What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336461 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 5336461?

Compensation: Partial refund of rent…: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336461?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336461?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12864634-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336461 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 5336461?

Compensation: Partial refund of rent…: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336461?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336461?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12864634-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5336461 — Mould & damp

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336461 — net $1,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Partial refund of rent due to issues with mould, draughts, and stove	$1,500.00	Partial refund of rent due to issues with mould, draughts, and stove
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	46. [Tenant 1] was substantially successful in this application.
Net award	$1,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,528.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 3 October 2024 and ended on 28 August 2025. The rent was $580 per week.
[Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] were the named tenants. [Tenant 1]’s application seeks compensation due to problems with mould, draughts, the stove and other issues as discussed in more detail below.
[Tenant 1] dealt with Mr Marriner (Barfoot & Thompson) during the tenancy. Mr Marriner is no longer with Barfoot & Thompson. Ms Hargood and Ms Dinnan represented Barfoot & Thompson at the hearing, which took place at [Location suppressed] Court on 12 December 2025. Mould
[Tenant 1] said that she noticed mould on the bathroom ceiling at the beginning of the tenancy. She spoke with Mr Marriner about this. She raised it again at the first routine inspection in late October and the next inspection in January 2025. No action was taken until April 2025. In April, a contractor came to the property and painted the bathroom ceiling.
[Tenant 1] said that she noticed mould on windowsills, and that the property (in particular her bedroom) was damp.
On 11 July 2025, [Tenant 1] discovered extensive black mould at the bottom of the wall in her bedroom. Her bed had been against that wall (but not hard against it), so she had not noticed it before. There was also mould on the wall on [Tenant 2]’s bedroom.
She informed Mr Marriner, who arranged for cleaners to come and remove the mould.
Around this time the tenants asked to be ‘released’ from the tenancy (although it does not appear to be a fixed term tenancy) and they left in August after the landlord found new tenants.
Ms Hargood said that: a. Barfoot & Thompson obtained a quote for the bathroom ceiling early in the tenancy, but the owner did not accept the cost. The owner eventually arranged for their own contractor to do the work in April. b. They arranged for cleaners immediately after the tenant told them about mould on the walls in the bedrooms in July. They investigated for exterior cladding or roof leaks but could not find any. c. The tenants before these did not raise any concerns about mould and the new tenants have also not raised any concerns.
Mould problems in rental properties can be factually and legally complex. There is no specific legal duty on landlords to ensure that tenanted premises are always free from mould – such a duty would be onerous and unenforceable – but the clear purpose of the healthy homes standards is to have tenanted premises that are warm, dry, safe, and habitable.
The ceiling mould in the bathroom was relatively minor, and I accept that it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to address that problem by way of mould treatment and painting. If mould was just isolated to that area, it would not necessarily indicate any broader dampness / leak problems at the property.
However, there was an unreasonable delay in this work being done.
[Tenant 1]’s photographs of the mould on the bedroom walls, especially in her bedroom, are dramatic and concerning. However, I accept that the landlord acted promptly when this was brought to their attention. I also have no evidence about the possible cause(s) of the mould. There are no proven leaks, apart from two or three cracked window panes. The cracked window pane in the lounge allowed wind-blown rain into the house in certain weather conditions, but there is no evidence of a mould problem in the lounge, just the bedrooms and bathroom ceiling. There is no evidence of historical leaks or mould issues at this property.
I understand why [Tenant 1] left the premises after discovering the extent of mould on the bedroom walls.
I address the issue of compensation below. Draughts
The healthy homes standards state that landlords must ensure that there are no unreasonable gaps in the property.
The landlord arranged for a healthy homes assessment of this property in January 2023. I was provided with a copy of the report, prepared by All Clear.
The report notes that there is no ground moisture barrier (the landlord subsequently had a ground moisture barrier installed) and that the premises complies with the insulation standard and the heating standard.
Strangely, the report does not address two of the five healthy homes standards at all. It does not state whether the premises meets the ventilation standard or the draught stopping standard. It is unclear whether this is an error / oversight or whether All Clear were instructed to not address those standards in its report.
[Tenant 1] said that there were large gaps around and underneath the entrance door, and she also got draughts from around the windows. These are shown in [Tenant 1]’s photographs.
The first proven instance of this being raised with the property manager was in July 2025. Mr Marriner arranged for a contractor to do draught stopping work. The contractor did some work, but unfortunately overlooked the gaps on the sides of the door.
The visually obvious gaps around and underneath the door should have been addressed before the start of this tenancy. This is a healthy homes issue.
I address compensation below. Stove
[Tenant 1] said that the stove was deteriorated, with rust inside the oven and in the warming drawer. [Tenant 1] said that at the beginning of the tenancy Mr Marriner told her that the intention was to replace the stove.
Nothing happened until July 2025, when an electrician came to the property to prepare for the installation of a new stove. The stove was not replaced until after she moved out.
Ms Hargood said that Mr Marriner denies agreeing to replace the stove or telling [Tenant 1] that the stove would be replaced. In his view the stove was functional and adequate.
The difficulty with the landlord’s position is that there is no evidence to show that the stove developed any fault, or deteriorated significantly, in July 2025. Presumably the landlord replaced it because it was aged and deteriorated and it needed to be replaced. However, the same was true in October 2024.
[Tenant 1]’s photographs show obvious deterioration and rust on the stove.
I agree with [Tenant 1]’s argument that she should not have had to put up with a stove in that condition during her tenancy.
I address compensation below. Damper on woodburner
There is a woodburner in the lounge.
The woodburner had a safety inspection in February 2024, which it passed.
[Tenant 1] said that when she and her flatmates first went to use it in autumn 2025 the damper control would not work properly and the rubber seals on the woodburner overheated.
The woodburner was inspected again in May 2025. I was provided with a copy of the report from [inspection services company]. The front page of the report states that the air control is “functioning” and that the wood burner is “safe to use”. However, the second page of the report also states “air control system needs replacing”.
The air control was replaced after [Tenant 1] moved out.
Ms Hargood said that based on the report finding that the wood burner was safe to use, they did not consider that this was an urgent repair.
I accept that [Tenant 1] was able to use the woodburner and that it was safe to use during her tenancy.
It is unfortunate that the fault identified in the May report was not addressed promptly. Compensation
[Tenant 1] has shown that: a. Some repair / maintenance issues were not addressed as promptly as they could have been (bathroom ceiling mould, stove, damper on woodburner). b. The premises did not meet the healthy homes standard for draughtstopping. c. She experienced a significant mould problem during the tenancy which ultimately caused her to leave the property.
I also note that Barfoot & Thompson attended to some issues very quickly (such as the mould on the walls) and in some instances they were let down by contractors.
I do not think that it is appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages in the circumstances, but I will make an award of compensation to reflect the fact that there is a reasonable basis for her claim in this Tribunal and she ‘put up with’ problems and issues that she should not have had to.
General loss of amenity damages of this type are difficult to quantify. [Tenant 1]’s claim for compensation of $8,000 is, in my view, not justified.
Having regard to the period of the tenancy and the nature / duration of the issues discussed above, my finding is that and appropriate amount of compensation is $1,500.00.
Barfoot & Thompson acted as agents only. The order is made against the owner of the property. Filing fee, name suppression
[Tenant 1] confirmed that the bond has been released to her since the end of the tenancy.
[Tenant 1] was substantially successful in this application. On that basis I will award her the filing fee, 1 and her request for name suppression is granted. 2 1 Section 102(4)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 95A RTA

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336461 — net $1,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Partial refund of rent due to issues with mould, draughts, and stove	$1,500.00	Partial refund of rent due to issues with mould, draughts, and stove
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	46. [Tenant 1] was substantially successful in this application.
Net award	$1,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,528.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 3 October 2024 and ended on 28 August 2025. The rent was $580 per week.
[Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] were the named tenants. [Tenant 1]’s application seeks compensation due to problems with mould, draughts, the stove and other issues as discussed in more detail below.
[Tenant 1] dealt with Mr Marriner (Barfoot & Thompson) during the tenancy. Mr Marriner is no longer with Barfoot & Thompson. Ms Hargood and Ms Dinnan represented Barfoot & Thompson at the hearing, which took place at [Location suppressed] Court on 12 December 2025. Mould
[Tenant 1] said that she noticed mould on the bathroom ceiling at the beginning of the tenancy. She spoke with Mr Marriner about this. She raised it again at the first routine inspection in late October and the next inspection in January 2025. No action was taken until April 2025. In April, a contractor came to the property and painted the bathroom ceiling.
[Tenant 1] said that she noticed mould on windowsills, and that the property (in particular her bedroom) was damp.
On 11 July 2025, [Tenant 1] discovered extensive black mould at the bottom of the wall in her bedroom. Her bed had been against that wall (but not hard against it), so she had not noticed it before. There was also mould on the wall on [Tenant 2]’s bedroom.
She informed Mr Marriner, who arranged for cleaners to come and remove the mould.
Around this time the tenants asked to be ‘released’ from the tenancy (although it does not appear to be a fixed term tenancy) and they left in August after the landlord found new tenants.
Ms Hargood said that: a. Barfoot & Thompson obtained a quote for the bathroom ceiling early in the tenancy, but the owner did not accept the cost. The owner eventually arranged for their own contractor to do the work in April. b. They arranged for cleaners immediately after the tenant told them about mould on the walls in the bedrooms in July. They investigated for exterior cladding or roof leaks but could not find any. c. The tenants before these did not raise any concerns about mould and the new tenants have also not raised any concerns.
Mould problems in rental properties can be factually and legally complex. There is no specific legal duty on landlords to ensure that tenanted premises are always free from mould – such a duty would be onerous and unenforceable – but the clear purpose of the healthy homes standards is to have tenanted premises that are warm, dry, safe, and habitable.
The ceiling mould in the bathroom was relatively minor, and I accept that it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to address that problem by way of mould treatment and painting. If mould was just isolated to that area, it would not necessarily indicate any broader dampness / leak problems at the property.
However, there was an unreasonable delay in this work being done.
[Tenant 1]’s photographs of the mould on the bedroom walls, especially in her bedroom, are dramatic and concerning. However, I accept that the landlord acted promptly when this was brought to their attention. I also have no evidence about the possible cause(s) of the mould. There are no proven leaks, apart from two or three cracked window panes. The cracked window pane in the lounge allowed wind-blown rain into the house in certain weather conditions, but there is no evidence of a mould problem in the lounge, just the bedrooms and bathroom ceiling. There is no evidence of historical leaks or mould issues at this property.
I understand why [Tenant 1] left the premises after discovering the extent of mould on the bedroom walls.
I address the issue of compensation below. Draughts
The healthy homes standards state that landlords must ensure that there are no unreasonable gaps in the property.
The landlord arranged for a healthy homes assessment of this property in January 2023. I was provided with a copy of the report, prepared by All Clear.
The report notes that there is no ground moisture barrier (the landlord subsequently had a ground moisture barrier installed) and that the premises complies with the insulation standard and the heating standard.
Strangely, the report does not address two of the five healthy homes standards at all. It does not state whether the premises meets the ventilation standard or the draught stopping standard. It is unclear whether this is an error / oversight or whether All Clear were instructed to not address those standards in its report.
[Tenant 1] said that there were large gaps around and underneath the entrance door, and she also got draughts from around the windows. These are shown in [Tenant 1]’s photographs.
The first proven instance of this being raised with the property manager was in July 2025. Mr Marriner arranged for a contractor to do draught stopping work. The contractor did some work, but unfortunately overlooked the gaps on the sides of the door.
The visually obvious gaps around and underneath the door should have been addressed before the start of this tenancy. This is a healthy homes issue.
I address compensation below. Stove
[Tenant 1] said that the stove was deteriorated, with rust inside the oven and in the warming drawer. [Tenant 1] said that at the beginning of the tenancy Mr Marriner told her that the intention was to replace the stove.
Nothing happened until July 2025, when an electrician came to the property to prepare for the installation of a new stove. The stove was not replaced until after she moved out.
Ms Hargood said that Mr Marriner denies agreeing to replace the stove or telling [Tenant 1] that the stove would be replaced. In his view the stove was functional and adequate.
The difficulty with the landlord’s position is that there is no evidence to show that the stove developed any fault, or deteriorated significantly, in July 2025. Presumably the landlord replaced it because it was aged and deteriorated and it needed to be replaced. However, the same was true in October 2024.
[Tenant 1]’s photographs show obvious deterioration and rust on the stove.
I agree with [Tenant 1]’s argument that she should not have had to put up with a stove in that condition during her tenancy.
I address compensation below. Damper on woodburner
There is a woodburner in the lounge.
The woodburner had a safety inspection in February 2024, which it passed.
[Tenant 1] said that when she and her flatmates first went to use it in autumn 2025 the damper control would not work properly and the rubber seals on the woodburner overheated.
The woodburner was inspected again in May 2025. I was provided with a copy of the report from [inspection services company]. The front page of the report states that the air control is “functioning” and that the wood burner is “safe to use”. However, the second page of the report also states “air control system needs replacing”.
The air control was replaced after [Tenant 1] moved out.
Ms Hargood said that based on the report finding that the wood burner was safe to use, they did not consider that this was an urgent repair.
I accept that [Tenant 1] was able to use the woodburner and that it was safe to use during her tenancy.
It is unfortunate that the fault identified in the May report was not addressed promptly. Compensation
[Tenant 1] has shown that: a. Some repair / maintenance issues were not addressed as promptly as they could have been (bathroom ceiling mould, stove, damper on woodburner). b. The premises did not meet the healthy homes standard for draughtstopping. c. She experienced a significant mould problem during the tenancy which ultimately caused her to leave the property.
I also note that Barfoot & Thompson attended to some issues very quickly (such as the mould on the walls) and in some instances they were let down by contractors.
I do not think that it is appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages in the circumstances, but I will make an award of compensation to reflect the fact that there is a reasonable basis for her claim in this Tribunal and she ‘put up with’ problems and issues that she should not have had to.
General loss of amenity damages of this type are difficult to quantify. [Tenant 1]’s claim for compensation of $8,000 is, in my view, not justified.
Having regard to the period of the tenancy and the nature / duration of the issues discussed above, my finding is that and appropriate amount of compensation is $1,500.00.
Barfoot & Thompson acted as agents only. The order is made against the owner of the property. Filing fee, name suppression
[Tenant 1] confirmed that the bond has been released to her since the end of the tenancy.
[Tenant 1] was substantially successful in this application. On that basis I will award her the filing fee, 1 and her request for name suppression is granted. 2 1 Section 102(4)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 95A RTA

Tenancy Tribunal case 5336461 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5336461 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Award balance

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