What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5302659 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 5302659?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302659?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302659?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12289063-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5302659 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 5302659?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302659?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302659?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12289063-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5302659 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and the Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenants application for compensation and to terminate the tenancy is dismissed.
The landlord agrees to conduct the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 31 August 2025: a. Investigate the findings of the mould report referred to in paragraph 15 of the

Reasons

below and determine whether there is a defect at the premises causing mould which is the landlord’s responsibility to fix; and b. Advise the tenants of the outcome of the investigation; and c. If there are defects causing mould which are the landlord’s responsibility to fix, take any necessary remedial steps; d. The requirement for the landlord to investigate the findings of the mould report may include the landlord engaging its own suitably qualified expert to assess the premises and prepare a report.

This matter is determined as indicated by the orders above, but the tenants are granted a period of 2 months from the date of this order within which, if the landlord does not comply with the above work order or there are defects with the premises causing mould that are the landlord’s responsibility to fix, they can request that the application be brought back to the Tribunal with new evidence and the matter will be re-opened. Reasons:
Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the landlord’s obligations to remedy a mould problem at the premises and compensation for the loss of amenity of one bedroom and costs to replace furniture damaged by mould.
Any party bringing a claim to the Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim. The Tenancy Tribunal applies a civil standard of proof, determining matters on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each applicant must prove that it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be supported by other acceptable evidence. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents such as emails, texts, and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden. Background facts
This is a fixed term tenancy which commenced on 9 February 2025 and is to end on 7 February 2026.
After viewing the property, and before signing the tenancy agreement, the tenants sent the landlord an email on 1 February 2025 notifying them of things that needed to be addressed including mould around windows, doors, and in the shower, the house needing a deep clean and the grounds needing a tidy. They offered do this work in consideration for a lower rent than advertised. The landlord says that he agreed to lower the rent but not to the extent requested. However, the landlord engaged a professional cleaning company to clean the house on 4 February before the tenancy started. The tenancy agreement was signed by the tenants on 4 February also and the landlord handed them the keys on 5 February ahead of the 9 February start date. The tenants acknowledge that the premises were clean when the tenancy started.
On 1 June, Tenant A was cleaning her bedroom and discovered mould on the walls behind her bed and on the back of a set of drawers. Later she also found mould on her bed frame. She sent the landlord an email on 4 June notifying them about the mould and damage to her furniture and asserting that her bedroom was uninhabitable and she would be moving out. She stated that “the room continuously smells damp, there is visible mould on the walls, and between multiple moisture traps, consistent ventilation and heating, the issue continues and mould continues to grow. Due to the mould growing on the walls we are of the understanding it is an issue within the structure of the house.” She requested that rent for the flat be reduced by $200/week on the basis that her room could not be used until the issue is resolved.
The landlord responded immediately on 5 June requesting photos of the affected areas and asking the tenants to clarify whether they had raised this issue previously. The tenants replied noting the mould and cleaning reported before they signed the tenancy agreement. They also referred to notifying the landlord on 11 May about a hole in the kitchen floor which they believe is rotten and has not been fixed.
The landlord advised the tenants on 6 June that they would visit the site with a contractor on Monday 9 June to assess the mould. Following this visit they advised the tenants on 13 June that they were engaging a contractor to promptly treat the mould and paint the affected walls. They noted that “mould typically develops due to excess moisture and poor ventilation. Regularly opening windows and ensuring proper airflow-particularly in areas like the bathroom and bedrooms-can help prevent it from recurring.” They advised that there would be no rent reduction because the home complies with Healthy Homes Standards. At the hearing, the landlord maintained that the mould was likely caused by lack of ventilation through opening windows and due to furniture being placed against the walls restricting airflow.
The tenants requested more information about what exactly was done to address the mould.
The landlord provided the tenants with a statement from the contractor dated 23 June confirming that two weeks prior he cleaned the affected walls of the bedroom using a concrobium mould killer from Bunnings which eliminates and prevents mould with no bleach or harmful fumes. The whole surface was fully covered before cleaning. This was followed by priming and painting the affected walls.
The tenants remain concerned that the mould has been caused by a defect with the premises which has not been addressed and they are not convinced that the steps taken by the landlord to address the mould and the cause of the mould are sufficient. Tenant A has not returned to live at the premises.
The tenants contacted Council who sent an Environmental Health Officer (EHO) to assess the premises on 24 June. The EHO report records a slight damp smell inside the property; some isolated mould on furniture in Tenant A’s room; some isolated mould on the curtains in another tenant’s room and carpet that feels slightly damp and cold. The EHO report concludes that there are no signs of mould on the walls of the property. The officer also recommended that the tenants have a healthy homes report done and contact the property manager to install a ventilation system. The overall assessment was that the premises are inhabitable.
On 3 July, the tenants served a 14-day notice on the landlord under s56 RTA alleging that the underlying cause of the mould had not been addressed and requiring the landlord to “provide a full detailed account of the investigative work carried out, including who performed it, what was done to resolve the underlying source (e.g. fixing leaks, improving ventilation, treating the mould at its source) and what measure are in place, on your end, to prevent recurrence.”
The landlord replied by email on 9 July noting that the mould issue reported had been resolved, and no further action was required at this stage. They also confirmed that they would not charge the tenants for the remedial work but warned that if the issue arose again, any future repairs may be the tenants’ responsibility. They asked the tenants to let them know if any mould returns so that they can reassess. They also noted that they had already provided the tenants with their contractor’s statement about the remedial work completed.
The tenants engaged a company, Healthy Homes Inspections, to conduct a moisture and mould assessment at the property. The dates on the report produced are unclear but the tenants advise that the inspection and tests were conducted on 3 July and the resulting report was released on 8 July (“the mould report”). The tenants did not release a copy of this report to the landlord until filing this application. Unfortunately, the report writer was not called by the tenants as a witness to give evidence and explain the report.
The mould report may be summarised as follows: a. The assessment involved a visual inspection, history provided by the tenants, air quality sampling and mould and fungal air sampling with samples analysed by an independent laboratory; b. High levels of Asp/Pen mould spores were found in Tenant A’s room and the lounge; c. The report writer’s opinion is that Tenant A’s room should not be used until remediation has taken place. d. The report states that there is some debris in the gutters at the house which are overflowing; e. There is a smell in Tenant A’s room indicating fungal growth; f. There is a dark patch on the ceiling in lounge which may be potential fungal growth; g. Active ventilation, dehumidification and source moisture control are needed to reduce mould risk.
The tenants say that the mould report proves mould is still a problem at the premises and the landlord has failed to address the issue. They seek termination of the tenancy for breach of the landlord’s obligations.
The landlords stated that they are not sure what more they are required to do and believed they responded proactively when advised about the mould in Tenant A’s room. While they have taken care of the mould at their cost, they suggest that the mould may have been caused by tenants failing to ventilate adequately by opening windows enough and placing furniture hard up against the walls. They also say that they do not know the condition of Tenant A’s furniture at the start of the tenancy and whether it might already have been damaged by mould or otherwise. The mould report was not released to them before the tenants filed this application. They believe that they have addressed the mould. However, they are open to investigating the matter further given the contents of the mould report. As at the hearing date, they also note that there are no visible signs of recurring mould in Tenant A’s room.
The landlord also states that the premises comply with Healthy Homes Standards.

Should the tenancy be terminated for failing to maintain the premises?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) RTA.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the tenant must first serve a notice on the landlord requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the landlord has failed to do so.
The first issue to determine is whether the landlord is in breach of their obligations to maintain the premises.
Under section 45 RTA, the landlord has several obligations with respect to the maintenance of the property as follows: a. Under section 45(1)(b) to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; b. Under section 45(1)(bb) to comply with Healthy Homes Standards specified in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS) which include moisture ingress and ventilation standards; c. Under regulation 6 HHS to ensure that all installed or provided things are maintained in good working order, and if they cannot be maintained in good working order, are replaced within a reasonable time.
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation to maintain under s45 is to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) of the Act. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so. Mould
Mould is problematic and will grow in a home where humidity is high. There are two ways to reduce humidity: by heating and ventilation, ventilation being 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.
Mould can usually be addressed by wiping with an appropriate cleaner. Where a property has an inherent problem or a leak causing mould, then the landlord will have responsibility to remedy the fault. As stated by the Tribunal in Hullia v Tran & Vu 1 the premises must be able to be used and lived in, in the normal way without excessive mould developing. If this cannot be done, then the problem of mould falls on the landlord to remedy under their obligations to maintain the property.
The Tribunal in Semmens v Wadman 2 noted that mould is commonly present throughout many residential dwellings in New Zealand to some degree. The Tribunal explained that simply having mould in the premises would not be sufficient to establish a breach on the part of the landlord for which compensation can be ordered stating: “Rather, what a tenant must establish, is that there are defects with the premises which have caused mould to develop, or to be at a more extensive level than would otherwise be reasonably expected in a dwelling that meets the required building standards.”
Similarly, the Tribunal has found that the presence of some mould in the house is not enough to show that it is not in a reasonable state of repair, and the opinion of unqualified persons is often not persuasive: Repia v Walsh Trust 3 .
After carefully considering the available evidence, I am not satisfied that the tenants have proved on the balance of probabilities that there are defects at the 1 [2018] NZTT Manukau 4138867 2 [2022] NZTT Manukau 310605 3 DC Waitakere, CIV-2011-090-00056, 27 April 2011 property causing mould (such as a leak) that were not addressed by the landlords.
I am satisfied on the evidence that when the tenants brought the mould issue to the landlord’s attention, the landlord took steps to investigate and remedy the issue promptly. The landlord’ view was that the mould in Tenant A’s room was due to a failure to ventilate enough by opening windows and placement of the furniture up against walls which restricts airflow. They provided recent photos of the room in which there is no visible evidence of mould since the remedial work was completed. They say that the home also complies with HHS.
The tenants remained concerned and obtained the mould report which indicates that there are high levels of mould spores present in the air of Tenant A’s room and the lounge. However, this report was not available when the tenants served their 14-day notice on the landlord and they did not forward a copy to the landlord. The landlord only became aware of the report when served with a copy of the Tribunal application and supporting documents. Furthermore, the mould report does not address the cause of the mould, other than stating that that active ventilation, dehumidification, and source moisture control are needed to reduce mould risk.
It is of course concerning that the mould report identifies high levels of mould spores almost 4 weeks after the landlord remediated Tenant A’s room. The landlord has indicated that they are willing to investigate the mould report findings, obtain their own independent report if necessary as to the current status of the room, the cause of any mould, and any remedial work required. Now that they are on notice about the mould report I consider that they are obliged to take those steps as soon as reasonably possible. However at this stage the tenants have not proved that there is a defect at the premises causing mould nor that the landlord is in breach of their obligations to maintain the premises.
Given the above findings, there are no grounds to compensate the tenants for any breach nor to terminate the tenancy, and those claims are dismissed.
The landlord has agreed to investigate the mould report findings and take any necessary steps and I make work orders accordingly with the landlord’s consent. See section 78(1)(e) RTA.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) RTA.
I consider the work order to investigate the mould report findings is a matter of health and safety which cannot be addressed by a monetary order.
The tenants are granted a period of 2 months from the date of this order within which, if the landlord does not comply with the above work order or there are defects with the premises causing mould that are the landlord’s responsibility to fix, they can request that the application be brought back to the Tribunal with new evidence and the matter will be re-opened. Suppression and filing fee
Both parties seek suppression of their names and identifying details. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlords have substantially succeeded in defending the claims and are entitled to suppression. The tenants have not succeeded with their claims. However, they have obtained a mould report raising issues that the landlord is obliged to investigate and put right if there is a defect for which they are responsible. In those circumstances, and given that I have granted the tenants leave to refer the case back to the Tribunal, I consider it is appropriate to grant the tenants suppression of their names and identifying details.
As the tenants have not substantially succeeded with their claims, they are not entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5302659 — 14-day notice

Tenancy Tribunal case 5302659 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated for failing to maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated for failing to maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions