What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300411 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 5300411?

Cleaning: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $584.96 awarded to landlord; Remove Oil Stains From Drive: $762.29 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,242.86 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $479.55 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300411?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300411?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12327923-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300411 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 5300411?

Cleaning: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $584.96 awarded to landlord; Remove Oil Stains From Drive: $762.29 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,242.86 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $479.55 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300411?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300411?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12327923-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5300411 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5300411 — net $1,130.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,242.86	Rent arrears
Compensation for rust damage on shower base	$100.00	Compensation for rust damage on shower base
Remove oil stains from drive	$762.29	Remove oil stains from drive
Paint repairs	$584.96	Paint repairs
Rubbish removal	$479.55	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$253.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,130.66
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,130.66

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Brooke Mackenzie Wadley and Benjamin Corey White must pay [The landlord/s] $1,130.66 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The tenants’ application for compensation for damage to clothing and chattels is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for compensation for a garage door dent and for loss of rent compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant Ms Wadley attended by phone from Australia.
The tenants have applied for a reduction of the term of the fixed term tenancy and for compensation for damage to clothing and chattels caused by mould.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenancy started on 14 November 2024. It was a fixed term tenancy until 11 March 2026.
The tenants experienced issues with mould. They wanted to end the tenancy early. They and the landlord mutually agreed to end the tenancy on 19 June 2025.
Given the agreement reached, Ms Wadley withdrew the application for a reduction of the term of the tenancy. She accepted the landlord’s rent arrears claim and the claim for compensation for rust damage to the shower tray. I have allowed those claims, marked *, by consent.
After the tenants made their application, the landlord cross applied.
I heard both applications together. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Have the tenants proved a claim for compensation for damage to their clothes and chattels caused by mould? •Has the landlord proved claims for damage, cleaning, rubbish removal and for loss of rent compensation? Relevant law
Section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. Discussion Have the tenants proved a claim for compensation for damage to their clothes and chattels caused by mould?
Ms Wadley gave evidence that the premises were affected by mould which became severe after a few months. She said there was a lot of condensation on the windows. Because she had a new baby, she did not want to keep the windows open, although she did ventilate the premises. She said she used dehumidifiers, as recommended by her property manager, but that did not solve the problem.
Ms Wadley said the mould affected clothing in the wardrobe, bed sheets, mattresses, and the bed slats. It was present on the walls. She said she had the premises assessed by the City Mission.
Ms Wadley said her child and her niece were admitted to hospital due to the mould affecting their health.
The landlord’s representative said she consistently told the tenant she must ventilate the premises. She said the blinds were often drawn and when she did inspections there were large amounts of water pooling on the windowsills.
She said mould was mainly present where furniture was close to walls. She said she tried to educate the tenant about the importance of ventilating the premises and using the dehumidifier. She said she had a building contractor visit the tenant and talk to her about ventilating the premises.
The presence of mould does not mean that the landlord has committed any breach of their responsibilities under the RTA. Mould can be the result of a failure to adequately ventilate the premises.
The landlord’s representative produced a healthy homes assessment report completed in November 2024 about 1 week after the tenancy started (the assessment was commenced on 31 October 2024). The premises are complaint with the Health Homes Standards (HHS). The report has been completed by an independent contractor.
The assessment Ms Wadley had done by the Christchurch City Mission states that the tenants should open the windows during the day and keep the window weep holes clear.
The landlord’s building contractor has advised the landlord that I did go to 843 couple weeks ago regarding the mould etc spoke to Simon about it, just recommended dehumidifier and opening windows.
Compensation follows a breach. Here, the landlord committed no breach of its statutory responsibilities under the RTA. The premises are HHS compliant. The evidence supports a finding that it was the tenants’ use of the premises – the failure to adequately ventilate the premises – that caused the mould issue.
The landlord’s representative produced photos from an inspection with the new tenants which show the premises free of any mould. The landlord’s representative gave evidence that she specifically raised the issue of mould with the new tenants, and they have reported no problems.
The tenants’ application for compensation cannot succeed because they have not proved any landlord breach that caused damage to their clothing and chattels. The application for compensation is dismissed. Has the landlord proved claims for damage, cleaning, rubbish removal and for loss of rent compensation? The driveway
At the end of the tenancy there were oil and other stains on the driveway, newly laid at the start of the tenancy. The landlord tried to remove the stains by water- blasting them, but that did not work for the oil stains. Specialist treatment was needed.
Ms Wadley said she did not know how the damage occurred. She suggested that the asphalt was damaged as a result of being driven on too soon. There is no evidence to show that is what occurred.
The landlord’s photos and the evidence given by the landlord’s representative establish that the tenants cause careless damage to the driveway by oil and other stains. They are liable for the repair cost. Painting
The tenant accepted liability for some paint repairs, but not the painting of the mould affected walls.
Given my finding that the mould was due to the manner in which the tenants used the premises, I find that they are liable for the painting repairs for the damage caused by the mould.
The landlord’s representative said she would forgo a small amount of the claim given Ms Wadley’s evidence that some minor paint repairs she did were with paint supplied by the builder (the incorrect colour match). I have deducted $100.00 from the landlord’s claim for painting to reflect that. Rubbish removal
At the end of the tenancy the tenants left 4 large concrete pavers and the bins were full. There was a gas bottle and other rubbish in the garage (separate from goods stored on the garage rafters, there at the start of the tenancy).
Ms Wadley accepted the claim for the removal of the pavers and for the green bin that was full. She said the landlord never raised any issues until after the keys were handed back.
I find this claim proved by the photos and invoice produced by the landlord in evidence. It includes the water blasting of the driveway which successfully removed orange staining but not the oil stains that required specialist treatment. Cleaning
Give my finding that the way the tenants used the premises (the lack of adequate ventilation) caused the mould, it follows that they are liable for the cost of cleaning the mould. Other than the mould, the landlord’s representative accepted that the tenants left the premises clean. Garage door dent
The landlord has claimed compensation for a dent in the garage door. The dent was not present in the inspection photos at the start of the tenancy.
Ms Wadley said there was no dent in the garage door when she handed back the keys.
The dent, while obvious, is small, and should easily be fixed by using a soft hammer from the inside. It is a ‘2-minute’ job. While not fair wear and tear, I decline to award compensation as there is no proper basis for the Tribunal to assess what might be reasonable. Loss of rent compensation
The landlord seeks 1 week’s loss of rent compensation. The Tribunal seldom awards this kind of compensation. It is usually awarded when there has been such substantial damage that considerable time is needed for repair work and there is evidence of the loss of another tenancy as a result.
I acknowledge the landlord’s frustration here. The landlord was not obliged to release the tenants from their tenancy. I accept that the landlord’s representative did all she could to make it easy for the tenants to leave. And the tenants were given the opportunity to repair some of the damage claimed for.
But for the landlord’s concession, it is unlikely that the Tribunal would have released the tenants from their fixed term tenancy in the absence of any proven landlord breach. They would have remained liable for rent until the end of the term of the tenancy, or until a new tenancy started.
But the agreement the parties reached should be honoured. The tenants’ liability for rent, as agreed, ended on 19 June 2025. Result
The tenants’ application for compensation is dismissed.
The landlord’s claims for rent and compensation are proved in the total amount of $3,450.66.
The bond will be paid to the landlord. After the deduction of the bond, the tenants must pay the landlord $1,130.66 which includes the filing fee on the successful application. Name suppression
The tenants did not seek name suppression. The landlord sought, and is entitled to, name suppression as the application is mostly successful 2 .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5300411 — net $1,130.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,242.86	Rent arrears
Compensation for rust damage on shower base	$100.00	Compensation for rust damage on shower base
Remove oil stains from drive	$762.29	Remove oil stains from drive
Paint repairs	$584.96	Paint repairs
Rubbish removal	$479.55	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$253.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,130.66
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,130.66

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Brooke Mackenzie Wadley and Benjamin Corey White must pay [The landlord/s] $1,130.66 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The tenants’ application for compensation for damage to clothing and chattels is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for compensation for a garage door dent and for loss of rent compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant Ms Wadley attended by phone from Australia.
The tenants have applied for a reduction of the term of the fixed term tenancy and for compensation for damage to clothing and chattels caused by mould.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenancy started on 14 November 2024. It was a fixed term tenancy until 11 March 2026.
The tenants experienced issues with mould. They wanted to end the tenancy early. They and the landlord mutually agreed to end the tenancy on 19 June 2025.
Given the agreement reached, Ms Wadley withdrew the application for a reduction of the term of the tenancy. She accepted the landlord’s rent arrears claim and the claim for compensation for rust damage to the shower tray. I have allowed those claims, marked *, by consent.
After the tenants made their application, the landlord cross applied.
I heard both applications together. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Have the tenants proved a claim for compensation for damage to their clothes and chattels caused by mould? •Has the landlord proved claims for damage, cleaning, rubbish removal and for loss of rent compensation? Relevant law
Section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. Discussion Have the tenants proved a claim for compensation for damage to their clothes and chattels caused by mould?
Ms Wadley gave evidence that the premises were affected by mould which became severe after a few months. She said there was a lot of condensation on the windows. Because she had a new baby, she did not want to keep the windows open, although she did ventilate the premises. She said she used dehumidifiers, as recommended by her property manager, but that did not solve the problem.
Ms Wadley said the mould affected clothing in the wardrobe, bed sheets, mattresses, and the bed slats. It was present on the walls. She said she had the premises assessed by the City Mission.
Ms Wadley said her child and her niece were admitted to hospital due to the mould affecting their health.
The landlord’s representative said she consistently told the tenant she must ventilate the premises. She said the blinds were often drawn and when she did inspections there were large amounts of water pooling on the windowsills.
She said mould was mainly present where furniture was close to walls. She said she tried to educate the tenant about the importance of ventilating the premises and using the dehumidifier. She said she had a building contractor visit the tenant and talk to her about ventilating the premises.
The presence of mould does not mean that the landlord has committed any breach of their responsibilities under the RTA. Mould can be the result of a failure to adequately ventilate the premises.
The landlord’s representative produced a healthy homes assessment report completed in November 2024 about 1 week after the tenancy started (the assessment was commenced on 31 October 2024). The premises are complaint with the Health Homes Standards (HHS). The report has been completed by an independent contractor.
The assessment Ms Wadley had done by the Christchurch City Mission states that the tenants should open the windows during the day and keep the window weep holes clear.
The landlord’s building contractor has advised the landlord that I did go to 843 couple weeks ago regarding the mould etc spoke to Simon about it, just recommended dehumidifier and opening windows.
Compensation follows a breach. Here, the landlord committed no breach of its statutory responsibilities under the RTA. The premises are HHS compliant. The evidence supports a finding that it was the tenants’ use of the premises – the failure to adequately ventilate the premises – that caused the mould issue.
The landlord’s representative produced photos from an inspection with the new tenants which show the premises free of any mould. The landlord’s representative gave evidence that she specifically raised the issue of mould with the new tenants, and they have reported no problems.
The tenants’ application for compensation cannot succeed because they have not proved any landlord breach that caused damage to their clothing and chattels. The application for compensation is dismissed. Has the landlord proved claims for damage, cleaning, rubbish removal and for loss of rent compensation? The driveway
At the end of the tenancy there were oil and other stains on the driveway, newly laid at the start of the tenancy. The landlord tried to remove the stains by water- blasting them, but that did not work for the oil stains. Specialist treatment was needed.
Ms Wadley said she did not know how the damage occurred. She suggested that the asphalt was damaged as a result of being driven on too soon. There is no evidence to show that is what occurred.
The landlord’s photos and the evidence given by the landlord’s representative establish that the tenants cause careless damage to the driveway by oil and other stains. They are liable for the repair cost. Painting
The tenant accepted liability for some paint repairs, but not the painting of the mould affected walls.
Given my finding that the mould was due to the manner in which the tenants used the premises, I find that they are liable for the painting repairs for the damage caused by the mould.
The landlord’s representative said she would forgo a small amount of the claim given Ms Wadley’s evidence that some minor paint repairs she did were with paint supplied by the builder (the incorrect colour match). I have deducted $100.00 from the landlord’s claim for painting to reflect that. Rubbish removal
At the end of the tenancy the tenants left 4 large concrete pavers and the bins were full. There was a gas bottle and other rubbish in the garage (separate from goods stored on the garage rafters, there at the start of the tenancy).
Ms Wadley accepted the claim for the removal of the pavers and for the green bin that was full. She said the landlord never raised any issues until after the keys were handed back.
I find this claim proved by the photos and invoice produced by the landlord in evidence. It includes the water blasting of the driveway which successfully removed orange staining but not the oil stains that required specialist treatment. Cleaning
Give my finding that the way the tenants used the premises (the lack of adequate ventilation) caused the mould, it follows that they are liable for the cost of cleaning the mould. Other than the mould, the landlord’s representative accepted that the tenants left the premises clean. Garage door dent
The landlord has claimed compensation for a dent in the garage door. The dent was not present in the inspection photos at the start of the tenancy.
Ms Wadley said there was no dent in the garage door when she handed back the keys.
The dent, while obvious, is small, and should easily be fixed by using a soft hammer from the inside. It is a ‘2-minute’ job. While not fair wear and tear, I decline to award compensation as there is no proper basis for the Tribunal to assess what might be reasonable. Loss of rent compensation
The landlord seeks 1 week’s loss of rent compensation. The Tribunal seldom awards this kind of compensation. It is usually awarded when there has been such substantial damage that considerable time is needed for repair work and there is evidence of the loss of another tenancy as a result.
I acknowledge the landlord’s frustration here. The landlord was not obliged to release the tenants from their tenancy. I accept that the landlord’s representative did all she could to make it easy for the tenants to leave. And the tenants were given the opportunity to repair some of the damage claimed for.
But for the landlord’s concession, it is unlikely that the Tribunal would have released the tenants from their fixed term tenancy in the absence of any proven landlord breach. They would have remained liable for rent until the end of the term of the tenancy, or until a new tenancy started.
But the agreement the parties reached should be honoured. The tenants’ liability for rent, as agreed, ended on 19 June 2025. Result
The tenants’ application for compensation is dismissed.
The landlord’s claims for rent and compensation are proved in the total amount of $3,450.66.
The bond will be paid to the landlord. After the deduction of the bond, the tenants must pay the landlord $1,130.66 which includes the filing fee on the successful application. Name suppression
The tenants did not seek name suppression. The landlord sought, and is entitled to, name suppression as the application is mostly successful 2 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300411 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300411 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions