What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5335065 about?

The tribunal order states: Because this application was brought by the landlord to assist the tenant, I

How much money was awarded in case 5335065?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5335065?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5335065?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12975941-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5335065 about?

The tribunal order states: Because this application was brought by the landlord to assist the tenant, I

How much money was awarded in case 5335065?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5335065?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5335065?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12975941-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5335065 — Mould & damp

Order

Because this application was brought by the landlord to assist the tenant, I order suppression of the names of both parties.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 17 December 2025. Ms S and Mr K appeared for [the landlord].
The property is owned by [redacted], who managed the tenancy until August 2023, when [the landlord] took over management. Mr K emphasised that this agency does not own the building.
Section 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is an interpretation section. The term “landlord” includes an agent of a landlord. Therefore, for the purposes of the complaints Ms H has about the property, [the landlord] is the landlord.
This is consistent with the notification that was given to the tenant that from 1 August 2023, [the landlord] would be her new “landlord.”
All of the landlord’s rights and responsibilities contained in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 apply to [the landlord]. In such circumstances, recovery of 1 This order replaces that made on 23 December 2025, in which the names of the parties had been inadvertently transposed. The order now made is consistent with paragraph 39. any compensation ordered is usually covered by the terms of an agency or property management agreement or equivalent.
Although the application was brought by [the landlord], the claim is actually against them. The parties have been unable to agree on appropriate compensation for the tenant, Ms H, arising from ongoing dampness in the property. This has led to Ms H having to replace furnishings.
[the landlord] seek a ruling only on whether they should pay her $4,675 compensation for belongings damaged by mould. Ms H has brought no other application before the Tribunal.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Issues with leaks began in 2020. Contractors were called. They advised the tenant that the issue is with the balcony above where the leak came into the premises. Industrial dehumidifiers were provided to dry out the property.
In 2022 there was an issue with the hot water cylinder leaking, leading to a build-up of mould. In addition to repairing the hot cylinder, the landlord had the mould cleaned and treated on 19 May 2022.
However, in 2023 the problems resumed. The tenant said that six weeks after notifying the landlord the roof was repaired. The tenant discovered mould growing underneath the rug in the lounge. This was particularly concerning because her niece and nephew were sleeping in that room.
When cladding was removed from the outside of the house, it was apparent that the wood was wet and looked “burnt”. This wall was the one next to the lounge suite.
The landlord produced a spreadsheet showing the logging and response of maintenance jobs. This was discussed at the hearing. I expressed some concern at the duration of the issues with the building. The landlord said that they were responsible for maintaining the property in a reasonable state of repair and responding to maintenance requests within a reasonable timeframe.
That submission may be correct, but it is not complete. There are certain maintenance tasks, such as cleaning the gutters that should not require a request from a tenant. The Tribunal may determine that a landlord should compensate the tenant for a loss of amenity pending the repair, even where the delay is not the fault of the landlord. It is not reasonable that a tenant should pay a full rental if some of the rooms, facilities or appliances cannot be used.
On 21 August 2023, the landlord raised a job for an interior mould clean and to check the roof and gutters. The mould clean was completed on 3 November 2023, 18 months after the first mould clean.
In March 2024 the landlord replaced the carpet in two bedrooms because of leaks.
Mould continued to be an issue. On 5 June 2024, 7 months after the last mould clean, a quote was obtained to clean the mould, but then the contractors no longer offered that service. New contractors were found and the mould was eventually cleaned on 1 September 2024. Although the landlord was let down by the original contractors, the tenant’s enjoyment of the premises continued to be affected by the mould in the meantime.
A further ceiling leak was reported in October 2024 and a dehumidifier provided.
The reports provided by the landlord confirm that in November the carpet was assessed as flood-damaged because of the leaks.
A report from Highrise maintenance on 14 November 2024 recorded that on removing cladding, it was evident that the water ingress was from the detailing between the balcony parapet scupper and the stainless steel rain head. According to the report, the grass and debris in the gutter was causing the water level to raise above the level of the scupper and enter the wall cavity. This was removed and if was said that if the rainhead is kept clear, the issue could be managed.
The failure to keep the gutters clean is an example of the landlord’s failure to properly maintain the premises.
The report goes on to say that the root issue is the design of the stormwater system.
In a further report from Highrise on 10 December 2024, it was recorded that there is insufficient pitch/fall on the deck which allows water to pool on the surface. Even a minute defect in the membrane above a butt joint will create a significant leak as all the pooling water will drain into the ceiling cavity.
In December 2024, the tenant was moved to other accommodation.
These issues may not be the fault of the landlord, but nonetheless, it affects the tenant’s enjoyment of their property for which they are paying rent.
However, in fact, the only issue I need to determine is whether the tenant should be compensated $4,675 for damage to her property as a result of mould.

Was there mould in the property?

There is no dispute that there was mould in the property. It is evident in the photos provided which show large patches of black mould. It is also evident because a mould clean was completed in November 2023 and was ordered again in June 2024 and completed in September 2024.

Is the landlord responsible for the mould?

Mr K referred to Highline report dated 12 December 2023 following repair of a leaking waterpipe outside. It was noted that the drainage holes in one window frame were blocked. It was suggested that the tenant may be responsible for a build up of mould through not keeping the frame/sill clean. This submission was made purely on the basis of a comment made by a third party who was not present at the hearing.
Against this suggestion, there is clear evidence of a defect in the stormwater and the balcony, leading to leaks in the ceiling and the wall. There were three mould cleans in the space of two years. The photos also show the walls beneath the cladding are dark brown/black.
The property has remained empty since it was vacated in December 2024.
I am satisfied that there was a significant problem with mould in this property and that it was more likely than not as a result of the structural defects described above.

What compensation should be ordered?

The tenant provided some invoices and advertisements for replacement items that were damaged by mould.
There were some bunk beds and mattresses replaced at a cost of $1,619. The bunk beds were metal framed. It is therefore difficult to understand why they needed replacement due to mould. The tenant advised that one of her nephews had grown out of it.
The replacement cost of the mattresses is $230 each, which comes to $460.
There is a picture of a set of shelves, but no price provided. The tenant agreed that such shelves usually sell for between $50 and $100 at The Warehouse.
There is an invoice for a replacement lounge suite with sofa bed at a cost of $1,838.00.
I accept, given the photographs of thick mould on the walls of the premises, it is more likely than not, that the items were damaged by mould.
None of the items were new and so I must apply some depreciation.
I order the landlord to pay $800 compensation made up as follows: a. mattresses $100 x 2 = $200 b. shelves $50 c. rug$50 d. lounge suite $500.
Included in the documents was a letter from the tenant complaining about other aspects of the way in which the tenancy was managed. Although these were discussed at the hearing, the determination sought by the landlord was solely to do with the $4,675 compensation claimed by the tenant. Therefore, I have made no ruling about these. If Ms H wants to pursue them, she may file an application.
I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee, given it was the landlord’s application.
Because of the unusual nature of this application – being brought by the landlord in part for the tenant’s benefit, I order non-publication of the parties’ names.

Order

Because this application was brought by the landlord to assist the tenant, I order suppression of the names of both parties.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 17 December 2025. Ms S and Mr K appeared for [the landlord].
The property is owned by [redacted], who managed the tenancy until August 2023, when [the landlord] took over management. Mr K emphasised that this agency does not own the building.
Section 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is an interpretation section. The term “landlord” includes an agent of a landlord. Therefore, for the purposes of the complaints Ms H has about the property, [the landlord] is the landlord.
This is consistent with the notification that was given to the tenant that from 1 August 2023, [the landlord] would be her new “landlord.”
All of the landlord’s rights and responsibilities contained in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 apply to [the landlord]. In such circumstances, recovery of 1 This order replaces that made on 23 December 2025, in which the names of the parties had been inadvertently transposed. The order now made is consistent with paragraph 39. any compensation ordered is usually covered by the terms of an agency or property management agreement or equivalent.
Although the application was brought by [the landlord], the claim is actually against them. The parties have been unable to agree on appropriate compensation for the tenant, Ms H, arising from ongoing dampness in the property. This has led to Ms H having to replace furnishings.
[the landlord] seek a ruling only on whether they should pay her $4,675 compensation for belongings damaged by mould. Ms H has brought no other application before the Tribunal.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Issues with leaks began in 2020. Contractors were called. They advised the tenant that the issue is with the balcony above where the leak came into the premises. Industrial dehumidifiers were provided to dry out the property.
In 2022 there was an issue with the hot water cylinder leaking, leading to a build-up of mould. In addition to repairing the hot cylinder, the landlord had the mould cleaned and treated on 19 May 2022.
However, in 2023 the problems resumed. The tenant said that six weeks after notifying the landlord the roof was repaired. The tenant discovered mould growing underneath the rug in the lounge. This was particularly concerning because her niece and nephew were sleeping in that room.
When cladding was removed from the outside of the house, it was apparent that the wood was wet and looked “burnt”. This wall was the one next to the lounge suite.
The landlord produced a spreadsheet showing the logging and response of maintenance jobs. This was discussed at the hearing. I expressed some concern at the duration of the issues with the building. The landlord said that they were responsible for maintaining the property in a reasonable state of repair and responding to maintenance requests within a reasonable timeframe.
That submission may be correct, but it is not complete. There are certain maintenance tasks, such as cleaning the gutters that should not require a request from a tenant. The Tribunal may determine that a landlord should compensate the tenant for a loss of amenity pending the repair, even where the delay is not the fault of the landlord. It is not reasonable that a tenant should pay a full rental if some of the rooms, facilities or appliances cannot be used.
On 21 August 2023, the landlord raised a job for an interior mould clean and to check the roof and gutters. The mould clean was completed on 3 November 2023, 18 months after the first mould clean.
In March 2024 the landlord replaced the carpet in two bedrooms because of leaks.
Mould continued to be an issue. On 5 June 2024, 7 months after the last mould clean, a quote was obtained to clean the mould, but then the contractors no longer offered that service. New contractors were found and the mould was eventually cleaned on 1 September 2024. Although the landlord was let down by the original contractors, the tenant’s enjoyment of the premises continued to be affected by the mould in the meantime.
A further ceiling leak was reported in October 2024 and a dehumidifier provided.
The reports provided by the landlord confirm that in November the carpet was assessed as flood-damaged because of the leaks.
A report from Highrise maintenance on 14 November 2024 recorded that on removing cladding, it was evident that the water ingress was from the detailing between the balcony parapet scupper and the stainless steel rain head. According to the report, the grass and debris in the gutter was causing the water level to raise above the level of the scupper and enter the wall cavity. This was removed and if was said that if the rainhead is kept clear, the issue could be managed.
The failure to keep the gutters clean is an example of the landlord’s failure to properly maintain the premises.
The report goes on to say that the root issue is the design of the stormwater system.
In a further report from Highrise on 10 December 2024, it was recorded that there is insufficient pitch/fall on the deck which allows water to pool on the surface. Even a minute defect in the membrane above a butt joint will create a significant leak as all the pooling water will drain into the ceiling cavity.
In December 2024, the tenant was moved to other accommodation.
These issues may not be the fault of the landlord, but nonetheless, it affects the tenant’s enjoyment of their property for which they are paying rent.
However, in fact, the only issue I need to determine is whether the tenant should be compensated $4,675 for damage to her property as a result of mould.

Was there mould in the property?

There is no dispute that there was mould in the property. It is evident in the photos provided which show large patches of black mould. It is also evident because a mould clean was completed in November 2023 and was ordered again in June 2024 and completed in September 2024.

Is the landlord responsible for the mould?

Mr K referred to Highline report dated 12 December 2023 following repair of a leaking waterpipe outside. It was noted that the drainage holes in one window frame were blocked. It was suggested that the tenant may be responsible for a build up of mould through not keeping the frame/sill clean. This submission was made purely on the basis of a comment made by a third party who was not present at the hearing.
Against this suggestion, there is clear evidence of a defect in the stormwater and the balcony, leading to leaks in the ceiling and the wall. There were three mould cleans in the space of two years. The photos also show the walls beneath the cladding are dark brown/black.
The property has remained empty since it was vacated in December 2024.
I am satisfied that there was a significant problem with mould in this property and that it was more likely than not as a result of the structural defects described above.

What compensation should be ordered?

The tenant provided some invoices and advertisements for replacement items that were damaged by mould.
There were some bunk beds and mattresses replaced at a cost of $1,619. The bunk beds were metal framed. It is therefore difficult to understand why they needed replacement due to mould. The tenant advised that one of her nephews had grown out of it.
The replacement cost of the mattresses is $230 each, which comes to $460.
There is a picture of a set of shelves, but no price provided. The tenant agreed that such shelves usually sell for between $50 and $100 at The Warehouse.
There is an invoice for a replacement lounge suite with sofa bed at a cost of $1,838.00.
I accept, given the photographs of thick mould on the walls of the premises, it is more likely than not, that the items were damaged by mould.
None of the items were new and so I must apply some depreciation.
I order the landlord to pay $800 compensation made up as follows: a. mattresses $100 x 2 = $200 b. shelves $50 c. rug$50 d. lounge suite $500.
Included in the documents was a letter from the tenant complaining about other aspects of the way in which the tenancy was managed. Although these were discussed at the hearing, the determination sought by the landlord was solely to do with the $4,675 compensation claimed by the tenant. Therefore, I have made no ruling about these. If Ms H wants to pursue them, she may file an application.
I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee, given it was the landlord’s application.
Because of the unusual nature of this application – being brought by the landlord in part for the tenant’s benefit, I order non-publication of the parties’ names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5335065 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5335065 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there mould in the property?

Is the landlord responsible for the mould?

What compensation should be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Was there mould in the property?

Is the landlord responsible for the mould?

What compensation should be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions