What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5280380 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 5280380?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5280380?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5280380?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13025384-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5280380 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 5280380?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5280380?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5280380?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13025384-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5280380 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Introduction

This is the Tribunal’s decision on an application filed by the tenant, [The tenant/s], on 5 June 2025 in relation to the premises situated in [Suburb]. The landlord is Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities (“Kāinga Ora”). The tenancy commenced on 15 August 2022 and at the time of the hearing remained current. The tenant lives at the premises with her three children.
The tenant’s application raises serious concerns about the health, safety, warmth and dryness of the home, particularly following a significant plumbing leak in April 2025. The tenant also links the condition of the home to her children’s health, including asthma and respiratory illness. I acknowledge at the outset that these concerns are genuinely held. The events described by the tenant, including being advised late at night that the home was not safe to remain in, and having to relocate her children with limited support in [City 1], would be distressing for any whānau.
The Tribunal’s role, however, is not to determine whether Kāinga Ora should transfer the tenant to a different property. The Tribunal’s role is to determine, on the evidence, whether the landlord has breached the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) or the Healthy Homes Standards, and what orders (if any) should be made. Background
The tenant says that on Easter Sunday 20 April 2025 she noticed leaking under the carport roof and contacted Kāinga Ora on 21 April 2025. She says trades attended, but the leak continued and then worsened, affecting the upstairs carpet and stairwell. The tenant says her son’s asthma was triggered, the carpet became saturated, a board placed over the carpet became drenched, and water tracked down the stairs. The tenant says that after a late-night visit a contractor advised that the home was not safe, and she left [City 1] with her children to stay with family in [City 2]. She describes ongoing odour, dampness and difficulty breathing on return, and significant fatigue and stress managing her children’s needs and travel between [City 1] and [City 2]. The tenant says she remains concerned that there is mould beneath the upstairs and stair carpet and that the home is draughty and cold.
The tenant obtained a letter from [Healthy homes service] dated 6 June 2025 following an observational visit on 5 June 2025. That letter raised concerns about mould on the stair walls, draughts around windows, and a continuing smell of mould in the carpet area after the April leak. The tenant relies on GP letters (16 January 2025 and 6 May 2025) describing dampness, draughts, safety hazards and the impact on her son’s asthma, and refers to her daughter’s hospital admission for bronchiolitis and a discharge note recording the mother’s concerns about a cold, damp home and mould under carpet after a flood.
Kāinga Ora accepts the April 2025 leak occurred, but says it responded promptly, undertook emergency make-safe steps, repaired the leak, cleaned and dried the affected carpet, and left dryers in place for several days. Kāinga Ora also says it undertook multiple follow-up visits and a structured repair plan in July 2025, further work in late September and early October 2025, arranged mould testing under the carpet in August 2025, and commissioned additional assessment work. Kāinga Ora relies on Healthy Homes documentation showing compliance, and says the property meets the Healthy Homes Standards as at the updated inspection in October 2025. The tenant’s position
The tenant’s concerns can be summarised as follows.
The tenant says the April 2025 leak was serious, escalated quickly, and caused flooding to the upstairs carpet and stair area. She says the home became damp, smelt unpleasant, and was hard to breathe in. She says this contributed to a worsening of her son’s asthma and respiratory illness for her baby. She is concerned there is mould beneath the carpet and underlay due to the leak and that Kāinga Ora refused to replace the carpet.
The tenant says the home is draughty and cold and that mould is present on the walls along the stairwell. She says the Healthy Homes information initially provided to her was confusing because it related to a 2021 inspection, before her tenancy began, and she was told at one point the property was not “on file” for an assessment. She says she felt her concerns were not treated seriously and that this has left her mentally drained and overstressed.
The tenant seeks findings in relation to draught stopping, moisture and drainage, Healthy Homes compliance, and alleged breaches relating to tenancy agreement information. The landlord’s position
Kāinga Ora says the tenancy began on 15 August 2022, the premises are an older home (built in 1986), and it provided the premises in a reasonable state of repair at the commencement of the tenancy. It says maintenance was completed prior to the tenancy, including work relevant to Healthy Homes compliance.
Kāinga Ora says that after [Healthy homes service] raised concerns, Kāinga Ora arranged inspections and works, including adjusting and repairing windows and latches, addressing draught points, recommending and arranging cleaning and drying of carpet, and carrying out additional Healthy Homes-related work in late September and early October 2025 (including replacing fallen sections of underfloor insulation). Kāinga Ora says it arranged mould testing beneath the hallway carpet underlay. The test did not detect Stachybotrys and did not show evidence of active mould growth. Kāinga Ora says it also addressed guttering and vegetation issues identified through further assessment work.
