What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5379262 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant’s] name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5379262?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379262?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379262?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13750017-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5379262 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant’s] name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5379262?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379262?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379262?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13750017-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5379262 — 14-day notice

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant’s] name and identifying details.
Ca Nair Investment Limited Alvindra Nair must pay [The tenant/s] $28.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy in this matter commenced on 9 March 2018 and finished on 11 October 2025.
The tenants lived at the property with their children.
In early 2024, the tenants arranged for WISE charitable trust to inspect the property and provide them with a Healthy Homes House-Plan.
A report dated 7 February 2024 was issued and it recommenced Egmont Blinds install thermal bind to improve the thermal envelope of the home.
It concluded there was mould in the home and said it would give the whanau an educational hygiene bucket that had products to help clean mould safely.
It recommenced a heating source be provided.
Following that report, the thermal blinds were installed and in due course a heat pump was installed at the property. The tenants say this was in 2024.
The tenants say the premises was constantly mouldy and that each week, the had to clean all the mould away from the walls. They say they ensured the premises was ventilated.
The tenants provided medical records for their children which referred to them suffering from various respiratory related illnesses.
They provided six witness statements that corroborated that the premises were damp and that the witnesses observed mould.
The provided photographs of various parts of the house, which were taken when they moved out that showed the presence of mould.
Mr Turner provided a statement in which he said: I, Jamie Turner, make the following statement in support of my application regarding the rental property at 24 Hua Street, Bell Block. During the tenancy, the property was consistently cold, damp, and had visible mould present in multiple areas of the home. The mould was observed on walls, ceilings, around window frames, and inside cupboards, particularly in the bedrooms and bathroom areas. There was also a strong damp and musty smell throughout the house, which was noticeable immediately upon entering and persisted during our time living there. Despite efforts to heat the home, it remained cold and difficult to keep warm. The warmth did not retain properly, and the overall living conditions were uncomfortable and unhealthy. During the tenancy, my children became frequently unwell. They experienced repeated respiratory-related illnesses, including RSV, bronchiolitis, croup, wheezing, and other breathing issues. These illnesses resulted in multiple doctor visits and hospital visits, as outlined in the medical evidence provided. Independent witnesses who visited the property regularly have also confirmed the presence of dampness, mould, and the unhealthy living conditions within the home. In addition, a Healthy Homes assessment identified the presence of mould and made recommendations regarding heating, insulation, and improvements required to meet healthy living standards. Based on my experience living in the property, I believe the home did not meet Healthy Homes standards and was not a safe or healthy environment for myself or my children. I make this statement believing it to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge
The tenants claim the premises was not healthy homes complaint and that they were mouldy and damp. They are seeking compensation of $20,000, although this sum was not itemised.
The position of the landlord is that: a. The photographs produced by the tenants merely depict mould that has not been properly wiped off. The landlord says that the premises have simply not been kept clean by the tenants. He said that at no time to the tenants ever complained about the mould at the property or pointed it out to him b. The landlord says that prior to the commencement of the tenancy he obtained a healthy homes report and did any work that was required. c. In 2024 he supplied a heat pump. Insulation for the premises was done in 2018. Burden of proof
Before I go on to consider the claim, I comment that a party who brings a claim before the Tenancy Tribunal has the burden of proving that claim on the balance of probabilities. They must prove that it is more likely than not that their version of events occurred and that their claim should be upheld. Independent reports, photographs and documents can be a useful part of discharging this burden. The landlord’s obligations
Under s 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. A landlord must also comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. 1 The Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 provide that every house shall be free from dampness.
The obligation of the landlord to provide premises in a reasonable state of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage (see Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 2 ) Further, a tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises and the need for repair. 3
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord's obligation is to then repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair. 4
In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 6
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 7 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 8 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 9 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 10 . 1 Section 45 of the RTA 2 DC Auckland CIV 2005 004 1762, at [28] 3 S 40(1)(d) of the RTA, Vu v Hutchings [2016 ] NZTT 4054247, at [13] 4 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009 085 1431, at [15]
In relation to mould, the presence of toxic black mould may signify an inherent mould issue, but in a prior decision of the Tenancy Tribunal, Semmens, Hannah Louise v Wadman, Brian, 5 the Tribunal said: It is the case, that mould is commonly present throughout all residential dwellings in New Zealand to some degree. Mould is ordinary, and of itself simply having mould would not be sufficient to establish a breach on the part of the landlord for which compensation could be ordered. Rather, what a tenant must establish, is that there are defects with the premises which have caused the mould to develop, or to be at a more extensive level than would otherwise be reasonably expected in a dwelling at that meets the required building standards.
The presence of mould in a property can be caused by a variety of facts, including some form of defect in the premises, a lack of ventilation or both. The fact that mould is present in a house is not in and of itself enough to show that it was not in a reasonable state of repair, and the opinion of unqualified persons is often not persuasive: Repia v Walsh Trust. 6 Analysis
I accept the evidence of the tenants that the premises was mouldy and damp. I take on board the landlord’s point that the evidence of mould was merely evidence of not having been properly wiped down but I consider that having to wipe down mould once a week – which was the tenant’s evidence – is too much.
Further, there is ample information corroborating their evidence in the form of the statements and the photographs. The fact that WISE recommended thermal curtains in 2024 shows that an independent party considered the premises to be cold.
I find that the condition of the premises meant the landlord failed its obligations of maintenance and repair.
I agree that some compensation should be payable but fixing an amount is difficult.
I note the tenants did not give a proper breakdown of their losses. I also consider that I need to take into account their failure to mitigate their position by complaining to the landlord about the mould and dampness at an earlier time. Had they done that at an earlier time then efforts could have been made by the landlord to reduce the mould and deafness which would have been their landlord’s obligation at the time.
The tenants will clearly have spent time in dealing with the mould in the course of the tenancy, doing extra cleaning and the like. 5 [2022] NZTT Manukau 4310605 6 DC Waitakere CIV-2011-090-00056, 27 April 2011
I consider fixing the sum of $800 to be a suitable sum in the circumstances.
The tenant’s have made a healthy homes complaint as well, however, I dismiss that part of their application because: a. As I have considered this claim under the landlord’s alternative obligation to maintain the premises, and granted an order, I consider that my above order does adequate justice between the parties. b. Although they alleged the premises were not healthy homes complaint, they provided inadequately corroborating evidence to that effect, such as a contemporaneous report from a healthy homes inspector, prepared during the course of the tenancy (other than the WISE report).
Because [the Tenants] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
I grant [the Tenants] name suppression, as they have been the successful parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379262 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379262 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions