What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5343942?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (BN-00046065) to Boping Xu

How much money was awarded in case 5343942?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343942?

The primary dispute was Mould. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343942?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13139539-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5343942?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (BN-00046065) to Boping Xu

How much money was awarded in case 5343942?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343942?

The primary dispute was Mould. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343942?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13139539-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

70B Valley Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5343942 — Mould

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

70B Valley Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5343942 — Mould | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343942. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (BN-00046065) to Boping Xu immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant. The tenant ended the fixed-term tenancy early because of concerns she had with mould in the premises. The tenant now seeks various orders in relation to the mould, as well as an order that her bond be returned.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 4 March 2025, and was a fixed-term tenancy until 3 March 2026.
The tenant is Boping Xu. The landlord is Qun Li by way of a property manager Patras & Co Real Estate Limited, trading as ‘Harcourts’.
The Property Manager reports that they have managed this tenancy for about three years, and that there have been no issues with mould from prior tenants.
In any event, this tenancy commenced on 4 March 2025.
In April 2025, the tenant contacted the landlord, concerned at the development of mould. The landlord engaged cleaners who undertook cleaning at the premises.
A routine inspection occurred on 24 June 2025. The inspection report has been provided, and records the presence of mould in the bathroom, toilet and a bedroom.
A further inspection occurred on 3 July 2025, to inspect the mould issues raised by the tenant. The Property Managers advised on practices to reduce moisture and mould.
On 23 July 2025, the tenant raised with the landlord wanting to end the tenancy because of mould.
Throughout August the file includes extensive communications between the parties around ending the tenancy early. In summary, the position taken by the landlord is that the tenant could end the tenancy early, but she would need to pay for one further month of rent (which would be reduced if a replacement tenant was found sooner), and also to pay for the advertising. The tenant did not agree with what the landlord was proposing, because she maintained that the premises were defective, being the reason she needed to end the tenancy early. The tenant also requested compensation. I note that on 15 August 2025, the tenant advised that she was extending the tenancy end date to 9 September 2025 as she had not found new premises.
On 30 August 2025, the tenant wrote to the landlord confirming she would be vacating the premises on 9 September 2025. The tenant noted: Regarding the mould issue: all the windows in the small bedroom and bathroom have been kept open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Despite this, the mould has continued to return, even though no one has lived in that room. This clearly shows that the issue arises from the property’s poor ventilation and damp insulation, rather than from how it has been used.
The tenant vacated the premises on or around 9 September 2025.
On 30 September 2025, the landlord has the premises commercially cleaned. The invoice was for $333.60, recorded simply as “mold removal cleaning”.
On 16 February 2026 (the day prior to the hearing), the landlord had the premises reassessed for compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). A fulsome report has been provided by Akarana Energy Solutions. The assessor, Mr Rana, confirmed that the premises were HHS compliant. It is clear that the assessor had gone into the ceiling and under the house, where he confirmed the state of the insulation in those areas. There were a range of photographs in the report, which do not clearly show areas of mould, but there was otherwise no reference to mould in the report.
A hearing was convened in Auckland on 17 February 2026. In attendance was Ms Xu who was assisted by an interpreter, Mr Deng. Representing the landlord were the property managers, Mr Chaudhry and Ms Wu.

TENANTS CASE

The tenant said that she moved into the premises on 4 March 2025. After one month, there was mould appearing in the house. The tenant sent the photographs to the landlord, and then about two weeks later, the landlord sent someone to undertake cleaning. However, about 20 days later, the mould was reappearing.
The tenant states that this was during winter. There was an inspection from the landlord which reported mould including in the small bedroom, which was not at the time being used.
On 23 July 2025, the tenant messaged the landlord, advising she needed to move out because of the mould situation.
The landlord agreed to terminate the tenancy early, but on the basis that the tenant pay for the advertising, which the tenant refused. There was further communication, but after a period of time, the landlord refused to agree to terminate the tenancy. The tenant says that in communications with the property manager, they supported that she move out because of the extent of the mould.
The tenant found another property and on 9 September 2025 moved out.
The tenant says that she undertook cleaning to the premises when she moved out, but the landlord did not provide an inspection report.
The tenant is concerned that at the end of the tenancy, the landlord did not refund her bond.
After the tenant left the premises, she agrees that the landlord asked her for a face-to-face meeting, but she did not attend.
The tenant seeks the following orders: a. Reimbursement of rent. b. Reimbursement of 20% of rent c. Moving costs d. Loss of salary for one day from moving
In response to the landlord’s submissions, the tenant disputed that the mould arose from her use of the dwelling.
The tenant submits that while the landlord had blamed her dryer as causing the mould, it was not purchased until the end of May, and even then, she did not have a particular issue with mould in the hallway, which is where the dryer was located. Otherwise, the tenant disputes that she dried her clothing on a rack in the hallway. While there is a photograph provided by the landlord of a laundry drying rack in the hallway, she did not in fact use the rack for drying.
Further, the tenant said that she would keep a bedroom window continuously open during the tenancy.
The tenant disputes that there was no earlier mould issue, as there was mould in the toilet when she inspected the premises in February 2025, and that was sent to the Property Manager (the tenant showed this photograph on her phone in the hearing).
The tenant believes that the Property Manager was aware of mould throughout the premises, and in fact had recognised that during the tenancy she had looked after the premises well.

LANDLORDS CASE

The landlord’s position is that it did take action at the premises when advised about the mould in April 2025.
The landlord’s position is that the premises are in good condition, noting there have been two Healthy Homes assessments which did not identify any issues with the premises.
It was submitted that the cause of any mould was from the tenant, in particular: a. The tenant had a dryer in the hallway. While the tenant said it is a condenser dryer, it still generates heat. b. The landlord also considers the tenant was drying clothing in the hallway. c. The tenant had the bed pushed hard against the wall, causing mould behind it.
The landlord states that ventilation tips were given to the tenant.
Further it is submitted that his tenant is the only one to have mould issues. No mould has been reported by the replacement tenants who moved in after the premises were empty for three months, and there was no mould during that vacant period.
The landlord considers that the tenant has not returned the premises reasonably clean.
The Property Managers estimated that Harcourts have been managing the premise for three years, but there have been different property managers. The Property Managers confirmed that over that time, none of the tenants raised mould issues.
The Property Managers confirmed that after Ms Xu move out they had the premises mould cleaned on 23 September 2025.
In short, the landlord’s position is that there are no issues with the premises which would be a cause for the mould, making the most likely cause of the mould how the tenant is using the premises, such as not keeping the premises properly ventilated.
The Property Manager states that the tenant did not raise issues with mould at the start of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

ANALYSIS

The primary matter before the Tribunal, relates to a claim for compensation for mould at the premises, and there is a secondary claim for refund of the tenant’s bond. Mould claim
The tenant’s position is that there was extensive mould in the premises. The tenant considers that there is some defect with the premises which causes the mould development, whereas the landlord considers the mould is caused by how the tenant was living in the premises.
There is no doubt there was a mould problem in these premises during Ms Xu’s tenancy. The photographs provided of the inside of the dwelling at the end of the tenancy clearly show widespread mould. Obligation to provide, and keep the premises reasonably clean
The RTA sets out a range of obligations on landlords and tenants.
As far as the landlord is concerned, the premises must be provided to the tenant at the start of the tenancy, reasonably clean. In my assessment, the landlord did achieve that requirement. While there may have been some areas of mould present, as demonstrated on the photographs shown to the Tribunal on the tenant’s phone at the hearing, I consider that overall the premises were reasonably clean.
The obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean, transfers to the tenant once a finding is made that the landlord has complied with its obligation at the start of the tenancy. During the tenancy, it is the tenant that must keep the premises reasonably clean. I will discuss this further below. Landlords obligation to maintain the premises
It is also relevant to note that there is an obligation on the landlord to maintain the premises during the tenancy. If there was some defect to the building, such as a leaking roof, then the obligation to repair that is on the landlord. In this case, I recognise that the tenant considers that there is a defect with the premises.
The landlord obtained an independent HHS assessment report in April 2023. That records that the premises were HHS compliant, so meet the obligations as it relates to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping and moisture ingress and drainage.
The tenant raised concerns that the roof is leaking. Certainly if the roof was leaking, and causing moisture to build up in the building materials and dwelling, that may contribute to the development of mould. But I am not persuaded that there is evidence of a leaking roof. I note the most recent HHS report confirms that the assessor had gone into the roof (as shown in the photographs), but no issues with a leak was identified.
Furthermore, the landlord’s evidence, which I accept, is that after Ms Xu moved out, the problems with mould ceased. If this was a roof leak, then it would have been presumed to be a continuing issue.
Beyond that, I do not consider the tenant has pointed to any potential defect with the premises, that would account for the mould. In fact, the HHS assessments did not identify any particular defect with the dwelling, which makes it less likely that one exists.
In short, I must conclude that the tenant has not proven that there is some defect with the dwelling which may cause the mould. Cause of the mould
The question then becomes, what has caused the mould? As indicated above, I accept that if there was some defect with the premises, that could be a cause of the mould, but no such defect has been identified.
The landlord considers that the mould has risen as a consequence of how the tenant is living in the premises, such as drying clothes or using the clothes dryer in the hallway. The tenant disputes that the dryer would have caused moisture given it is a condenser dryer, and also given that it was purchased during the tenancy, and further she disputes that she would dry clothes on the drying rack. That may be the case, but it must also be recognised that environmental moisture is a well-recognised cause of mould development in a tenancy. When people live in houses that generate moisture from various sources, such as the bathroom, washing and drying clothes, cooking, etc. On the basis of the information available, that must be a possibility.
However, what I consider takes that situation from a possibility to a probability is the evidence around what has happened in the dwelling both before and after this tenancy.
The evidence from the Property Manager, is that they have been managing this tenancy for some three years. The Property Manager says there is no history of earlier mould problems at the dwelling, and I have no reason not to accept that evidence. While it may be that limited mould arose in areas like bathrooms, or around windows, that of itself is not particularly uncommon. But certainly the mould identified by Ms Xu during and at the end of her tenancy is very significant, not the level of mould that would be missed.
There is also the evidence of what happened after this Tenancy ended. The landlord’s evidence was that the premises were cleaned at the end of September, but that the dwelling was empty for about three months before the next tenancy started in December 2025. The landlord’s evidence was that there were no mould issues over that intervening three-month period, and in fact, there remains no mould problem with the current tenant.
Finally, there is the very recent HHS assessment report. There is no suggestion in that report of a mould issue at the premises.
What that points to is a finding that it is unlikely that there is a fundamental problem with the dwelling, which is causing the mould. If the evidence pointed to a problem with the dwelling, I may well have found the landlord liable for the mould issues. But I am unable to make that finding.
What I am left with, is that the evidence points to a mould problem during Ms Xu’s tenancy only, and I must therefore conclude that the more likely cause of the mould is environmental mould from Ms Xu’s occupation of the premises. Claim for compensation
It must logically follow that because I am not persuaded that the mould has arisen from any breach on the part of the landlord, the tenants’ claim for compensation to be paid by the landlord must fail. Bond
The Tribunal’s records show that there is $2,600.00 in the Bond Centre, and the tenant seeks an order that be released to her.
Section 22B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies, that provision confirms that: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
The effect of this provision is that when the tenant applies to the Tribunal for release of the bond in whole or in part, if the landlord wishes to argue that it has any call on that bond, then the landlord “must” file a counterclaim for it. In the absence of a counterclaim, then the Tribunal must order that the bond be released to the tenant. I note in this case, the landlord says that they do have a claim they wish to pursue against the tenant, but acknowledged that no counterclaim has been filed. Section 22B is clear, that the landlord “must” file a counterclaim in order to end up with a result other than the bond being released to the tenant.
This means that if the landlord subsequently wishes to pursue any claim against the tenant, the landlord is still able to do so, but if the landlord is successful in the claim, there would not be any bond that the Tribunal could order be released to go toward the landlord’s order.
For the above reasons, in the absence of a counterclaim from the landlord, the Tribunal orders that the full bond be refunded to the tenant.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343942. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (BN-00046065) to Boping Xu immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant. The tenant ended the fixed-term tenancy early because of concerns she had with mould in the premises. The tenant now seeks various orders in relation to the mould, as well as an order that her bond be returned.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 4 March 2025, and was a fixed-term tenancy until 3 March 2026.
The tenant is Boping Xu. The landlord is Qun Li by way of a property manager Patras & Co Real Estate Limited, trading as ‘Harcourts’.
The Property Manager reports that they have managed this tenancy for about three years, and that there have been no issues with mould from prior tenants.
In any event, this tenancy commenced on 4 March 2025.
In April 2025, the tenant contacted the landlord, concerned at the development of mould. The landlord engaged cleaners who undertook cleaning at the premises.
A routine inspection occurred on 24 June 2025. The inspection report has been provided, and records the presence of mould in the bathroom, toilet and a bedroom.
A further inspection occurred on 3 July 2025, to inspect the mould issues raised by the tenant. The Property Managers advised on practices to reduce moisture and mould.
On 23 July 2025, the tenant raised with the landlord wanting to end the tenancy because of mould.
Throughout August the file includes extensive communications between the parties around ending the tenancy early. In summary, the position taken by the landlord is that the tenant could end the tenancy early, but she would need to pay for one further month of rent (which would be reduced if a replacement tenant was found sooner), and also to pay for the advertising. The tenant did not agree with what the landlord was proposing, because she maintained that the premises were defective, being the reason she needed to end the tenancy early. The tenant also requested compensation. I note that on 15 August 2025, the tenant advised that she was extending the tenancy end date to 9 September 2025 as she had not found new premises.
On 30 August 2025, the tenant wrote to the landlord confirming she would be vacating the premises on 9 September 2025. The tenant noted: Regarding the mould issue: all the windows in the small bedroom and bathroom have been kept open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Despite this, the mould has continued to return, even though no one has lived in that room. This clearly shows that the issue arises from the property’s poor ventilation and damp insulation, rather than from how it has been used.
The tenant vacated the premises on or around 9 September 2025.
On 30 September 2025, the landlord has the premises commercially cleaned. The invoice was for $333.60, recorded simply as “mold removal cleaning”.
On 16 February 2026 (the day prior to the hearing), the landlord had the premises reassessed for compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). A fulsome report has been provided by Akarana Energy Solutions. The assessor, Mr Rana, confirmed that the premises were HHS compliant. It is clear that the assessor had gone into the ceiling and under the house, where he confirmed the state of the insulation in those areas. There were a range of photographs in the report, which do not clearly show areas of mould, but there was otherwise no reference to mould in the report.
A hearing was convened in Auckland on 17 February 2026. In attendance was Ms Xu who was assisted by an interpreter, Mr Deng. Representing the landlord were the property managers, Mr Chaudhry and Ms Wu.

TENANTS CASE

The tenant said that she moved into the premises on 4 March 2025. After one month, there was mould appearing in the house. The tenant sent the photographs to the landlord, and then about two weeks later, the landlord sent someone to undertake cleaning. However, about 20 days later, the mould was reappearing.
The tenant states that this was during winter. There was an inspection from the landlord which reported mould including in the small bedroom, which was not at the time being used.
On 23 July 2025, the tenant messaged the landlord, advising she needed to move out because of the mould situation.
The landlord agreed to terminate the tenancy early, but on the basis that the tenant pay for the advertising, which the tenant refused. There was further communication, but after a period of time, the landlord refused to agree to terminate the tenancy. The tenant says that in communications with the property manager, they supported that she move out because of the extent of the mould.
The tenant found another property and on 9 September 2025 moved out.
The tenant says that she undertook cleaning to the premises when she moved out, but the landlord did not provide an inspection report.
The tenant is concerned that at the end of the tenancy, the landlord did not refund her bond.
After the tenant left the premises, she agrees that the landlord asked her for a face-to-face meeting, but she did not attend.
The tenant seeks the following orders: a. Reimbursement of rent. b. Reimbursement of 20% of rent c. Moving costs d. Loss of salary for one day from moving
In response to the landlord’s submissions, the tenant disputed that the mould arose from her use of the dwelling.
The tenant submits that while the landlord had blamed her dryer as causing the mould, it was not purchased until the end of May, and even then, she did not have a particular issue with mould in the hallway, which is where the dryer was located. Otherwise, the tenant disputes that she dried her clothing on a rack in the hallway. While there is a photograph provided by the landlord of a laundry drying rack in the hallway, she did not in fact use the rack for drying.
Further, the tenant said that she would keep a bedroom window continuously open during the tenancy.
The tenant disputes that there was no earlier mould issue, as there was mould in the toilet when she inspected the premises in February 2025, and that was sent to the Property Manager (the tenant showed this photograph on her phone in the hearing).
The tenant believes that the Property Manager was aware of mould throughout the premises, and in fact had recognised that during the tenancy she had looked after the premises well.

LANDLORDS CASE

The landlord’s position is that it did take action at the premises when advised about the mould in April 2025.
The landlord’s position is that the premises are in good condition, noting there have been two Healthy Homes assessments which did not identify any issues with the premises.
It was submitted that the cause of any mould was from the tenant, in particular: a. The tenant had a dryer in the hallway. While the tenant said it is a condenser dryer, it still generates heat. b. The landlord also considers the tenant was drying clothing in the hallway. c. The tenant had the bed pushed hard against the wall, causing mould behind it.
The landlord states that ventilation tips were given to the tenant.
Further it is submitted that his tenant is the only one to have mould issues. No mould has been reported by the replacement tenants who moved in after the premises were empty for three months, and there was no mould during that vacant period.
The landlord considers that the tenant has not returned the premises reasonably clean.
The Property Managers estimated that Harcourts have been managing the premise for three years, but there have been different property managers. The Property Managers confirmed that over that time, none of the tenants raised mould issues.
The Property Managers confirmed that after Ms Xu move out they had the premises mould cleaned on 23 September 2025.
In short, the landlord’s position is that there are no issues with the premises which would be a cause for the mould, making the most likely cause of the mould how the tenant is using the premises, such as not keeping the premises properly ventilated.
The Property Manager states that the tenant did not raise issues with mould at the start of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

ANALYSIS

The primary matter before the Tribunal, relates to a claim for compensation for mould at the premises, and there is a secondary claim for refund of the tenant’s bond. Mould claim
The tenant’s position is that there was extensive mould in the premises. The tenant considers that there is some defect with the premises which causes the mould development, whereas the landlord considers the mould is caused by how the tenant was living in the premises.
There is no doubt there was a mould problem in these premises during Ms Xu’s tenancy. The photographs provided of the inside of the dwelling at the end of the tenancy clearly show widespread mould. Obligation to provide, and keep the premises reasonably clean
The RTA sets out a range of obligations on landlords and tenants.
As far as the landlord is concerned, the premises must be provided to the tenant at the start of the tenancy, reasonably clean. In my assessment, the landlord did achieve that requirement. While there may have been some areas of mould present, as demonstrated on the photographs shown to the Tribunal on the tenant’s phone at the hearing, I consider that overall the premises were reasonably clean.
The obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean, transfers to the tenant once a finding is made that the landlord has complied with its obligation at the start of the tenancy. During the tenancy, it is the tenant that must keep the premises reasonably clean. I will discuss this further below. Landlords obligation to maintain the premises
It is also relevant to note that there is an obligation on the landlord to maintain the premises during the tenancy. If there was some defect to the building, such as a leaking roof, then the obligation to repair that is on the landlord. In this case, I recognise that the tenant considers that there is a defect with the premises.
The landlord obtained an independent HHS assessment report in April 2023. That records that the premises were HHS compliant, so meet the obligations as it relates to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping and moisture ingress and drainage.
The tenant raised concerns that the roof is leaking. Certainly if the roof was leaking, and causing moisture to build up in the building materials and dwelling, that may contribute to the development of mould. But I am not persuaded that there is evidence of a leaking roof. I note the most recent HHS report confirms that the assessor had gone into the roof (as shown in the photographs), but no issues with a leak was identified.
Furthermore, the landlord’s evidence, which I accept, is that after Ms Xu moved out, the problems with mould ceased. If this was a roof leak, then it would have been presumed to be a continuing issue.
Beyond that, I do not consider the tenant has pointed to any potential defect with the premises, that would account for the mould. In fact, the HHS assessments did not identify any particular defect with the dwelling, which makes it less likely that one exists.
In short, I must conclude that the tenant has not proven that there is some defect with the dwelling which may cause the mould. Cause of the mould
The question then becomes, what has caused the mould? As indicated above, I accept that if there was some defect with the premises, that could be a cause of the mould, but no such defect has been identified.
The landlord considers that the mould has risen as a consequence of how the tenant is living in the premises, such as drying clothes or using the clothes dryer in the hallway. The tenant disputes that the dryer would have caused moisture given it is a condenser dryer, and also given that it was purchased during the tenancy, and further she disputes that she would dry clothes on the drying rack. That may be the case, but it must also be recognised that environmental moisture is a well-recognised cause of mould development in a tenancy. When people live in houses that generate moisture from various sources, such as the bathroom, washing and drying clothes, cooking, etc. On the basis of the information available, that must be a possibility.
However, what I consider takes that situation from a possibility to a probability is the evidence around what has happened in the dwelling both before and after this tenancy.
The evidence from the Property Manager, is that they have been managing this tenancy for some three years. The Property Manager says there is no history of earlier mould problems at the dwelling, and I have no reason not to accept that evidence. While it may be that limited mould arose in areas like bathrooms, or around windows, that of itself is not particularly uncommon. But certainly the mould identified by Ms Xu during and at the end of her tenancy is very significant, not the level of mould that would be missed.
There is also the evidence of what happened after this Tenancy ended. The landlord’s evidence was that the premises were cleaned at the end of September, but that the dwelling was empty for about three months before the next tenancy started in December 2025. The landlord’s evidence was that there were no mould issues over that intervening three-month period, and in fact, there remains no mould problem with the current tenant.
Finally, there is the very recent HHS assessment report. There is no suggestion in that report of a mould issue at the premises.
What that points to is a finding that it is unlikely that there is a fundamental problem with the dwelling, which is causing the mould. If the evidence pointed to a problem with the dwelling, I may well have found the landlord liable for the mould issues. But I am unable to make that finding.
What I am left with, is that the evidence points to a mould problem during Ms Xu’s tenancy only, and I must therefore conclude that the more likely cause of the mould is environmental mould from Ms Xu’s occupation of the premises. Claim for compensation
It must logically follow that because I am not persuaded that the mould has arisen from any breach on the part of the landlord, the tenants’ claim for compensation to be paid by the landlord must fail. Bond
The Tribunal’s records show that there is $2,600.00 in the Bond Centre, and the tenant seeks an order that be released to her.
Section 22B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies, that provision confirms that: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
The effect of this provision is that when the tenant applies to the Tribunal for release of the bond in whole or in part, if the landlord wishes to argue that it has any call on that bond, then the landlord “must” file a counterclaim for it. In the absence of a counterclaim, then the Tribunal must order that the bond be released to the tenant. I note in this case, the landlord says that they do have a claim they wish to pursue against the tenant, but acknowledged that no counterclaim has been filed. Section 22B is clear, that the landlord “must” file a counterclaim in order to end up with a result other than the bond being released to the tenant.
This means that if the landlord subsequently wishes to pursue any claim against the tenant, the landlord is still able to do so, but if the landlord is successful in the claim, there would not be any bond that the Tribunal could order be released to go toward the landlord’s order.
For the above reasons, in the absence of a counterclaim from the landlord, the Tribunal orders that the full bond be refunded to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343942 — Mould at 70B Valley Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343942 — Mould at 70B Valley Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CASE

LANDLORDS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CASE

LANDLORDS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions