenancy was for a fixed term from 1/2/2025 to 31/1/2026 at $690.00 rent per week.
Three days before the tenancy began the tenant advised the landlord he did not wish to continue with the tenancy because of the state of the premises.
The premises were re-let as at 13/3/2025.
In support of the claim for rent arrears to 7/3/2025 the landlord provided rent records.
The landlord submitted they had undertaken further cleaning on the premises and when it became clear the tenant did not wish to move in, had attempted to mitigate the loss of both parties by finding replacement tenants as soon as possible.
However, the landlord highlighted that the lack of communication by the tenant between 28/1 and 11/3/2025, the fact that furniture was left in the premises for some time and the key not returned until the premises were re-let did not make the process easy.
While agreeing that he had signed the tenancy agreement the tenant submitted that he had told the landlord he did not wish to move into the premises due to cleanliness and mould issues.
In support of his position the tenant had sent photographs to the landlord, which the latter provided to the Tribunal.
As the tenancy was for a fixed term, I find the tenant is liable for the rent until either the end of the term, 31/1/2026 or a replacement tenant was found, 13/3/2025, whichever comes first.
An award has been made for rent to 7/3/2025, as claimed by the landlord.

Has the landlord breached their obligations?

The tenant submitted that the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean condition and were subject to mould.
In support of the claim the tenant provided a mould sample analysis report from Consultex Environmental dated 17/2/2025.
The report noted that three rooms in the premises were inspected on 7/2/2025, the bathroom, lounge, and a storage room.
One sample was taken on the painted surface behind the washing machine in the bathroom. Analysis detected “greater than 1,100 Cladosporium per square centimeter and greater than 1,100 Aureobasidium per square centimeter. The laboratory has detected intact fungal hyphae. This suggests active mould growth.”
Further the report opined that Aspergillus/Penicillium, Cladosporium and Aurebasidium were not desirable indoors and could be associated with health problems in some people.
In addition, the report noted visible mould on the ceiling walls, window and doors of the bathroom, water damage on the lounge windowsills but dry timber, and visible mould on the ceiling and walls of the storage room with borer.
The humidity levels in the three rooms ranged between 59.1% to 60.7%.
At the time of the testing the premises were empty.
In response the landlord suggested that the tenant had not discussed the issue of mould and had they been aware of such concerns they would have rectified the problem.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of 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) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The applicant, in this case for the issue of the state of the premises, the tenant, is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
I find I am not persuaded by the evidence that it is more likely than not that the premises suffered from a mould problem or that this was the issue which made the tenant decide not to continue with the tenancy.
The evidence does support that the tenant did not believe the premises were reasonably clean, and that the landlord immediately remedied that issue.
However, while it is possible there was mould in the premises, at best the report limits this to the bathroom and storage rooms, next to each other with only the bathroom having a confirmed reading for mould in a difficult to access area.
There is no evidence that the landlord knew about the mould behind the washing machine in the bathroom until they received a copy of the report.
Put simply the tenant has failed to provide sufficient persuasive evidence to prove the mould issue is anything other than a possibility, rather than a probability.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
The claim by the tenant for exemplary damages and compensation fails.
As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must award the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the landlord because they were successful with the proceedings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245811 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245811 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

Has the landlord breached their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

Has the landlord breached their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions