What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5357563 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tenants’ names and all identifying details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5357563?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of amenity/inconv…: $4,125.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Purchase of air purifi…: $539.97 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5357563?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5357563?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13083237-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5357563 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tenants’ names and all identifying details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5357563?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of amenity/inconv…: $4,125.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Purchase of air purifi…: $539.97 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5357563?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5357563?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13083237-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5357563 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5357563 — net $5,292.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Purchase of air purifiers	$539.97	Purchase of air purifiers
Compensation: Damaged belongings	$600.00	Damaged belongings
Compensation: Loss of amenity/inconvenience	$4,125.00	Loss of amenity/inconvenience
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,292.97
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,292.97

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5357563 — net $5,292.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Purchase of air purifiers	$539.97	Purchase of air purifiers
Compensation: Damaged belongings	$600.00	Damaged belongings
Compensation: Loss of amenity/inconvenience	$4,125.00	Loss of amenity/inconvenience
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,292.97
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,292.97

Order

The Tenants’ names and all identifying details are suppressed.
The Landlord must clean the pedestal fan, portable air conditioner and two tower fan heaters stored in the ground floor cupboard by 5pm 27 February 2026.
If the Landlord fails to comply with either Order 2 above, then the Tenants may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $250. That cost may be set off against rent payable.
The Landlord must immediately pay the Tenants the amounts set out below:

Reasons

The tenancy started in September 2023. The house was built in 2019. The current rent is $1,100 per week.
The Tenants say that, since the start of the tenancy, they have suffered severe and debilitating medical issues. At the recommendation of their doctors, the Tenants arranged for the premises to be tested for mould. That testing, and further testing conducted by the Landlord, showed high mould spore counts and high relative humidity in the premises. The Tenants suspect that that high mould spore counts, and high relative humidity may be the cause of their health problems.
The Tenants have now brought a claim to the Tribunal seeking: (a)that the Landlord remedy the mould and humidity issues; (b)that the Landlord pay to have items stored in the ground floor cupboard professionally cleaned; (c)a rent rebate of 30 per cent of the rent they have paid since 2 October 2025; and (d)compensation for the cost of purchasing three air purifiers and replacing items stored in the ground floor cupboard that are contaminated with mould and cannot be cleaned.
The Landlord says that it has remediated all issues and considers that the Tenants should not be entitled to the remedies they seek. The Landlord also partially attributes the elevated mould spores and high humidity to the Tenants’ use of the premises. It says that the Tenants store items in the ground floor cupboard, that the elevated moisture in the carpet is near where the Tenants dog sleeps and the number of indoor plants has contributed to the high moisture readings. The issues
The issues I must determine in this case are: (a)Have the Tenants proven that there was excessive humidity and excessive mould spores in the premises? (b)Do the premises comply with the Healthy Home Standards and any other relevant building, health, and safety requirement? (c)Has the Landlord has failed to comply with its obligation to adequately maintain the premises? (d)What remedy are the Tenants entitled to? Have the Tenants proven that there were excessive humidity and mould in the premises? The first mould and humidity test
In August 2025, the Tenants’ doctors advised them to consider having the premises tested for mould. The Tenants then arranged to have the premises assessed by Mould Inspections NZ Ltd.
Although there are no legal standards that mandate unsafe levels of mould, Mould Inspection NZ considered that any indoor reading that is significantly higher than the outdoor (or control) reading, is indicative of a mould problem.
Mould Inspections found elevated levels of Aspergillus/Penicillium type mould spores in the living area, ground floor cupboard, first floor office, master bedroom, bedroom 2 and another bedroom. 1 The tables below set out the mould levels found by Mould Inspections NZ, with the outlier results framed in red. 1 Referred to as bedroom 3 by Mould Inspections and bedroom 4 by All Clear in subsequent test reports discussed later in this decision.
In both the Mould Inspections NZ and All Clear reports (discussed below), the mould present was measured on “Fungal Structures per cubic metre” or fs/m3.
Mould Inspections NZ were also concerned by the high moisture (humidity) levels present in the premises and recommended installing a mechanical ventilation (HRV) system and carrying out EC3 fogging treatment throughout the premises. Mould Inspections also recommended running air purifiers in the home.
In addition to the elevated mould spore counts in numerous rooms, the other key findings from the Mould Inspections NZ report were: (a)The ground floor storage cupboard was unventilated and surface mould (likely to be Aspergillus/Penicillium) was visible to the timber structure. (b)The windows sills in the bathroom were damaged (paint was peeling). Mould Inspections NZ considered that this was evidence of water damage due to condensation and high relative humidity levels. (c)The premises were contaminated with high levels of mycotoxins. The initial remedial steps
On about 5 September 2025, a fogging treatment was performed on the premises. The Tenants also purchased and ran air purifiers. The second mould and humidity test
On 12 September 2025, the Landlord arranged to have a further air quality assessment performed by All Clear Group Ltd. I have been provided with a report dated 30 September 2025 (the first All Clear report).
I will not recite the full technical detail of the first All Clear report but, in summary, All Clear’s findings were similar to those of Mould Inspections NZ. All Clear found that there was high relative humidity, and elevated fungal spore counts within the premises for Aspergillus/Penicillium and Cladosporium type spores.
The table below sets out the mould levels found by All Clear.
All Clear suspected that the high levels of mould spores were caused by: 2 (a)a “raised relative humidity”: (b)the property’s close proximity to a large body of water; (c)vegetation around the house; (d)the spread of mould spores from the ground floor cupboard, which had mould visible on the exposed timber framing. All Clear suspected that the timber beams in the house were installed with dirt on them and have been exposed to rain when the property was built, and those beams now contain low levels of mould; 2 See page 19 of the All Clear report. (e)the large number of plants within the house; and (f)possible structural/design issues with the master bedroom and bedroom 2 window frames that may be allowing moisture ingress.
All Clear made several recommendations, including: (a)To engage a suitably qualified building contractor/specialist to: (i)Consider installing a HRV ventilation system throughout the property as an alternative to always leaving the windows open to ventilate the property. (ii)Service and clean the existing heat pumps. (iii)Seal any gaps and cracks to prevent water and cold air entering the property. (b)The Tenants should consult a medical professional to determine whether the mould identified may be contributing to the health effects they have experienced. (c)The Tenants should continue to use air purifiers to aid in lowering airborne mould spore counts. (d)The Tenants should take the fans, heater and portable air conditioner out of the ground floor cupboard, clean them and store elsewhere to minimise the spread of mould/fungal spores into other areas. (e)The Tenants should continue to take appropriate steps to reduce indoor humidity, including by: (i)Using air conditioners and/or dehumidifiers; (ii)Using extraction fans when cooking, showering and laundering; (iii)Keeping the internal temperature above 18 degrees; (iv)Opening doors and windows for 10 to 15 minutes per day; and (v)Removing condensation as it forms. The further remediation
The Landlord did not immediately take further steps to remediate the excessive mould. Instead, it seems to have initially relied upon the Tenants to take action. To start with, the Tenants had purchased three air purifiers and were running those constantly. By the time I first heard this matter on 19 December 2025, the Landlord had also repainted the affected windowsills, serviced the heat pumps, cleaned the visible mould from surfaces in the downstairs storage cupboard. It had yet to use air scrubbers to further clean the air, which had been recommended by All Clear.
By the second hearing of this claim on 20 January 2026, the Landlord had arranged for air scrubbers to further clean the air and completed all the remediation work it considered appropriate. The second All Clear test
Following that remediation work, the Landlord arranged to have a further air quality assessment performed by All Clear on 16 January 2026. The second All Clear report (dated 20 January 2026) states that the mould levels have now reduced in most places throughout the house, although they are now higher in the master bedroom. The relative humidity levels remained similar to those found during earlier tests.
The table below sets out the mould readings taken on 16 January 2026.
The Landlord considers that no further remediation is required. The Tenants disagree. They want the Landlord to install a mechanical ventilation system and to clean all their belongings that had been stored in the downstairs storage cupboard (both as recommended by Mould Inspections NZ and All Clear). The Landlord is reluctant to install mechanical ventilation, which will cost approximately $10,000. My assessment
The Mould Inspections NZ and first All Clear reports show that the mould levels in the office, at least two bedrooms, living area, and particularly the ground floor storage cupboard were unsatisfactorily high on the dates of testing in September 2025. I reiterate – there is no established test to determine the point at which mould contamination is so high that it requires remediation. However, given the significant extent to which the mould in the premises exceeded the outdoor mould readings (as shown in the tables above) and given the presence of visible and longstanding mould on the timber framing in the ground floor storage cupboard, I am satisfied that the Tenants have proven that the levels of mould in the premises were unreasonably high at that time.
But I am not satisfied that the mould levels remain unreasonably high. The mould levels in the premises are now much lower, as demonstrated by the second All Clear report, although the indoor readings exceed the outdoor readings in some rooms. The Tenants continue to believe that the mould levels are too high. I do not know whether that is the case. As noted above, there is no legal test for determining when those levels are too high, and the evidence does not demonstrate that the current mould levels make the premises uninhabitable or create any unreasonable health risk to the occupants.
In finding that the Tenants have not proven that the mould levels in the premises remains too high, I note that almost all residential premises have mould present to some extent. There certainly continues to be mould spores present in the house, but the evidence presented does not demonstrate that the mould now present is excessive or more than might ordinarily be found in residential premises.
Of course, if that changes, and if the Tenants have evidence in the future to demonstrate that mould levels have increased to harmful levels due to the condition of the premises, the Tenants may apply again to the Tribunal. But, at the moment, I am not satisfied that the premises require any further maintenance given the remedial work performed by the Landlord to date. Do the premises comply with the Healthy Home Standards and any other relevant building, health, and safety requirement?
I understood the Tenants to be concerned that the premises do not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards, due to the excessive relative humidity and mould spores.
As discussed with the parties during the hearings, the Healthy Homes Standards set specific rules for heating, ventilation, insulation, moisture and drainage and draught stopping. The Standards are intended to improve rental housing quality but do not guarantee that rental housing be free of all problems that may impact upon the health of the occupants.
In this case, although there were excessive mould spores and high relative humidity in the premises, I am not satisfied that the Tenants have proven any breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. The Landlord has provided a Healthy Homes Statement from the start of the tenancy. That statement says that the premises comply with the relevant Healthy Homes Standards. The Tenants have not led any evidence to demonstrate that they do not.
Likewise, I am not satisfied that there has been a breach of any other building, health or safety requirement (other than the breach of the Residential Tenancies Act obligations that I discuss below). The premises appear to comply with all building, health, and safety requirements, including the Building Act, Building Code and Housing Improvement Regulations.
In that regard, the Tenants presented no evidence to demonstrate any breach of those requirements. I have considered whether the high humidity levels would amount to dampness for the purposes of regulation 5 of the Housing Improvement Regulations. Based on the evidence I heard, the humidity was not so bad as to qualify as dampness. I also note that the Mould Inspection NZ report states that there are currently no enforceable standards for the remediation of mould in New Zealand.
I therefore find that the Tenants have not proven that the premises failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards or any other relevant building, health or safety requirement. Does the presence of mould and humidity mean the Landlord has failed to adequately maintain the premises?
The question I must then determine is whether the presence of mould spores and high relative humidity means Landlord has failed maintained the premises in a reasonable state of repair as required by section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act. The mould
The evidence shows that the premises did have pre-existing issues that led to the development of excessive mould by September 2025. As found by Mould Inspections NZ and All Clear, there were high levels of mould in numerous rooms and there was mould visible on the timber framing in the ground floor storage cupboard, which appears to have resulted from the timber framing becoming damp and dirty during the construction of the house.
The Landlord suggested that the elevated mould readings may have been due to environmental factors and the way the Tenants used the premises. I cannot discount the fact that environmental factors and the Tenants use of the premises may have played some role. But the evidence is clear that the condition of the premises, particularly the ground floor storage cupboard, was the main cause of the mould contamination. There was longstanding and visible mould in the downstairs storage cupboard. The mould spore count was excessively high in that area and mould spores from that cupboard are likely to have spread through the house. There were also other issues with the premises that were contributed to the high mould readings, including with the windowsills, and heat pumps that needed cleaning and servicing. I therefore find that the excessive mould contamination in the premises was mainly due to the condition of the premises, so remediation was the Landlord’s responsibility.
I heard no evidence to show that the Landlord knew, or ought to have known, that there was any mould at the start of the tenancy. The Landlord cannot be liable for any failure to repair issues it could not reasonably know about.
However, by early October 2025 (at the latest), following the release of the Mould Inspections NZ and first All Clear reports, the Landlord did know there were elevated levels of mould spores in the premises due, in the main, to issues with the premises. From that point, I consider that the Landlord was aware of a maintenance issue with the premises, which it then had an obligation to remedy.
The evidence shows that the Landlord took some initial steps. It arranged for a fogging treatment of the premises. But that did not fix the problem. The Landlord then seems to have passed at least some of the responsibility onto the Tenants. The Tenants purchased their own air purifiers, which they ran continuously to try to clean the mould spores from the air.
Again, that was insufficient, because mould remained in the ground floor storage cupboard and other remedial work recommended by the experts had not been completed, including remedying the damaged window frames, servicing the heat pumps, air scrubbing the premises and cleaning the contents of the ground floor cupboard.
From the evidence I heard, that remedial work was not fully completed until about 15 January 2026. Some remedial work was performed by 19 December 2025, but the Landlord could not prove that the mould had been adequately remediated until the further testing performed by All Clear demonstrated that the mould readings in the premises were now much lower. By that time windowsills had been repainted, the mould in the downstairs cupboard had been removed and an air scrubber had again been used in the premises.
I therefore find that, between early October 2025 and 15 January 2026, the Landlord breached section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act. It knew of the elevated levels of mould in the premises, but did not act fast enough to remedy those issues. The humidity
The Tenants have proven that the humidity in the premises is high. However, I am not satisfied that those high humidity readings make the premises uninhabitable or unsafe. The high mould spore count certainly affected the habitability of the premises, but the evidence does not show that the humidity, on its own, does.
Neither have the Tenants proven that the humidity levels are caused by any inherent issue with the premises that the Landlord should remedy. There are other potential causes, including the location of the premises near a large body of water and the number of plants surrounding and inside the premises, all of which would have contributed to those high readings.
The premises also comply with all healthy home and legal requirements, including all ventilation requirements. Although a mechanical ventilation system will probably reduce the relative humidity levels, that is not something I can order in the absence of evidence proving that the high humidity levels are a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act.
I have made this finding on the evidence before me, relating to the condition of the premises up to this point in time. If the Tenants can demonstrate in the future that there are high humidity readings in the premises and that high humidity is leading to unsatisfactory dampness or high mould spore counts and the cause of those problems is an issue the Landlord should remedy, they are entitled to bring a further claim to the Tribunal.

What remedy are the Tenants entitled to?

The Tenants say that throughout the tenancy they, and their children, have suffered recurrent respiratory issues, ongoing migraines, fevers and viral infections that turn bacterial and require antibiotics.
They have produced medical records that show that the Tenants and their two sons have been seen by Hobsonville Family Doctors only many occasions since late 2023. The Tenants say that 36 of those visits related to ongoing respiratory issues.
The Tenants provided a letter from Hobsonville Family Doctors dated 23 October 2025. I quote the relevant parts of that letter: Poor air quality due to high levels of mould, as detected through testing, contributes to an increased risk of frequent respiratory infections, especially in children and other vulnerable populations. Multiple large cohort studies and meta-analyses demonstrate that residential dampness and elevated mould exposure are associated with increased risk of both upper and lower respiratory tract infections. There is a clear exposure-response relationship, with higher and more prolonged mould exposure conferring greater risk. Although most data are observational and causality cannot be definitively established, the consistency of findings across diverse populations and settings, supports the public health importance of remediating indoor dampness and mould to reduce respiratory infection risk. Remediation and prevention of indoor mould and dampness are likely to reduce the burden of respiratory infections, particularly in children and those with underlying respiratory conditions.
I find that the Tenants have established a tenable link between the high mould spore count in the premises and the health issues they have experienced. The orders I have made take that health impact into account. The air purifiers
The Tenants purchased three air purifiers to clean the mould contaminated air in the premises. That was an entirely reasonable thing to do, and really something the Landlord should have done given the extent to which the premises were contaminated with mould. I order that the Tenants are entitled to recover the $539.97 cost of purchasing those purifiers. Because I have required the Landlord to pay for the air purifiers, the Tenants must leave the purifiers in the premises when they move out. The contents of the downstairs storage cupboard
The Tenants have stored belongings in the downstairs storage cupboard. Both Mould Inspections NZ and All Clear have advised that those belongings should be properly cleaned to remove mould and to prevent mould spreading.
The Tenants want the Landlord to clean a pedestal fan, portable air conditioner and two tower fan heaters. Those belongings are contaminated with mould due to the pre-existing mould in that cupboard. The Landlord is therefore liable for cleaning those belongings, so I order that the Landlord is to properly clean the items stored in the downstairs cupboard. If it does not do so by 5 pm 27 February 2026, the Tenants may have those items cleaned and recover the cost, up to $250, from the Landlord.
The Tenants also seek compensation for contaminated belongings that they say cannot be cleaned, including three suitcases, two hand-luggage bag and an artificial Christmas tree. Those items will need to be disposed of. The Tenants estimate the total value of those items as being $1,251.16.
The Tenants are entitled to compensation for these items, but not in the amount they seek. The Tenants seek the full replacement value, or at least the closest estimate of the replacement value that they have been able to obtain. The items will have depreciated in value from new. I therefore award compensation of $600 for the contaminated items that cannot be cleaned. Rent reduction/compensation
I also find that the presence of elevated levels of mould negatively impacted on the Tenants’ use and enjoyment of the premises. The health impacts are discussed above. They also stopped using parts of the house due to the high levels of contamination, which was a reasonable thing to do. The Tenants have also had to use more power to constantly run the air purifiers. I consider that the Tenants are therefore entitled to compensation for this loss of utility and extra power costs.
The Tenants seek a 30 percent rent reduction - $330 per week – for 16 weeks. That is a total of $5,280.
Given the extent of the mould spores present and the impact that the mould had on their health, I consider that the Tenants are certainly entitled to significant compensation for the harm and inconvenience caused over the 15 weeks between 2 October 2025 – by which time the Landlord was well aware of the mould contamination – and 15 January 2026 – by which time the Landlord was able to conclusively show that the contamination was finally remediated.
Taking a step back and considering the overall merits and justice of the case, 3 I think that an award of $4,125 is adequate to reflect the harm and inconvenience caused by the mould contamination. That amounts to 25 per cent of the rent paid for the 15 weeks between 2 October 2025 and 15 January 2026. That amount adequately reflects the loss of amenity and negative impacts on the Tenants.
In making this order, I acknowledge that the premises are otherwise in a very tidy condition, the Landlord did not know about the mould contamination at the start of the tenancy and has already spent several thousands of dollars testing and remediating the mould. It should be commended for that, and I have taken those factors into consideration. But, as stated above, the premises were contaminated with mould due to issues with the premises and the remediation was not completed for about 15 weeks. The Tenants are entitled to compensation for the harm caused to them due to that delay. Filing fee and name suppression
The Tenants have been largely successful in their claim, so they are entitled to recover the filing fee and to name suppression. I order accordingly. The Landlord is not entitled to name suppression. It has not succeeded in defending the claim and there is no public interest in suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5357563 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5357563 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What remedy are the Tenants entitled to?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What remedy are the Tenants entitled to?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions