What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5283219 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5283219?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5283219?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5283219?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12293336-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5283219 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5283219?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5283219?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5283219?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12293336-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

6A Huia Street, Taumarunui, Taumarunui 3920 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5283219 — Mould & damp

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 28 January 2021. On 24 April 2024, there was a change of agent for the landlord to YLPM. The tenant filed an application on 10 June 2025. On 02 July 2025, the tenant vacated the property after giving notice. On 18 July 2025, the matter was scheduled for hearing on 19 August 2025. The tenant appeared. Mr Bergquist and Ms Ralph, property managers for agent YLPM, appeared for the landlord.
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant alleges that the property suffered excessive moisture, resulting in black mould forming in a bedroom and the lounge, and that there were also plumbing issues. The tenant claims that under the previous agent issues were not properly addressed, although matters improved under YLPM. The tenant seeks compensation of $5,000.00. Law
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act), the landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.
Section 45(1) (bb) requires the landlord to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards Regulations 2019 (“HHS”), which set out the minimum requirements for heating, insulation, ventilation, drainage, and draught stopping for residential rental properties.
The HHS standards for insulation and smoke alarms have applied to all rental properties since 01 July 2019.
The remaining HHS requirements covering heating, ventilation, drainage, moisture ingress, and draught stopping for this tenancy took effect on 01 July 2025.
Under section 45(1)(c) of the Act, a landlord must comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety, such as those contained in the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (“HIR”). Regulation 15 states that properties should be free of dampness.
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”.
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.
Whether the landlord has failed to meet their obligations will involve an objective assessment of the evidence. Tenant evidence
The property was built in the 1920’s, and comprises of two bedrooms, a kitchen, an open plan lounge / dining room, bathroom and toilet, and laundry. The interior was renovated in the 1990’s.
The tenant produced photographs taken on 02 July 2025 which they claim show black mould on a leather jacket and a suitcase that had been stored in the wardrobe in bedroom one.
The tenant also produced: • A photograph and a short video dated 10 June 2025 showing mould spots on the back of a curtain. • Two photographs dated 12 June 2025 showing mould on a child’s jacket and poncho stored in the wardrobe of bedroom two. • A photograph from 28 June 2025 showing mould on the edge of a picture frame in the lounge, • Two from 29 June 2025, showing a pair of black sneakers stored near the entrance, and the back of a black lounge suite, both with what the tenant claims is black mould.
The tenant states that between the start of the tenancy and the change of property manager in April 2024 that they had repeatedly raised concerns about mould, but no action was taken. The tenant stated that the former agent was dismissive and had simply advised them to use mould remover, which they did, but the mould returned.
The tenant claimed they had correspondence and photographs from that period but said that these were on another phone and could not be produced. They also said the previous agent would have all the complaints, but they had not sought disclosure.
The tenant played a short video from the 03 February 2024 of the tenant showing the previous agent what they claimed was black mould on a child’s shoe located on the floor of one of the bedrooms.
The tenant stated that there was no insulation or moisture barrier, and that the position of the property meant it received little sun and was constantly cold and damp in winter. Each morning condensation had to be wiped from windows and sills. That they had kept the windows open to ventilate and reduce the persistent damp smell.
The tenant stated they resided at the property with their young child and that both suffered ill health because of the dampness. No evidence was produced to confirm this.
Regarding the plumbing issues, the tenant states that there were numerous callouts for multiple plumbing issues. Around April 2024, the hot water cylinder burst resulting in a flood. The landlord responded immediately, but drying the property required a dehumidifier for several weeks. The tenant was compensated for power usage but considered it inadequate.
The tenant described their relationship with the previous agent as hostile. The tenant stated they had made a previous application to the Tribunal but were pressured by the previous agent to withdraw it. They had also feared eviction and difficulty securing other accommodation in the area. Landlord evidence
The landlord provided a record from May 2025 to the end of the tenancy showing two complaints and other issues raised by the tenant.
The landlord provided routine inspection reports dated 22 January 2025, 14 April 2025, and 01 July 2025, which was conducted after the tenant had cleaned the property.
On 22 January 2025, the landlord recorded that the tenant had shown them a patch of mould on a wall inside the wardrobe in the second bedroom The mould could be wiped away. A photograph was taken, but no other mould or damp smell was detected.
On 14 April 2025, an inspection was conducted in the tenant’s absence, but no mould or dampness was detected.
At the end of tenancy inspection on 01 July 2025, no mould or dampness was evident.
The landlord also produced the pre tenancy inspection report for the incoming tenants on 24 July 2025. The report was comprehensive and included photographs. It showed no evidence of moisture or mould. The landlord noted this was significant, as the property had been closed up for 25 days over winter, conditions under which mould would likely appear if excessive moisture and dampness were present.
The landlord cannot comment on the video showing what the tenant claims is black mould on the child’s shoes.
The HHS requirements for this tenancy came into effect on 01 July 2025. The landlord produced a certificate of compliance showing that the property met the standards for ceiling insulation, heating, ventilation, water ingress and drainage. Due to a limited crawl space, there was no underfloor insulation or moisture barrier. Photographs confirmed the exemption.
The landlord stated that the tenant had expressed a reluctance to use the heat pump citing cost. The tenant accepted that they may not have used the heat pump as much as they could have.
The landlord has produced several plumbers’ invoices for a toilet blocked by wet wipes and for a council responsible waste drain.
The landlord accepted that the orientation of the property meant limited sun in the winter. This was shown by mould on exterior paths and fences. The landlord stated that in their experience older properties, even if compliant are prone to moisture and condensation, which can be managed by using the heating provided, wiping down surfaces, and ventilation. The landlord questioned the photographs showed black mould, as opposed to surface mould that could be wiped away with regular cleaning.
The tenant said they mentioned a damp smell during inspections, but the landlord could not detect one. Analysis and decision
There is no evidence showing mould at the property between the start of the tenancy in 2021 and 10 June 2025.
Photographs show minor surface mould on the leather jacket and suitcase stored on the wardrobe. This is not unusual for items stored in wardrobes. The curtain appears to have stains, consistent with condensation damage over time. The stains appear to have been on the curtains for some time. There is no evident mould on the children’s jacket or the poncho. The picture frame, the black sneakers, and the back of the lounge suite show minor surface mould. There is insufficient evidence that any was black mould. In my view the substance on the children’s shoes does not appear to be mould.
Apart from the one photograph showing mould on the wall inside the wardrobe, there is no other evidence showing mould on walls, doors, or ceilings. There is no evidence of widespread damage to curtains, water ingress or drainage issues typically associated with properties suffering excessive moisture and dampness.
The landlord responded promptly to plumbing issues. There is no evidence these contributed to moisture and dampness. The landlord has taken pre- emptive steps to enhance drainage.
The tenant stated that they aired the property but accepted that they may not have used the heat pump sufficiently.
On the evidence, I am not satisfied to the required standard that the property suffers excessive moisture and dampness causing black mould, or that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately.
I accept the landlord’s submission that older properties can be prone to condensation, but that this can be managed.
While some mould is present, I am not satisfied it exceeds what may be expected in a property of its age and orientation and is not indicative of the property suffering excessive moisture or dampness.
The claim that the landlord has failed to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable condition and free from excessive moisture, dampness, and mould is dismissed. Name suppression.
Although the landlord has been wholly successful and entitled to name suppression, they do not seek it. The tenant seeks name suppression. Although unsuccessful, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to exercise the discretion under section 95(4) of the Act and order suppression of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5283219 — Mould & damp at 6A Huia Street, Taumarunui, Taumarunui 3920

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5283219 — Mould & damp at 6A Huia Street, Taumarunui, Taumarunui 3920

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions