What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5360141 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 5360141?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5360141?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5360141?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13214786-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5360141 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 5360141?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5360141?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5360141?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13214786-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 40 Darlington Road, Miramar, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5360141 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 40 Darlington Road, Miramar, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5360141 — Mould & damp | TenantCheck

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Tamplin Property Services Ltd T/A Quinovic Property Management Ltd must pay [The tenant/s] $7,856.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre should pay the bond of $2,320 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the tenant immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Dacombe-Bird represented the landlord.
The tenant rented this two bedroom unit in October 2022. She was studying at the time and had the shared care of two boys. She had a number of problems during the tenancy, mostly related to maintenance and mould. The tenancy ended in September 2025 and the parties cannot agree on how the bond should be refunded. The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation for cleaning following the end of the tenancy. The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages because of stress, disruption, and loss of amenity during the tenancy. The questions I have to decide are: • How much is owed for rent? • Was the unit in a reasonable condition? • Should the landlord pay compensation and exemplary damages? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment? • Was the family’s health affected? • Should the tenant pay for cleaning?

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 9 September 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Was the unit in a reasonable condition?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). This is the tenant’s claim to prove.
Under section 45 a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching either of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant said the unit was not clean when she moved in. She provided emails sent at the time which record her concerns. She does not have any photos supporting the claim. The landlord does not agree with the claim. I find the tenant has not proved this claim and it is dismissed.
The tenant had problems with mould throughout the tenancy. She has provided supporting evidence to show she first advised the landlord by email on 6 March 2023 that the outside wall was very wet and the carpark roof “blocked up”. In April the landlord asked if the garden outside the bedrooms was wet. In May the tenant emailed after an inspection where she was blamed for the mould. There was mould on the ceilings and curtains. In June the landlord arranged for the ceilings to be cleaned and acknowledged the garden outside the bedrooms was ‘completely wet and not draining’. In September the tenant found mould on the back of a wardrobe and on the carpet in the bedroom. In November a plumber investigated the water pooling in the garden and found the gutters were blocked, causing the water to leak out into the garden.
The tenant continued to have problems with mould in 2024. In December 2024 the landlord advised that the roof needed to be replaced because it was old and rusty and leaking. This was done in January 2025. The mould damaged ceilings in the unit were treated and painted in May 2025. The tenant stayed in two different airbnbs for four nights while the ceilings were repaired, causing further disruption for the family. None of this was disputed by the landlord.
It seems likely to me the blocked gutter and the leaking roof were contributing factors to the mould inside the unit. I find the tenant has proved the unit was mouldy. I find there was a loss of amenity from 6 March 2023 until 25 May 2025, which is a period of 115 weeks, because the tenant could not use the unit as intended.
The tenant said the landlord did not act promptly to fix the shower and threatened the tenant with a $700 penalty if there was a wasted call out. The landlord does not agree there was a threat and said the hot water system was dealt with promptly in January 2023. I have read the emails and considered the plumber’s invoice. I find the landlord acted reasonably to fix the hot water and there is no evidence of a threat. This claim is dismissed.
The tenant said the cooktop did not work properly from the time she moved in. The landlord knew in January 2023 that one of the igniters was not working properly. By August the tenant could only cook on one hob, which was frustrating and slow. The landlord said it arranged for a couple of repairs and then the decision was made to replace the cooktop. This was finally done in January 2024. I find there was a loss of amenity for a year because the tenant was paying of a cooktop that she could not use properly.
The tenant said she could not use the garden as intended because of the pooling water. She said this was a problem for most of the tenancy, however there is no evidence the problem continued after the plumber fixed the blocked gutter in November 2023. I find the landlord knew about the problem from the start of April 2023. I find the tenant has proved there was a loss of amenity for eight months because the pooling water would have made it hard for the children to play in the garden.
The tenant has not proved the clothesline was not maintained. This claim is dismissed.

Should the landlord pay compensation and exemplary damages?

The tenant has claimed compensation for the loss of amenity and a rent refund for the times she could not use essential facilities. I find the landlord should pay compensation because the delayed maintenance meant the tenant could not use the unit as expected. I find $58 a week is a reasonable compensation because the tenant could still use most of the house. I do not find I should also reduce the rent.
By breaching the obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair the landlord has committed an unlawful act. This means I should consider exemplary damages. Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord said this was a difficult tenancy to manage and there was no intention to avoid maintenance. However, the length of time it took for the issues to be addressed suggests the landlord did not believe the tenant, and by delaying repairs the landlord acted intentionally. The effect for the tenant was unnecessary stress while she was studying and looking after the children. It is in tenants interests that landlords investigate and complete maintenance in a timely manner and there is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages as an incentive to comply with the RTA. I allow $2,400 which is at the lower end of the scale because the work was eventually done.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenant has claimed that the landlord caused stress, disruption and the loss of quiet enjoyment during the tenancy. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. Exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000 in circumstances that amount to harassment. See section 38 and Schedule 1A RTA.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009- 019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
This claim relates to a plumber entering the house while the tenant was in a bedroom and only partly dressed. She said she received no notice they were coming back to continue repairs. She barricaded herself in the room and waited two hours before she realised it was the plumbers. The tenant said this happened on 27 January 2023. Months later, in May, she advised the landlord of the entry and her reaction in an email. She also found out the plumber had the keys for the three weeks between the emergency and the replacement hot water systems being installed.
Section 48 RTA provides that a landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. The landlord said the plumbers were very experienced working with tenants and they would have made their own arrangements to come back to the property during the replacement of the hot water system. There was no supporting evidence from the plumbers, but I note this was three years ago.
I do not find the tenant has proved the plumbers entered the house without consent. While she did have the best recollection of the events, she did not have any supporting evidence, such as emails or texts, to give me a sense of how the process was managed by the landlord and the plumber. I only have the emails from May. The tenant has not proved there was harassment or a breach of quiet enjoyment.
The second part to the claim relates to the disruption that occurred when the tenant and her boys had to move out for four nights and stay in two airbnbs while the ceilings were repainted. The tenant said it was time consuming and physically demanding to move all the furniture and belongings to one side and cover these with sheets. She said the children were unsettled and everyone was exhausted. Once home the children refused to sleep in the bedroom for a month because it smelled strongly of paint. During this time the tenant asked for a rent reduction which was refused.
The landlord said the tenant could have moved out when it became apparent that the roof would need replacing and remedial work would be done inside. The landlord said there was no requirement that the tenant move all the furniture. The landlord also said they have a policy of not reducing the rent when they are paying for alternative accommodation.
I find the tenant has not proved she was asked to move all the furniture. I accept it would have been stressful to move out for four nights and the landlord should have agreed to a rent reduction at the time to acknowledge the disruption, but I do not find this amounts to harassment or a breach of quiet enjoyment. All claims relating to quiet enjoyment are dismissed. Was the family’s health affected?
The tenant has claimed compensation because of health hazards caused by mould and other maintenance failures. She said the health impacts included disrupted sleep, daily allergic reactions, and emotional and physical distress. This is the tenant’s claim to prove. She has not provided me with any supporting evidence, such as medical records or doctor’s letters, to show the mould caused health issues. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed.

Should the tenant pay for cleaning?

The landlord has claimed for a major clean at the end of the tenancy. Tenants are required to return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless condition. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have looked at the photos taken at the end of the tenancy and the cleaning invoice. I am persuaded that additional cleaning was needed in the kitchen and $80 seems a reasonable amount to charge the tenant. The rest of the invoice relates to cleaning mould off walls, ceilings, windows, window sills, and in a wardrobe. Given the ongoing issues with mould during this tenancy I find rest of the cleaning is the landlord’s responsibility. Other orders
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because she is the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords breach the RTA.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Tamplin Property Services Ltd T/A Quinovic Property Management Ltd must pay [The tenant/s] $7,856.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre should pay the bond of $2,320 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the tenant immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Dacombe-Bird represented the landlord.
The tenant rented this two bedroom unit in October 2022. She was studying at the time and had the shared care of two boys. She had a number of problems during the tenancy, mostly related to maintenance and mould. The tenancy ended in September 2025 and the parties cannot agree on how the bond should be refunded. The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation for cleaning following the end of the tenancy. The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages because of stress, disruption, and loss of amenity during the tenancy. The questions I have to decide are: • How much is owed for rent? • Was the unit in a reasonable condition? • Should the landlord pay compensation and exemplary damages? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment? • Was the family’s health affected? • Should the tenant pay for cleaning?

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 9 September 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Was the unit in a reasonable condition?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). This is the tenant’s claim to prove.
Under section 45 a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching either of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant said the unit was not clean when she moved in. She provided emails sent at the time which record her concerns. She does not have any photos supporting the claim. The landlord does not agree with the claim. I find the tenant has not proved this claim and it is dismissed.
The tenant had problems with mould throughout the tenancy. She has provided supporting evidence to show she first advised the landlord by email on 6 March 2023 that the outside wall was very wet and the carpark roof “blocked up”. In April the landlord asked if the garden outside the bedrooms was wet. In May the tenant emailed after an inspection where she was blamed for the mould. There was mould on the ceilings and curtains. In June the landlord arranged for the ceilings to be cleaned and acknowledged the garden outside the bedrooms was ‘completely wet and not draining’. In September the tenant found mould on the back of a wardrobe and on the carpet in the bedroom. In November a plumber investigated the water pooling in the garden and found the gutters were blocked, causing the water to leak out into the garden.
The tenant continued to have problems with mould in 2024. In December 2024 the landlord advised that the roof needed to be replaced because it was old and rusty and leaking. This was done in January 2025. The mould damaged ceilings in the unit were treated and painted in May 2025. The tenant stayed in two different airbnbs for four nights while the ceilings were repaired, causing further disruption for the family. None of this was disputed by the landlord.
It seems likely to me the blocked gutter and the leaking roof were contributing factors to the mould inside the unit. I find the tenant has proved the unit was mouldy. I find there was a loss of amenity from 6 March 2023 until 25 May 2025, which is a period of 115 weeks, because the tenant could not use the unit as intended.
The tenant said the landlord did not act promptly to fix the shower and threatened the tenant with a $700 penalty if there was a wasted call out. The landlord does not agree there was a threat and said the hot water system was dealt with promptly in January 2023. I have read the emails and considered the plumber’s invoice. I find the landlord acted reasonably to fix the hot water and there is no evidence of a threat. This claim is dismissed.
The tenant said the cooktop did not work properly from the time she moved in. The landlord knew in January 2023 that one of the igniters was not working properly. By August the tenant could only cook on one hob, which was frustrating and slow. The landlord said it arranged for a couple of repairs and then the decision was made to replace the cooktop. This was finally done in January 2024. I find there was a loss of amenity for a year because the tenant was paying of a cooktop that she could not use properly.
The tenant said she could not use the garden as intended because of the pooling water. She said this was a problem for most of the tenancy, however there is no evidence the problem continued after the plumber fixed the blocked gutter in November 2023. I find the landlord knew about the problem from the start of April 2023. I find the tenant has proved there was a loss of amenity for eight months because the pooling water would have made it hard for the children to play in the garden.
The tenant has not proved the clothesline was not maintained. This claim is dismissed.

Should the landlord pay compensation and exemplary damages?