Kāinga Ora’s position is that it has complied with section 45 of the Act and the Healthy Homes Standards, and that any issues raised have been assessed and appropriately repaired or remediated. Relevant law
Section 45 of the RTA sets out a landlord’s core responsibilities. The landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable, and must comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.
The Healthy Homes Standards are requirements imposed by regulations made under section 138B. Those standards include, among other things, requirements relating to draught stopping and moisture ingress and drainage. The landlord’s obligation is not to provide a perfect home or a new home, but to meet the minimum standards prescribed by law and to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
In any Tribunal proceeding, the applicant bears the burden of proving the claim on the balance of probabilities. The Tribunal’s role is to decide what is more likely than not, based on evidence. As the District Court explained in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, it is for the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case; it is not for the Tribunal to extract evidence or fill gaps. The Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55 has also recognised that the more serious the allegation, the more cogent the evidence required to satisfy the civil standard. I have applied those principles in assessing the evidence in this case. Issues for determination
The issues I must determine are whether, on the evidence, the tenant has established that the landlord has breached any of the following.
First, the landlord’s maintenance and Healthy Homes obligations under section 45(1)(b) and section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA.
Secondly, whether the landlord has failed to comply with Healthy Homes requirements made by regulations under section 138B, including the draught stopping standard and moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Thirdly, whether there has been a breach of tenancy agreement requirements under sections 13, 13A and 16B of the Act, to the extent those provisions are relied on in the tenant’s application. Analysis The April 2025 leak and the tenant’s experience
I accept the tenant’s account that the April 2025 leak was highly disruptive and distressing. I also accept that, as a practical matter, even when a leak is repaired, the consequences for a household can continue for some time, including odour, discomfort, disruption to living arrangements, stress, and worry about children’s health. The tenant’s evidence about the impact on her whānau is detailed and credible as to her lived experience, and I acknowledge the particular burden she carried as a sole parent.
The legal question for the Tribunal, however, is whether the landlord failed to respond appropriately, failed to repair, failed to remediate, or failed to meet its obligations under section 45 and the Healthy Homes Standards.
The landlord’s records and submissions show that the leak was first logged on 22 April 2025, a contractor attended that day, and later that day trades attended when leaking was reported on the upstairs carpet. The evidence shows temporary make- safe steps were taken, the leak was repaired on 24 April 2025, and carpet cleaning and drying occurred, with dryers left at the premises for several days. The landlord’s evidence also shows that further work and follow-up continued through to early May 2025.
While the tenant understandably experienced ongoing discomfort, odour, and anxiety following the event, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Kāinga Ora responded to the leak within a timeframe and in a manner that was reasonable for an urgent plumbing failure in an older dwelling. Section 45 does not require a landlord to eliminate all inconvenience or distress following a major incident; it requires the landlord to act reasonably and to take appropriate steps to repair and remediate. On the evidence, that obligation was met. Mould concerns under the carpet and on the stairwell walls
The tenant’s central ongoing concern is that mould remained beneath the carpet underlay following the leak and that this posed a risk to her children’s health. Given the seriousness of that allegation – particularly in the context of respiratory illness – the Tribunal must assess the issue with care and must weigh the quality of the evidence relied upon.
The tenant relies on: •her own observations and ongoing odour concerns; •an observational letter from [Healthy homes service] noting perceived mould and draught issues; and •medical letters recording health vulnerabilities and concerns expressed by the tenant.
Kāinga Ora, in response, arranged: •multiple physical inspections by maintenance supervisors and work supervisors; •commercial cleaning and drying of the affected carpet; •a formal mould test by an independent microbiological service ([Mould tester]); and •additional property-wide assessments, including guttering and drainage works.
The [Mould tester] report dated 27 August 2025 is of particular significance. It confirms that Stachybotrys was not detected, and that there was no evidence of active mould growth, with the material identified being consistent with dust or debris and incidental fungal elements commonly found in carpeted areas. This report is the only independent testing evidence before the Tribunal and is therefore afforded substantial weight.
Kāinga Ora also undertook additional inspections. The Work Supervisor and maintenance staff assessed the stairwell marks as more consistent with contact smudging rather than mould, and recommended cleaning and drying steps where appropriate. A further mould assessment identified gutter weeds, and the landlord raised and completed work to clean gutters, trim trees and replace damaged guttering.
While I accept that the tenant may continue to perceive odour and remain concerned—particularly given her children’s health circumstances—those concerns, without corroborating technical evidence, are not sufficient to discharge the burden of proof required to establish an ongoing breach. The Tribunal is not able to substitute fear or suspicion for proof, particularly where independent testing directly addresses the alleged risk.
Similarly, the evidence does not support a finding that marks observed on the stairwell walls were mould rather than contact smudging or staining. Kāinga Ora’s inspections were repeated and targeted, and remedial steps were taken where appropriate. On the balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied that active mould persisted or that Kāinga Ora failed to address mould risks once raised. Draught stopping and moisture ingress and drainage
The tenant raised concerns about draughts around windows and general cold and dampness in the home. These concerns were also reflected in [Healthy homes service’s] assessment letter.
Kāinga Ora’s evidence shows multiple interventions directed at draught issues, including adjustment of windows, replacement of latches and stays, and replacing seals to reduce draught and moisture intrusion. Further Healthy Homes-related inspection work occurred in late September 2025, with work completed by 2 October 2025 and updated Healthy Homes documentation produced in October 2025 confirming compliance.
The tenant’s evidence is that, despite these works, she still felt the home remained draughty and cold. I accept that a tenant may experience discomfort in an older home even where minimum standards are met, and that “compliance” does not always feel like “comfort.” The Tribunal’s task is to determine whether the landlord has met the legal standards.
On the evidence, I am satisfied that Kāinga Ora took reasonable steps to identify draught points and carry out repairs, and that it completed further work when the tenant remained concerned. I am also satisfied that a further Healthy Homes inspection was undertaken and compliance re-confirmed after the additional works.
In relation to moisture ingress and drainage, the landlord’s evidence shows gutter and vegetation issues were identified and rectified. There is no cogent evidence before me of ongoing, unaddressed water ingress into the dwelling after completion of the leak repairs and subsequent maintenance works.
I therefore do not find a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards on draught stopping or moisture ingress and drainage on the evidence presently before the Tribunal. Tenancy agreement requirements and Healthy Homes information
The tenant was understandably concerned that she was provided with a Healthy Homes compliance statement referring to a 2021 inspection date, before her tenancy began, and she experienced confusion and delay in trying to obtain an assessment for MSD transfer purposes.
Kāinga Ora’s evidence is that a pre-let property condition report was completed prior to the tenancy and that works relevant to compliance were undertaken. It later offered and undertook a new Healthy Homes inspection, and after completing additional work, updated the Healthy Homes statement with a more recent inspection date and confirmed compliance in October 2025.
Even accepting that the tenant experienced confusion and delay, the evidence shows Kāinga Ora subsequently clarified matters, carried out further inspections, and provided updated compliance documentation. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that any tenancy agreement information issue relied upon by the tenant has been established as an actionable breach warranting Tribunal orders, particularly given the subsequent updated inspection and documentation. Outcome
I am satisfied that Kāinga Ora has responded to the April 2025 leak with repairs and make-safe steps, undertook cleaning and drying of affected carpet, arranged follow-up inspections, completed a repair plan addressing the tenant’s concerns, undertook further Healthy Homes-related inspection and remedial work, and arranged mould testing beneath the carpet underlay. I am satisfied that the Healthy Homes documentation and inspection evidence supports a finding that the property meets the Healthy Homes Standards as at the updated inspection in October 2025.
I acknowledge the tenant’s genuine concerns about her children’s health and her continued worry about dampness, odour and draughts. I also acknowledge that the experience of having to leave the home late at night and manage the disruption with young children would be mentally and emotionally draining. However, on the evidence, I am not able to find that the landlord has failed to meet its legal obligations under section 45 of the Act or the Healthy Homes Standards, or that further work orders are justified.
The tenant’s application is therefore dismissed.
Although the legal threshold for orders has not been met in this proceeding, I encourage Kāinga Ora to continue engaging with the tenant in a constructive way. Where a household includes very young children and a child with asthma, clear communication, timely follow-up, and practical reassurance matter. The tenant’s concerns have been consistent and sincerely expressed. Being heard and receiving understandable explanations and documentation can be as important as the physical work itself.
If new issues arise in future that are supported by fresh evidence, the tenant is not prevented from raising those with the landlord and, if necessary, making a further application. Suppression order
While the tenant has not succeeded with her claim, I consider it reasonable to suppress the tenant’s name, the names of her children, the address of the premises, and any other identifying details pursuant to section 95A of the RTA. This proceeding involved sensitive health information concerning young children and private family circumstances. Publication of identifying details would serve little legitimate public interest and would create an undue risk of harm and intrusion into privacy.
The landlord does not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5280380 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5280380 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions