What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5287255 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5287255?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287255?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287255?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13684770-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5287255 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5287255?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287255?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287255?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13684770-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

30 Rosemay Lane, Awanui, RD1, Northland 0486 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5287255 — Mould & damp

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The original order of Adjudicator N Blake dated 17 December 2025 that the landlord must pay the tenant $15,000.00 compensation for mould is restored to its full effect.

Reasons

On 17 December 2025 Adjudicator N Blake made an order, inter alia, that the landlord is to pay the tenant compensation of $15,000.00 for living in mouldy conditions.
On 22 December 2025, the landlord filed an application for a re-hearing in respect of the finding that the landlord breached their obligation to provide premises that is free from dampness and mould.
On 19 February 2026, Adjudicator Blake granted a re-hearing in respect of the tenant’s claim for compensation for mould; the balance of his order stands.
On 4 May 2026, I conducted the rehearing with the landlord’s property manager Ms Loane in attendance in person whereas the tenant participated by AVL from Australia.
At the rehearing before me, the landlord principally advanced the same evidence and conclusions in support of the rehearing application as follows: a) The landlord’s new evidence was in the form of a builder’s report from Build It Northland dated 22 December 2025 and a mould assessment report (an air quality and mould report) from Property Risk NZ dated 23 December 2025 (collectively referred to as ‘the new evidence’). b) Both reports were produced after Adjudicator Blake has issued his 17 December 2025 order after hearing from the parties on 15 September 2025 and 8 December 2025. c) Ms Loane argues that the new evidence shows that there are no faults or defects with the house that could have caused or contributed to the mould problem. d) Ms Loane submits that at the time of the original hearings in September and December 2025, findings regarding mould and habitability appear to have been made on the assumption that the mould was caused by building defects and ongoing moisture ingress. e) Since the hearing, the property has been subject to invasive investigations and remedial works. These investigations have confirmed that wall cavities are dry, there is no internal mould, and no ongoing moisture ingress. The mould identified was limited to surface mould only, which was able to be removed with standard cleaning. f) Ms Loane does not expressly challenge the initial Consultex report that during the tenancy, there were “extremely high” levels of mould in parts of the property, and also significant fungal contamination, which meant that the premises were not safely habitable. g) Ms Loane however argues that the mould was likely due to the tenant not ventilating the premises adequately and by having curtains closed on a number of occasions observed and the new evidence produced fully exonerates the landlord in respect of building defects. h) The 22 December 2025 report by Build It Northland was issued after the builder began work to remediate the premises. i) The landlord commissioned the building report for the purpose of remediation, not investigation, because based on the Consultex report the owner assumed that there must be some moisture ingress / leak problem at the property. j) Builders ultimately discovered that there were no signs of mould or dampness in the wall cavities. k) The follow up report from Property Risk NZ suggested that there are no on- going mould / dampness issues at the property and the only remedial work undertaken since the end of the tenancy was wiping away of the mould using standard household products. l) The landlord seeks the full reversal of the $15,000 award by Adjudicator Blake, going so far as submitting that the Tenancy Tribunal (rather than the tenant!) ought to reimburse the landlord for having to pay the tenant pursuant to the Tribunal order of 17 December 2025. The landlord stressed that their earlier payment of the judgment sum should not in any way be viewed as an admission of fault.
If I accept the landlord’s evidence as submitted, I would essentially be finding that the cause of the mould is largely, if not wholly, tenant induced, and that the mould is a normal incidence of occupation in a Northland house in that tenants and occupants should just put up with it, wipe them and clean them with regular household cleaning products and get on with their living in the otherwise warm, dry and non-defective building.
That, in reality, is the conclusion that I must draw upon, if I were to accept the landlord’s submission in its entirety, and order the tenant to refund the $15,000 back to the landlord.
The relevant law and principles on mould, or rather the assignment of blame on the causes and effects of mould, however, are not so straightforward.
In Warwick Todd Ltd v Tapper TT1381/02, Christchurch, 14/08/2002, it was said: Mould (or mildew) is a primitive form of fungal growth which grows from spores which abound everywhere. Mould will grow in any home where humidity remains high, but will have difficulty in surviving in one with low humidity. There are two ways to reduce humidity; by heating and ventilation, and ventilation is the most basic requirement. Responsibility for mould problems can rest with the tenant if the tenant fails to air and heat the premises properly. On the other hand the landlord must provide the tenants with the necessary means to heat and air the premises. If appropriate fans and dehumidifiers should be provided. Also devices should be fitted to windows so that they can be left open and also secure. This is especially so if the tenants are away during the daytime as tenants should not be required to leave the premises insecure in order to ventilate them.
A tenant must tell the landlord where there is a mould problem so that the necessary action can be taken. The landlord is required to provide premises that are not prone to mould. If the premises have an inherent problem, such as bad construction or leak or water lying under the premises, the landlord has the responsibility to remedy the fault.
Premises must be able to be used and lived in, in the normal responsible way, without mould developing. If this cannot be done, then it is the landlord problem.
If the tenants fail to ventilate and heat appropriately when heating and ventilation is available, then it is the tenant’s problem.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain the house to a reasonable condition and that the house was not free from mould or damp. The landlord says that the mould is a result of the tenant not cleaning or ventilating the property properly.
Anecdotal evidence has been provided by the landlord on the curtains being drawn and windows shut during the day. The tenant explained that those instances quoted by the landlord were merely brief and temporary; the tenant maintains that they adequately ventilated the house and regularly cleans mould appearing at the property.
I am satisfied after revisiting the evidence that there were problems with the property which caused the mould, not a lack of cleaning or ventilation by the tenant. I am satisfied that the tenant using the property in a normal way could not prevent the mould from growing.
My reasons are similar to Adjudicator Blake’s in that the mould is extensive in the bathroom and bedroom, walls and ceilings, it is on the surfaces, indicating an underlying problem with the state of repair of the property.
In February 2025, a healthy homes assessment identified that there was a section of approximately 5m2 of underfloor insulation missing from one of the bedrooms. This was only reinstated in August 2025.
The missing area of insulation does not only mean that the premises did not meet the healthy homes standard for insulation, it also explains the presence of mould in the surrounding area.
I reject the landlord’s attempt to downplay the effects of inadequate insulation in that area.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that this room was the first to develop mould problems.
I consider the following findings and conclusions of Adjudicator Blake relevant and applicable in my rehearing.
The landlord’s mould assessment and report by Consultex Environmental dated 20 October 2025 found that: a. The presence of “extremely high” levels of surface mould in the kitchen and 2nd bedroom. b. Significant indoor fungal contamination, particularly in the kitchen, bathroom, and bedrooms. c. Because of the “extremely high levels of indoor airborne mould, this building should not be occupied until the building can be remediated”.
The tenants gave notice and left the property soon after receiving the report.
I find that the report confirms the tenant’s concerns about the habitability and safety of the premises.
A simple wipe and clean as suggested by the landlord in the rehearing would not suffice to make the premises adequate for habitation.
The tenant has documented her complaints to the landlord on mould growth since April 2024. The tenant’s efforts to bleach, clean and remove the mould were duly documented. The tenant could not use the son’s bedroom due to the outbreak of mould, for an extended period of time.
I consider that by the first winter of 2024, with the mounting complaints of mould experienced by the tenant, the landlord ought to have engaged with building professionals and commissioned the Consultex report well before the landlord finally did over a year later in October 2025.
Having heard directedly from the tenant, I too find that it is not credible that the tenants would have failed to take reasonable steps to ventilate the property or remove minor surface mould (which is the extent of the tenant’s obligation).
The tenant has consistently complained about the mould in the house and made her concerns known about the possible health impacts to her two young children. Their son suffered respiratory health problems during the tenancy.
To suggest that the tenant had not actively tried to get rid of the mould herself by wiping them is to suggest that the tenant had acted in an unreasonable manner with regards to her own and her own children’s health when faced with the effects of mould to their health. I reject the landlord’s submission which suggests those conclusions.
The effects of mould found on the property is not minor or ‘normal’ mould that is common in properties in Northland.
The photographs show the presence of extreme and dangerous mould contamination which rendered the premises unsafe to inhabit, and it is more than likely that the premises have been not safe to inhabit for a considerable period of time.
Build It Northland Ltd’s report in December 2025 of finding no evidence of moisture ingress, wet framing, rot, or mould within wall cavities does not go so far as clearing the landlord of fault in failure to maintain and failure to respond to the tenant’s complaints within a reasonable timeframe.
Build It Northland’s scope of inspection states: • Visual inspection of external cladding and wall framing to bedroom where mould was reported by the tenant. • Internal inspection of associated bedroom wall linings. • Inspection of hallway floor area adjacent to bathroom/shower where water damage was evident. • General observations regarding joinery and ventilation to assist with assessing likely moisture sources.
I acknowledge the builder’s December 2025 findings that “the external wall assembly in the inspected bedroom area is performing as a reasonably weathertight envelope and that there is no evidence of historic or current exterior cladding failure causing moisture ingress or mould formation inside the wall”.
The builder opined that “the building envelope was performing as intended”.
The builder concluded that the absence of staining or decay to the bottom plate and studs indicates that any mould previously observed on internal finishes was unlikely to have been caused by long-term leaks from the exterior cladding or joinery in this location.
While the builder is correct to state that general risk factors for surface mould in bedrooms (not specific to this property) include internal condensation from occupancy, closed-up rooms, limited window opening, furniture against external walls, and inadequate heating/ventilation practices which are generally a tenant responsibility to manage under normal residential tenancies guidance, the builder’s general observation of the property came two months after the tenant had vacated the premises and the property being uninhabited since the end of spring and the start of the summer months.
The builder confirms that the hallway floor adjacent to the bathroom showed clear signs of localised water damage consistent with a plumbing leak, including discolouration and deterioration of the particleboard flooring and carpet underlay in the traffic path from the bathroom. Those conclusions by the builder supports, in my view, the growth of mould shown in the photographs.
The builder’s investigation identified a leak from the shower waste, which had allowed water to track under the bathroom floor and into the hall floor zone, wetting the carpet and substrate. While the waste has since been repaired, the previous leak from the shower waste clearly supports the tenant’s evidence of mould growth to the adjacent parts of the property while the tenant was living there.
The builder confirmed that the existing shower unit has reached the point where replacement is appropriate.
While the builder says that a new shower installation has been scheduled for next year (in 2026), subject to sub-trade availability, and the owners intend to complete associated flooring remedial works at the same time, the builder’s conclusion underscores defects in the shower unit itself. A future schedule for replacement of the shower is not evidence of replacement of the shower at the present time.
Indeed, the builder’s conclusion supports the tenant’s evidence that while she was living there, she was living in sub-standard accommodation with sub- standard facilities.
I do not accept the builder’s conclusion that the observed hallway damage is merely “localised” to the area influenced by the shower leak. I reiterate that the builder’s observations were made at a time when the house was unoccupied which context must be properly had to property which is inhabited, with cooking and washing and people breathing and associated condensation which results from shower leaks.
I accept the builder’s conclusion that notwithstanding the presence of a ventilation system, dwellings still require regular manual ventilation (opening windows and doors) to purge humid air and reduce condensation risk, especially in bedrooms, bathrooms, and during/after showering and drying clothes indoors. This requires daily action by occupants to be effective.
It would be incorrect however for the builder to conclude without actual input from the tenant and other occupants such as the tenant’s guests/visitors to the house that they have not undertaken such regular manual ventilation (opening windows and doors) by the occupants.
I therefore view the builder’s conclusion that the tenant has not actually undertaken such regular manual ventilation while they were living there as mere conjecture. I prefer the tenant’s direct evidence before me in this regard.
While the conclusions of the builder may be relevant, it remains the Tribunal’s findings on the evidence which is determinative.
In that context, I consider the building inspector’s view that once the planned shower replacement and flooring repairs are completed, and provided normal housekeeping practices for ventilation and cleaning are followed, the property should perform as a healthy home environment in line with expectations for a dwelling of this age and construction type as indicative of existing failures of the dwelling.
Indeed, the builder has confirmed that the shower should be replaced and flooring repairs must be undertaken.
Both the shower and the flooring still requiring repairs 2-3 months after the tenant has vacated goes to show that the landlord has breached both s45(1)(b) RTA by failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable state and s45(1)(c) RTA by failing to comply with the requirements of regulation 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations.
The 19 December 2025 moisture inspection and subsequent report by Property Risk NZ dated 23 December 2025 have also been undertaken months after the tenant has already vacated and the property, uninhabited.
The scope of the report was stated as follows: On Wednesday 17th December 2025, Property Risk NZ (PRNZ) was asked by Julia Walker, to assess 30 Rosemay Lane, Awanui 0486 (the site) and confirm the building has been remediated of mould and moisture damage experienced during November 2025.
The first point of correction to the inspector’s report is that the mould and moisture damage had been experienced well prior to November 2025.
The Consultex mould report dated 20 October 2025 was conducted on 9 October 2025. Consultex Environmental confirmed the presence of toxic mould in the premises which rendered the premises uninhabitable. But the tenant already experienced unhealthy living conditions due to mould since April 2024.
On arrival, PRNZ found no evidence of mould growth throughout the house. Testing was conducted using a thermal imaging camera, moisture probe and three spore trap air samples were taken.
By this stage, the tenant had already vacated some 2 months ago. The landlord had undertaken cleaning the premises of mould using household cleaning products while the premises was vacant.
While the inspector found that most areas in the house were within the range considered normal 12-18% moisture, it is worth noting again that this was done while the house was vacant and uninhabited.
Despite the house being vacant, the inspector found a localised area of around 30cm square in the wall area adjacent to the front lounge door with 26% moisture (which the inspector deduced was due to recent water blasting of the house) and the kick plate directly under the laundry sink which showed evidence of moisture damage and had a “slightly elevated moisture reading” of 22%.
The inspector recorded 22% moisture in the bathroom stating “Medium” signs of moisture ingress.
The inspector confirms that acceptable levels of moisture are generally below 20%; anything above this level can cause damage to building elements over time and may require further investigation.
The New Zealand Building Code - NZS3602 prescribes the maximum allowable moisture content level for untreated timber as 18% and for treated timber as 20%.
The PRNZ report undertaken in late December complements the Consultex Environmental report undertaken in early October rather than overtakes it. Notably, the Consultex Environmental inspection was conducted while the premises was still inhabited whereas the PRNZ inspection was conducted after the premises had been vacant for 2 months.
Having regard to all the evidence from the parties, including the Consultex Environmental and PRNZ reports, and the Build It Northland Ltd’s report, and the testimonies of the landlord and the tenant, including timelines, texts and email correspondences between the parties filed in the proceedings, I find that there was mould in the premises beyond the parameters expected for a property of this age in the area.
I do not consider that the presence of mould was the product of the tenant’s negligence or poor housekeeping practices.
I reject the landlord’s submission that the professional builder or moisture detector’s reports undertaken in December 2025 points more likely than not that the cause of the mould is largely, if not wholly, tenant induced.
I accept the Consultex report there were “extremely high” levels of mould in parts of the property, and also significant fungal contamination, which meant that the premises were not habitable.
While there was no definitive cause of the mould, I am satisfied it is more likely than not that the leaks in the property in the bathroom and condition of the shower and overall state of disrepair of the property, including missing insulation in the bedroom area, and higher than normal moisture levels in the property had caused the mouldy conditions experienced by the tenant.
I find that the presence of mould in the house had a direct effect on the tenant’s children’s health.
There is a known link between mould and respiratory infections.
The 2009 WHO Guidelines for Indoor Air Quality: Dampness and Mould’ guidelines states: “Sufficient epidemiological evidence is available from studies conducted in different countries and under different climatic conditions to show that the occupants of damp and mould buildings both house and public buildings are at increased risk of respiratory symptoms, respiratory infections and exacerbation of asthma. Some evidence suggests increased risks of allergic rhinitis and asthma. Although few intervention studies were available their results show that remediation of dampness can reduce adverse health outcomes”.
There is clinical evidence that exposure to mould and other dampness-related microbial agents, increases the risks of rare conditions such as hypersensitivity, pneumonia, allergic alveolitis, chronic rhinosinusitis and allergic fungal sinusitis.
Toxicological evidence obtained in vivo and invitro supports these findings showing that the occurrence of diverse inflammatory and toxic responses after exposure to microorganisms isolated from damp buildings, including their spores, metabolites and components.
The increasing prevalence of asthma and allergies in many countries increase the number of people susceptible to the effects of dampness and mould in buildings.
The tenant consistently complained about mould during her tenancy. The health of the tenant’s children, and their use of the premises, were compromised by mould.
I concur with Adjudicator Blake that the mould contamination not ‘usual’ light surface mould that is common in Northland properties, but extensive, and toxic mould contamination.
The landlord’s recuring point was limited to a speculative argument that the tenants may not have ventilated the premises adequately, hence the emergence of mould. I also do not find that argument persuasive after hearing from the tenant and perusing the correspondence between the parties. On the contrary, I find that the landlord had failed to respond to the tenant’s complaints adequately during the tenancy. It was not sufficient for the landlord to merely advise the tenant to clean up mould that appeared.
Having regard to the above health issues associated with mould, and the loss of amenities suffered by the tenant as a result, including the loss of use of parts of the premises, I consider the quantum of compensation of $15,000 representing about a third of the rent paid by the tenant an appropriate remedy.
Therefore, I reinstate Adjudicator Blake’s original order for compensation for mould.
The 17 December 2025 order included name suppression for the tenant. That order is to remain in place, and name suppression is also granted to the tenant for this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287255 — Mould & damp at 30 Rosemay Lane, Awanui, RD1, Northland 0486

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287255 — Mould & damp at 30 Rosemay Lane, Awanui, RD1, Northland 0486

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