The tenant has claimed compensation for the loss of amenity and a rent refund for the times she could not use essential facilities. I find the landlord should pay compensation because the delayed maintenance meant the tenant could not use the unit as expected. I find $58 a week is a reasonable compensation because the tenant could still use most of the house. I do not find I should also reduce the rent.
By breaching the obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair the landlord has committed an unlawful act. This means I should consider exemplary damages. Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord said this was a difficult tenancy to manage and there was no intention to avoid maintenance. However, the length of time it took for the issues to be addressed suggests the landlord did not believe the tenant, and by delaying repairs the landlord acted intentionally. The effect for the tenant was unnecessary stress while she was studying and looking after the children. It is in tenants interests that landlords investigate and complete maintenance in a timely manner and there is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages as an incentive to comply with the RTA. I allow $2,400 which is at the lower end of the scale because the work was eventually done.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenant has claimed that the landlord caused stress, disruption and the loss of quiet enjoyment during the tenancy. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. Exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000 in circumstances that amount to harassment. See section 38 and Schedule 1A RTA.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009- 019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
This claim relates to a plumber entering the house while the tenant was in a bedroom and only partly dressed. She said she received no notice they were coming back to continue repairs. She barricaded herself in the room and waited two hours before she realised it was the plumbers. The tenant said this happened on 27 January 2023. Months later, in May, she advised the landlord of the entry and her reaction in an email. She also found out the plumber had the keys for the three weeks between the emergency and the replacement hot water systems being installed.
Section 48 RTA provides that a landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. The landlord said the plumbers were very experienced working with tenants and they would have made their own arrangements to come back to the property during the replacement of the hot water system. There was no supporting evidence from the plumbers, but I note this was three years ago.
I do not find the tenant has proved the plumbers entered the house without consent. While she did have the best recollection of the events, she did not have any supporting evidence, such as emails or texts, to give me a sense of how the process was managed by the landlord and the plumber. I only have the emails from May. The tenant has not proved there was harassment or a breach of quiet enjoyment.
The second part to the claim relates to the disruption that occurred when the tenant and her boys had to move out for four nights and stay in two airbnbs while the ceilings were repainted. The tenant said it was time consuming and physically demanding to move all the furniture and belongings to one side and cover these with sheets. She said the children were unsettled and everyone was exhausted. Once home the children refused to sleep in the bedroom for a month because it smelled strongly of paint. During this time the tenant asked for a rent reduction which was refused.
The landlord said the tenant could have moved out when it became apparent that the roof would need replacing and remedial work would be done inside. The landlord said there was no requirement that the tenant move all the furniture. The landlord also said they have a policy of not reducing the rent when they are paying for alternative accommodation.
I find the tenant has not proved she was asked to move all the furniture. I accept it would have been stressful to move out for four nights and the landlord should have agreed to a rent reduction at the time to acknowledge the disruption, but I do not find this amounts to harassment or a breach of quiet enjoyment. All claims relating to quiet enjoyment are dismissed. Was the family’s health affected?
The tenant has claimed compensation because of health hazards caused by mould and other maintenance failures. She said the health impacts included disrupted sleep, daily allergic reactions, and emotional and physical distress. This is the tenant’s claim to prove. She has not provided me with any supporting evidence, such as medical records or doctor’s letters, to show the mould caused health issues. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed.

Should the tenant pay for cleaning?

The landlord has claimed for a major clean at the end of the tenancy. Tenants are required to return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless condition. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have looked at the photos taken at the end of the tenancy and the cleaning invoice. I am persuaded that additional cleaning was needed in the kitchen and $80 seems a reasonable amount to charge the tenant. The rest of the invoice relates to cleaning mould off walls, ceilings, windows, window sills, and in a wardrobe. Given the ongoing issues with mould during this tenancy I find rest of the cleaning is the landlord’s responsibility. Other orders
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because she is the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords breach the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5360141 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 40 Darlington Road, Miramar, Wellington

Tenancy Tribunal case 5360141 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 40 Darlington Road, Miramar, Wellington

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Was the unit in a reasonable condition?

Should the landlord pay compensation and exemplary damages?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Should the tenant pay for cleaning?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Was the unit in a reasonable condition?

Should the landlord pay compensation and exemplary damages?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Should the tenant pay for cleaning?