What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5376046 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 5376046?

The reconciled net award was $1,189.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5376046?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5376046?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13434029-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5376046 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 5376046?

The reconciled net award was $1,189.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5376046?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5376046?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13434029-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5376046 — Mould & damp

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5376046 — net $1,189.00 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$1,189.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5376046 — net $1,189.00 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$1,189.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,189.00 from the bond. The balance of the bond is to be paid to the tenant, as set out in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,189.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,411.00

Reasons

The hearing was attended by [The tenant/s], the tenant, her representative and daughter [The tenant’s representative], and support person, [the tenant’s support person]. The landlord was represented by [The landlord’s representatives]. Background
On 3 October 2025 the parties entered into a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term, commencing on 14 October 2025 and due to end on 14 October 2026. The rent is $650.00 per week and a bond of $2,600.00 was paid. The tenant also paid the landlord two weeks rent in advance ($1,300.00).
After signing the agreement, the tenant contacted the landlord. Initially, she advised of a change in circumstances, noting that these circumstances would affect her ability to manage rent payments. She asked whether the landlord could arrange for a refund of the bond. She later advised that she had now sorted the situation and asked if she could have a six month fixed term agreement, rather than for one year. Landlord advised that it was still discussing with the owner regarding the six month fixed term. It was noted that the move in date could be changed to 16 October 2025.
The tenant did not move into the premises. She gave notice to the landlord that she wished to end the tenancy, and returned the keys. The landlord later advertised and found new tenants, whose tenancy commenced on 2 January 2026.
The tenant has applied to be released from the fixed term tenancy, and seeks refund of the bond and compensation for breaches by the landlord of its obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). This is application number 5376046. The tenant claims that the premises was not in a clean or habitable condition at the start of the tenancy, and information about compliance with the Homes Standards (HHS) was not provided. The tenant seeks a full refund of the bond and rent paid to the landlord, less the one weeks rent and the advertising fee of $278.00, as previously offered to the landlord.
The landlord has filed a cross application, seeking rent arrears of $6,128.57, being rent from 16 October 2025 to 1 January 2026 (the day before the new tenants moved in, on 2 January 2026), payment from the bond and advertising costs of $278.00. This is application number 5453179.
Both parties provided oral, documentary, and photographic evidence, along with written and oral submissions. The tenant provided video evidence, and copies of written communication with the landlord.
The landlord’s evidence included written communication, invoices, an inspection report, rent summary, and an HHS report following an assessment on 22 August 2022. Tenant’s application: evidence and submissions
The tenant states that she was due to move in shortly after signing the tenancy agreement and upon closer inspection of the property, found it was not in a clean or habitable condition. The video taken on 16 October 2025 was provided. Her daughter states that there was no power at the property and she saw the property after her mother received the keys.
The following issues were identified in the tenant’s written submissions: tree branches and debris left outside the property, a mattress and gun safe left in the garage, the property was not clean and appeared to have insect infestation. There were concerns about the windows, with several window handles being broken or not functioning properly. It was also noted that the door to the lounge did not open properly, there was a visible crack in the ceiling, two of the kitchen hobs were not working, a drawer beneath one hob was broken and unusable. Mould was identified throughout the lounge and was visible on the windowsill.
The tenant states the keys were returned to the landlord on 20 October 2025. When she first viewed the property, she did not note all of these issues, stating she was not fluent in English. When she obtained the keys, her two daughters came with her. The issues appeared on 16 October 2025. The tenant further states that they were not provided with information about the property’s compliance with the HHS when requested.
The tenant states that she accepted a tenancy at another property. She moved into this property between 17 th to 20 th October 2025. There had been some personal and family issues that arose which had since been resolved. The tenant confirmed that she understood this tenancy was fixed for 12 months when she signed it.
In her submissions, the tenant seeks termination of the tenancy on the basis that the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and habitable condition, as required under section 45(1)(a) of the RTA. She also seeks a refund of the bond, and the two weeks rent paid in advance ($1,300.00), less one weeks rent and the advertising fees.
The tenant further submits that there was no signed HHS compliance statement, and therefore, the landlord was in breach of the RTA. Landlord’s application: evidence and submissions
The landlord detailed the events from the time the tenancy agreement was signed. The landlord states the condition of the property was identical to what it was on 30 September 2025, when the tenant initially viewed it. They had requested quotes for general maintenance, including green waste disposal, replacement of a shelf below the kitchen sink, painting of a wardrobe door, and removal of a gun box left by the previous tenants. However, this work had not been completed. At the viewing, the tenant was advised that they would be attending to this work within the next two to three weeks. The landlord referred to their text communication with the tenant. All issues were addressed in late October 2025, as shown in the invoice.
The landlord states that on 13 October 2025, it discussed with the owner the tenant’s request to reduce the fixed term from 12 to 6 months. The owner’s preference was that it remained for 12 months, but may revisit this after 6 months if the tenant was struggling. This was conveyed to the tenant. The key handover was completed on 14 October 2025. The landlord did not have the impression that the tenant was unhappy with the condition of the property.
The landlord advised that it had been prepared to delay the start of the tenancy by a further week until the minor issues identified had been addressed. There was further e-mail communication. The parties had reached an impasse. The landlord then advertised the property on Trade Me and held viewings between 13 November to 7 December 2025. The property was first advertised in early November, after receiving the tenant’s application to the Tribunal.
In response to the tenant’s submissions regarding the HHS, the landlord states that all matters raised in the HHS report of August 2022 were addressed. This work was completed in 2023, and the landlord had invoices for this work. The landlord was unsure whether the HHS or insulation statement were provided to the tenant. The landlord submits that the house was HHS compliant, and it had the evidence to support this. It accepts it was a mistake not supplying the HHS report and other relevant information to the tenant. General legal principles
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy
The tenant has identified a number of issues relating to repairs and maintenance at the start of the tenancy, the cleanliness of the premises, and the presence of mould. She seeks termination of the tenancy on this basis. Legal framework
The landlord’s obligations are set out under section 45 of the RTA. This includes the requirement that the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. 1 The landlord is also required to comply with the healthy homes standards, and any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.
The extent of the landlord’s obligation to repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 2 The Court noted that there was no absolute liability/responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. 3 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time. Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
On the issue of mould, in Semmens v Wadman, 4 the Tribunal noted that mould is commonly present throughout all residential dwellings in New Zealand to some degree. Adjudicator Woodhouse explained that simply having mould in the premises would not be sufficient to establish a breach on the part of the landlord for which compensation can be ordered: Rather, what a tenant must establish, is that there are defects with the premises which have caused mould to develop, or to be at a more 1 Section 45(1)(b) 2 CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007 3 Section 40(1)(d) 4 [2022] NZTT Manukau 310605 extensive level than would otherwise be reasonably expected in a dwelling that meets the required building standards. Analysis
In this case, having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I agree with the tenant that there were repair and maintenance issues that ought to have been addressed before the tenancy started. I note the landlord has provided evidence of the maintenance work that was subsequently carried out. There are also a few areas within the house that needed further cleaning, as identified by the tenant. While the tenant has provided photographs showing some areas of mould, this is insufficient to establish that the property has an inherent problem with mould, or that the mould is more extensive than would otherwise be reasonably expected, taking into account the age and character of the dwelling.
In the circumstances, I consider it reasonable that the tenant be compensated $650.00, being the equivalent of the first weeks rent, since these issues had not been addressed before the tenancy began. This is awarded above.
Accepting that the tenant is to be compensated for the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy, I am not persuaded that the repair and maintenance issues, and concerns about the cleanliness of the premises, meant that the premises was uninhabitable. If a property is destroyed or so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable as a result of a breach of a tenancy agreement, a tenant may be able to give notice to terminate the tenancy under section 59A of the RTA. However, I do not consider the threshold required under section 59A has been met in this case.
Accordingly, the tenant’s claim that she ought to be able to terminate the tenancy on the basis that the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and habitable condition has not been established, and is dismissed. Healthy Homes Standards information
The RTA sets out the landlord’s disclosure obligations to tenants regarding the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Under s 13A(1CA) of the RTA, landlords must include in the tenancy agreement a signed statement that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the HHS as required and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations.
Section 13A(1F) of the RTA provides that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they fail to include a healthy homes statement in the tenancy agreement or if the statement includes anything that the landlord knows to be false or misleading. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages for such failures 5 .
In this case, the landlord accepts that the information concerning compliance with the HHS was incomplete. However, it states the issues identified in the HHS report of 22 August 2022 were addressed and completed in 2023. The landlord is clear that the home was HHS compliant, noting that all matters were attended to, referring to invoices for the work that was completed. The landlord accepts that there was no HHS report attached to the tenancy agreement.
At the hearing, the landlord acknowledged that it did not provide the necessary information to the tenant about compliance with the HHS. There is a requirement that the landlord ensure that the information is complete, and in this case, it was not. Therefore, the tenant is to be compensated for the lack of HHS information, in the amount of $250.00. This is awarded above. Reduction of the fixed term tenancy Legal framework
Under a fixed term tenancy, a tenant has a contractual obligation to continue paying rent up to the end of the fixed term, unless the landlord agrees to release the tenant. 6 This means that a tenant cannot unilaterally break this obligation, since neither party is entitled to terminate unless by mutual consent or by order of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy under section 66(1) of the RTA where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship (if the term was not reduced) would be greater than the hardship the other party would suffer if the term was reduced.
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. 7 5 up to a maximum of $750 6 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson (2018), at 3.3 7 See section 66(2) of the RTA
Section 49 of the Act provides that, where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or the Act, the other party must take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach.
Where the parties agree to the fixed term being reduced, or an application is made under section 66, there is a requirement that the landlord take reasonable steps to find a replacement tenant. 8 Analysis
In terms of the statutory requirements under section 66 of the RTA, the first part of the test requires the tenant to establish that there has been a change in her circumstances, and that the change was unforeseen. In this case, the tenant has not identified any unforeseen change in her circumstances. Where there are circumstances that exist at the outset and are not changes in the tenants’ circumstances, then that requirement is not met.
Even accepting that there was additional work that ought to have been completed by the landlord before the tenant moved in, these reasons, taken together, do not provide a sufficient basis under the first part of the test. The issues were not sufficiently adverse or enduring. As all three criteria must be met, and as the first is not, the tenant will be unable to establish the requirements under section 66. However, for completeness, I will consider the other criteria. I accept that, for the tenant she would suffer hardship if she was unable to reduce the term of the tenancy. Her evidence is that she has found another property to rent, and so, to pay rent for two properties would create hardship for her.
The landlord is likely to have some financial cost, although evidence of hardship for the landlord/owner has not been provided. In these circumstances, it is likely that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship the landlord would suffer if the term were not reduced.
Therefore, while I accept that the issues the tenant has raised were important to her, in terms of the statutory criteria, the requirements for the Tribunal to reduce the tenancy under section 66 of the RTA are not satisfied. In any event, even if the requirements of section 66 had been met, the Tribunal would need to consider whether the tenant is to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss under section 66(2). It is likely that the landlord would be awarded additional rent beyond the date the tenant returned the keys.
While the tenant has not established the requirements under section 66 of the RTA, the Tribunal is required to have regard to section 85 of the RTA. Section 8 Lehrer v Protheroe CIV-2009-070-65, DC Tauranga, 19 October 2009 85 of the RTA requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law and the substantial merits and justice of the case.
Taking the overall circumstances into account, including the tenant’s financial situation, and applying section 85, the Tribunal finds that the tenant will not be liable for the full amount of rent of $6,128.57 (being rent to 1 January 2026), as sought by the landlord. It is noted that the tenant has already paid two weeks rent to the landlord. However, it is appropriate for the landlord to be further compensated for loss of rent. In the circumstances, I consider an additional three weeks rent to be reasonable compensation. This is awarded to the landlord above.
I also consider it appropriate for the landlord to be compensated for the costs incurred in finding new tenants. The landlord is entitled to the actual costs incurred, being the advertising cost. The landlord was only able to provide one invoice for $139.00, for advertising in November 2025. This cost is awarded above. Filing fee and name suppression
As each party has had some success with their application, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties seek name suppression. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties, the public interest, and noting that each has established some of their claims, orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5376046 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5376046 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions