What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341210 about?

The tribunal order states: The application by the Tenant is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5341210?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341210?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341210?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12927677-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341210 about?

The tribunal order states: The application by the Tenant is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5341210?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341210?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341210?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12927677-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

87B John Davis Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5341210 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The Tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages.

The tenancy began on 6 September 2004 and was still current at the time of the hearing. Compensation for Tenants damaged belongings Flooding and Property Damage

The Tenant sought compensation of $30,000.00 for damage to her vehicle, a 2012 Ford Territory, and $40,000.00 for personal items stored under the house, which she claimed were damaged by flooding on 18 April 2025 (“Easter 2025”). The Tenant stated that she had lived at the property for 21 years and stored items including whiteware, furniture, children’s photographs, and toys under the house, which were damaged from the flood.

The Tenant submitted that following Cyclone Gabrielle in February 2023, the Landlord installed a white downpipe as an overflow measure, which she considered inadequate given the property was located in a flood zone. She alleged that the Landlord either knew or ought to have known that the property was in a flood-prone area.

The Tenant stated that she contacted the Landlord after Easter 2025 to notify them of the flooding and was told by staff that no action would be taken and that she would need to arrange repairs herself. She provided photographs showing a submerged vehicle outside the property and items stored under the house; however, the photographs were not date-stamped. The Tenant did not provide evidence of the vehicle’s value or proof of the original purchase price.

The Landlord submitted that there was no evidence establishing that the damage occurred as a result of flooding in Easter 2025. They suggested that the flooding shown in the photographs was from the cyclone Gabrielle event in 2023, during which the exterior of the property flooded. They submitted that the interior of the dwelling was unaffected as the house is elevated on stilts.

The Landlord stated that they had no record of any flooding at the property during Easter 2025. They submitted that the value of the vehicle was excessive for its age and that liability for vehicle damage and personal property generally rests with the Tenant the Tenants insurer. They further submitted that the items stored under the house were old and dry. The Landlord noted that rent relief had also been provided to the Tenant from 2 February 2023 to 8 December 2023 while exterior flood repairs were undertaken.

Under section 45 (1)(b) and (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a landlord is required to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, healthy and safety. Damage to a tenant’s personal property is generally the tenant’s responsibility unless it is shown that the loss arose from the landlord’s failure to meet obligations under the Act.

Having considered the evidence, I find that the Tenant has not established, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage to her vehicle or stored items resulted from a breach of the Landlord’s obligations. The Tenant reported the alleged flooding only after Easter, despite claiming it was a significant event. One would have expected that flooding of that severity would have compelled the Tenant to contact them during Easter. The Landlord had no record of notification. The photographs were not date-stamped, and there was no independent evidence confirming that flooding occurred at the property in April 2025.

The Tenant also did not provide independent evidence of the value of the vehicle or the items stored under the house. Nor was any expert evidence provided to establish that the downpipe installed by the Landlord after cyclone Gabrielle was inadequate or contributed to flooding.

The claim for compensation relating to flooding damage is dismissed. Mould

The Tenant sought orders requiring the property to be repainted due to excessive mould. She removed some of the mould by repainting the walls in the hallway and lounge in July and August 2025. She alleged further mould existed in the bathroom and bedroom. She stated that she had notified the Landlord of mould issues following Cyclone Gabrielle and during inspections but she was ignored.

The Landlord submitted that repainting was not required. They stated that they only noted minor mould at the March 2025 inspection, which was not black mould and could be wiped clean. They submitted that minor mould around windows was not uncommon. The Landlord provided a property inspection report dated 31 March 2025, which recorded no mould issues.

Pursuant to section 45(1) (c ), the Landlord is required to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.

In considering the evidence, I find that the Tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that there was a significant mould issue at the property. The inspection report does not record mould concerns, and no independent expert evidence was provided to confirm excessive mould.

The claim is dismissed. Harassment – Letter Delivery

The Tenant sought compensation of $6,500.00 for alleged harassment, claiming that two female staff members of the Landlord attended the property to place letters in her letterbox after the previous court hearing relating to a dog issue. She submitted this conduct was unnecessary and intimidating.

The Landlord submitted that personal delivery of Tribunal orders by two staff members was standard practice to ensure tenants received hard copies of the Orders and there was safety precautions for the Landlord.

Section 38 and 45(1)(e )RTA provides that the Landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort , or privacy of the Tenant I the use of the premises by the Tenant.

In considering the evidence, I do not find that the Landlord harassed the Tenant by delivering the letters. I accept that providing hard copies of Tribunal orders forms part of ordinary property management practice and the personal delivery by two staff members is a necessary safety precaution. There is no evidence that the content of the letters was offensive, threatening, or intimidating.

This claim is dismissed. Neighbour harassment

The Tenant claimed that her neighbour, whom she believed to be an employee of the Landlord, harassed her by threatening to contact noise control, the SPCA, the police, and by threatening her and her dog. The Tenant did not know the neighbours full name but was certain they worked for the landlord.

The Landlord denied that the neighbour was an employee and submitted that none of their vehicles display company branding. They stated that insufficient identifying information was provided to confirm the neighbour’s identity.

In considering the evidence, I find that the Tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the neighbour was an employee or agent of the Landlord, or to substantiate the alleged harassment. No dates, times, or corroborating evidence were provided.

This claim is dismissed. Exemplary Damages – Tenancy Agreement

The Tenant sought exemplary damages, alleging that the Landlord filed a fraudulent tenancy agreement because only two of four pages were submitted. She stated that the missing two pages confirmed the Tenant could keep her dogs at the property.

The Landlord submitted that the last two pages were information sheets which were sent to the Tribunal as per the Order on 9 June 2025. They denied any intention to mislead and stated that document retention practices had changed over time. The Tenant also did not produce any documents to show any different.

Section 13A(1F)(b) RTA provides that it is an unlawful act to provide false or misleading statements or information in terms of the Tenancy Agreement.

In considering the evidence, the Tenant has failed to provide evidence that the Landlord provided misleading information regarding the Tenancy Agreement documents. There was nothing to prove they did not provide the last two pages to the Tribunal or evidence that they had received a different document from the Landlord.

This claim is dismissed. Name Suppression

As the Tenant has been unsuccessful with their claims, name suppression is declined.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The Tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages.

The tenancy began on 6 September 2004 and was still current at the time of the hearing. Compensation for Tenants damaged belongings Flooding and Property Damage

The claim for compensation relating to flooding damage is dismissed. Mould

Pursuant to section 45(1) (c ), the Landlord is required to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.

The claim is dismissed. Harassment – Letter Delivery

This claim is dismissed. Neighbour harassment

This claim is dismissed. Exemplary Damages – Tenancy Agreement

Section 13A(1F)(b) RTA provides that it is an unlawful act to provide false or misleading statements or information in terms of the Tenancy Agreement.

This claim is dismissed. Name Suppression

As the Tenant has been unsuccessful with their claims, name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341210 — Mould & damp at 87B John Davis Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341210 — Mould & damp at 87B John Davis Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions