What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5303664 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5303664?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303664?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303664?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12483029-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5303664 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5303664?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303664?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303664?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12483029-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 315 Hereford Street, Christchurch Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5303664 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Boyle represented the landlord. The tenant, Ms Thompson, was represented by Ms Jones.

Ms Thompson has a one-year fixed term tenancy of the premises commencing on 10 January 2025. The premises consist of a ground floor unit in a three-story building containing several units. Ms Thompson lived in the premises with her one-year-old son.

Ms Thompson moved out of the premises on or about 4 July 2025 and she applied for an order terminating the tenancy for breach by the landlord of its obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), and/or because the premises were uninhabitable. She also applied for compensation.

Should the tenancy be terminated for breach by the landlord?

Termination of a tenancy for breach of the tenancy agreement or the Act is dealt with by section 56 of the Act.

In order to terminate a tenancy under section 56 the Tribunal must be satisfied that: i.The landlord has committed a breach of the Act or the tenancy agreement; ii.For a breach capable of being remedied the landlord has been issued with a notice requiring the landlord to remedy the breach within the period specified in the notice (not being less than 14 days); iii.The landlord has failed to remedy the breach within the required period; and iv.The breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable (unfair) to refuse to make a termination order.

Ms Thompson claims that the landlord is in breach of the Act by providing premises which do not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards and are susceptible to dampness and mould.

The evidence Ms Thompson relied on in support is a letter from her son’s Plunket nurse and a housing assessment completed by Gtatasi Fuata”I from Tamati Healthy Homes.

Gtatasi Fuata”I completed a “Comprehensive Housing Assessment” on 1 July 2025. In his report he records his observations of cold and damp conditions, mould in the walk-in robe, master bedroom, and on windowsills, and condensation on windows. He states that there is “no moisture barrier therefore no insulation”. He also considered that “it appears multiple windows are not completely sealed and there are apparent gaps which can allow cold air in.”

The Plunket nurse states in her letter (undated) that she has visited Ms Thompson and her son for health checks and has noted black mould on her son’s cot mattress and cot legs. She also states that she has seen evidence of windows dripping with moisture. She states that these “poor living conditions is a result of the quality of the housing” and a recent assessment of the premises proved that it “was non-compliant to the current standards of living”.

Ms Thompson advised the landlord of the findings on 4 July and she also issued a notice requiring the landlord to remedy the issues identified within 14 days. The landlord arranged for a handyman to check all windows and latches (Ms Thompson said that three windows were draughty), and to remove slime on a downpipe outside the premises. The landlord also arranged for a plumber to check for any leaks in the premises, including from the hot water cylinder, and to check the bathroom extractor fan. The invoice for the work records that no leaks were found, and the extractor fan was working properly.

Then on 27 August, the landlord had the premises assessed for compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards by Gary Camoin from Oncore. Mr Camion records that all aspects of the standards, including moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping is “fully compliant”, and both the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans are compliant. In relation to the insulation standard Mr Camoin notes that there is no access to the ceiling because the premises are a ground floor unit with another unit above. Regulation 18 of the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, exempts a landlord from the insulation requirements where it is not reasonably practicable to install insulation because of the way the premises are built or designed. Similarly, because the foundations of the premises are concrete, the requirement for underfloor insulation or moisture ground barrier do not apply.

I find that the evidence establishes that the landlord is not in breach of its obligations regarding the Healthy Homes Standards or its obligations to keep and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. I put less weight on the Tamaiti Housing Assessment than on the assessment completed by Oncore. The focus of the Tamaiti Housing Assessment (as set out in their letter dated 25 August 2025) is to “reduce the number of tamariki hospitalised with illnesses relating to their current living conditions” and “increase the number of tamariki living in warm, dry healthy homes.” Unlike the Oncore assessment and report, its focus was not to address the legal obligations on a landlord with respect to the Healthy Homes Standards. In addition, the Tamaiti Housing Assessment report considered that the insulation was “non-complaint” because there was no moisture barrier. However, as discussed above, there is no legal requirement for a moisture barrier here because of the concrete floor. The Tamaiti assessment report does mention draughts and gaps with some windows. However, it appears that these have been remedied by the landlord’s handyman and the latter Oncore report records that there are no unreasonable gaps in windows that cause noticeable draughts.

I am also not satisfied that it has been established that the landlord is responsible for the dampness and mould in the premises. My reasons follow.

Having some mould in a residential dwelling is not of itself unusual. It is well recognised that mould can arise for various reasons, not necessarily from a defect with the building. There is an obligation on tenants to reduce the environment in which mould grows by taking reasonable steps to keep the premises dry, and that includes regularly wiping condensation from windows and frames, and heating and ventilating the premises adequately.

On the other hand, premises must be able to be used and lived in in the normal way without mould developing. Thus, the landlord is required to provide premises that are not prone to mould. If the premises have an inherent problem, such as construction problems, or water lying under the premises, or maintenance issues resulting in the premises not being weather tight, the landlord has the responsibility to remedy the fault.

No evidence has been presented to show that the premises would not meet the required building standards when it was built. For example, no evidence has been presented to show any defective workmanship that requires immediate remedy. I also take into consideration that the evidence establishes that the premises comply with the Healthy Homes Standards and there is no evidence of any leaks or weathertight issues that could cause or contribute to the dampness and mould issues identified by Ms Thompson.

Thus, I am satisfied that the dampness and mould in the premises was not due to any inherent problem or defect with the premises themselves.

I therefore find that the landlord has not breached any obligation in the Act with respect to the premises. Ms Thompson’s application to terminate the tenancy under section 56 of the Act is therefore dismissed.

Should the tenancy be terminated because the premises uninhabitable?

The relevant part of section 59A of the Act provides that if, as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the landlord, the premises are destroyed or so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable, the tenant may give two day’s notice to end the tenancy and rent will abate.

I have found that the landlord is not in breach of any obligation owed to Ms Thompson with respect to the dampness and mould issues.

Section 59(4) of the Act deals with the situation where, other than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement, the premises are partially destroyed, or part of the premises is so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable and the Tribunal is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require the tenant to continue with the tenancy even at a reduced rent. In that case the Tribunal may order that the tenancy be terminated.

The photographs provided by both parties show relatively minor areas of mould, particularly on windowsills, windows and on a blind. Ms Thompson also provided photographs of what appears to be mould on her son’s cot mattress, on a wheel of his cot, and on shoes and other personal items.

While I accept that the mould identified was distressing for Ms Thompson, I do not consider that premises have been so seriously damaged by mould or moisture as to make the premises uninhabitable. As mentioned above, some mould in residential premises or condensation on windows, particularly during the winter months, is not unusual and does not necessarily render the premises unsafe or unhealthy, and therefore uninhabitable. Ms Thompson said that while living in the premises she and her son were constantly sick and she believes it was the condition of the premises that was causing their health issues. However, their health issues and their link to the condition of the premises were not confirmed by way of medical evidence (other than a list of visits to her doctor).

I therefore find that Ms Thompson has not established the grounds for termination in section 59 or 59A of the Act.

Ms Thompson’s application for termination of the tenancy is therefore dismissed. Ms Thompson’s application for compensation

I have found that the landlord is not in breach of the Healthy Homes Standards and is not responsible for the mould and dampness issues in the premises.

This means that Ms Thompson is not entitled to compensation for the loss she has suffered as a result.

Her claim for compensation is therefore also dismissed.

Reasons