What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5381403 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 5381403?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5381403?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5381403?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13347663-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5381403 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 5381403?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5381403?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5381403?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13347663-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5381403 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for compensation of $10,000.00, alleging breaches by the landlord arising from dampness, mould, loss of use of a bedroom, and the condition of the carpet.
The landlord opposes the application. Background
The tenancy commenced in September 2013 and ended on 6 November 2024, a tenancy of approximately eleven years.
The tenants says that during the tenancy they experienced persistent dampness and mould issues, particularly in the end bedroom. They say the room was cold, damp, emitted a musty odour, and that the carpet in that room remained damp. They say this resulted in them losing use of the room and caused health impacts.
They further say that although ventilation measures were installed during the tenancy, including an HRV system and ground moisture barrier, these interventions either did not resolve the issue or made it worse. They say recarpeting was discussed but never occurred.
The landlord disputes that there were any unresolved breaches. They say maintenance concerns were responded to, that the property met applicable standards, that steps were taken to address moisture and ventilation, and that tenant behaviour – particularly ventilation practices – were a contributing factor. They also rely on the length of the tenancy, the absence of formal enforcement steps, and evidence from subsequent tenants. Burden of proof
The tenants, as the applicants, carry the burden of proving their claims on the balance of probabilities.
That requires more than assertion. The Tribunal must be satisfied, having weighed all the evidence, that it is more likely than not that the landlords breached their obligations and that the claimed loss flowed from that breach.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, 1 it is for the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to establish their case. If they do not, the claim must fail regardless of how sincerely it is advanced. The evidence Inspection reports
The routine inspection reports relied on form part of the landlord’s evidence. They are contemporaneous records and are given appropriate weight.
The inspection history includes: a. 9 April 2021 – no relevant issues noted. b. 28 July 2021 – property noted to be very damp, windows very wet; bedrooms noted as cold with some mildew. c. 28 October 2021 – property noted to be damp; HRV recommended; carpet worn due to age and full replacement recommended. d. 29 April 2022 – carpet noted as needed replacement. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. e. 25 November 2022 – no relevant issues noted. f. 21 June 2023 – musty smell noted; no visible mould observed; tenants reporting continued inability to use the end bedroom; tenants observed to have all windows closed despite good weather and advised to ventilate. Other evidence
The tenants provided photographs showing worn carpet, some visible mould in corners and around windows, pooling water on the ground moisture barrier, and mould on personal belongings stored in the end bedroom. Some of these were taken near or at the end of the tenancy, or it is unclear when they were taken.
They did not issue any 14-day notices to remedy during the tenancy. No independent expert evidence was provided addressing building condition, moisture causation, or habitability. The medical evidence provided relies on advice from the tenant on the premises condition.
The landlord provided evidence of steps taken during the tenancy, including installation of a ventilation system, installation of a ground moisture barrier and invoices for works undertaken.
They also provided a healthy homes compliance statement and a statement from subsequent tenants reporting no mould issues and satisfactory operation of the ventilation system. Findings
I have carefully considered all the evidence, including the oral evidence given at the hearing and the documentary material provided by both parties.
I accept that the inspection reports record periods where dampness and musty odour were present and that the landlords were aware of those concerns, at least toward the latter part of the tenancy. I therefore accept that dampness was an issue at times during the tenancy, particularly in the end bedroom.
However, the inspection reports must be read as a whole and in context. When considered cumulatively, they do not demonstrate a sustained or unremedied failure by the landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair or to ensure that the premises were reasonably clean and habitable.
The reports record fluctuating conditions over time. Some inspections note dampness or odour; other record no issues. Importantly, they do not consistently record visible mould within the dwelling, nor do they record findings that the premises were unsafe or uninhabitable, or that urgent remediation was required and not undertaken.
The evidence also demonstrates that the landlords took steps in response to the issues raised. Those steps included inspections, installation of a mechanical ventilation system, installed of a ground moisture barrier and ensuring appropriate heating. I note in this context that the tenancy pre-dated the introduction of the Healthy Homes Standards, and that save for insulation requirements (which are not materially in issue), most of the specific Healthy Homes compliance obligations were not enforceable for existing private tenancies during this tenancy. The landlord’s obligations must therefore be assessed by reference to section 45 of the RTA as it applied at the relevant time, rather than by reference to later standards.
I also take into account the inspection observations and evidence indicating that ventilation within the property were limited at times, including windows being closed and the ventilation system being turned off. The RTA recognises that management of condensation and moisture is a shared responsibility, and a landlord is not in breach where reasonable steps have been taken, and a tenant’s practices materially contribute to the issues.
The tenants did not issue any 14-day notices to remedy during the eleven-year tenancy, nor did they obtain independence expert advice to establish that the condition of the property resulted from a failure to maintain rather than environmental factors, building characteristics, or use of the premises. The absence of such evidence is significant given the nature and quantum of the claim.
In relation to the end bedroom, I accept that the tenants chose not to use that room at times due to discomfort or smell. However, I am not satisfied that the evidence shows the room was objectively uninhabitable, or that any loss of use arose from a proven breach by the landlord.
As to the carpet, I accept that it was heavily worn and at the end of its useful life. The inspection reports record that the wear was age-related. Worn carpet due to age and ordinary use does not, of itself, amount to disrepair. There is no evidence that the carpet posed a safety hazard requiring replacement during the tenancy.
Overall, although the landlord’s own evidence confirms that dampness and wear issues arose from time to time, it also shows that those issues were identified, monitored, and responded to. On the balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied that the landlord breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA in a manner that gives rise to an entitlement to compensation.
The tenants’ application for compensation is dismissed. Name suppression
Both parties sought name suppression. Although the landlord has been successful in this proceeding, I am satisfied that name suppression is appropriate in this case. Section 95A of the RTA permits the Tribunal to suppress identifying details where it is desirable to do so, having regard to the interests of justice of the parties and the principles of justice.
Tenants are entitled to bring claims to the Tribunal and to have those claims determined without an undue fear of public identification or adverse consequences arising from publication. In my view that consideration outweighs any public interest in publication in the circumstances of this case.
Accordingly, the names and identifying details of both the tenants and the landlord are suppression. R Harvey-Lane 25 March 2026

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenants have applied for compensation of $10,000.00, alleging breaches by the landlord arising from dampness, mould, loss of use of a bedroom, and the condition of the carpet.

The landlord opposes the application. Background

The tenancy commenced in September 2013 and ended on 6 November 2024, a tenancy of approximately eleven years.

The tenants says that during the tenancy they experienced persistent dampness and mould issues, particularly in the end bedroom. They say the room was cold, damp, emitted a musty odour, and that the carpet in that room remained damp. They say this resulted in them losing use of the room and caused health impacts.

They further say that although ventilation measures were installed during the tenancy, including an HRV system and ground moisture barrier, these interventions either did not resolve the issue or made it worse. They say recarpeting was discussed but never occurred.

The landlord disputes that there were any unresolved breaches. They say maintenance concerns were responded to, that the property met applicable standards, that steps were taken to address moisture and ventilation, and that tenant behaviour – particularly ventilation practices – were a contributing factor. They also rely on the length of the tenancy, the absence of formal enforcement steps, and evidence from subsequent tenants. Burden of proof

The tenants, as the applicants, carry the burden of proving their claims on the balance of probabilities.

That requires more than assertion. The Tribunal must be satisfied, having weighed all the evidence, that it is more likely than not that the landlords breached their obligations and that the claimed loss flowed from that breach.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, 1 it is for the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to establish their case. If they do not, the claim must fail regardless of how sincerely it is advanced. The evidence Inspection reports

The routine inspection reports relied on form part of the landlord’s evidence. They are contemporaneous records and are given appropriate weight.

The inspection history includes: a. 9 April 2021 – no relevant issues noted. b. 28 July 2021 – property noted to be very damp, windows very wet; bedrooms noted as cold with some mildew. c. 28 October 2021 – property noted to be damp; HRV recommended; carpet worn due to age and full replacement recommended. d. 29 April 2022 – carpet noted as needed replacement. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. e. 25 November 2022 – no relevant issues noted. f. 21 June 2023 – musty smell noted; no visible mould observed; tenants reporting continued inability to use the end bedroom; tenants observed to have all windows closed despite good weather and advised to ventilate. Other evidence

The tenants provided photographs showing worn carpet, some visible mould in corners and around windows, pooling water on the ground moisture barrier, and mould on personal belongings stored in the end bedroom. Some of these were taken near or at the end of the tenancy, or it is unclear when they were taken.

They did not issue any 14-day notices to remedy during the tenancy. No independent expert evidence was provided addressing building condition, moisture causation, or habitability. The medical evidence provided relies on advice from the tenant on the premises condition.

The landlord provided evidence of steps taken during the tenancy, including installation of a ventilation system, installation of a ground moisture barrier and invoices for works undertaken.

They also provided a healthy homes compliance statement and a statement from subsequent tenants reporting no mould issues and satisfactory operation of the ventilation system. Findings

I have carefully considered all the evidence, including the oral evidence given at the hearing and the documentary material provided by both parties.

I accept that the inspection reports record periods where dampness and musty odour were present and that the landlords were aware of those concerns, at least toward the latter part of the tenancy. I therefore accept that dampness was an issue at times during the tenancy, particularly in the end bedroom.

However, the inspection reports must be read as a whole and in context. When considered cumulatively, they do not demonstrate a sustained or unremedied failure by the landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair or to ensure that the premises were reasonably clean and habitable.

The reports record fluctuating conditions over time. Some inspections note dampness or odour; other record no issues. Importantly, they do not consistently record visible mould within the dwelling, nor do they record findings that the premises were unsafe or uninhabitable, or that urgent remediation was required and not undertaken.

The evidence also demonstrates that the landlords took steps in response to the issues raised. Those steps included inspections, installation of a mechanical ventilation system, installed of a ground moisture barrier and ensuring appropriate heating. I note in this context that the tenancy pre-dated the introduction of the Healthy Homes Standards, and that save for insulation requirements (which are not materially in issue), most of the specific Healthy Homes compliance obligations were not enforceable for existing private tenancies during this tenancy. The landlord’s obligations must therefore be assessed by reference to section 45 of the RTA as it applied at the relevant time, rather than by reference to later standards.

I also take into account the inspection observations and evidence indicating that ventilation within the property were limited at times, including windows being closed and the ventilation system being turned off. The RTA recognises that management of condensation and moisture is a shared responsibility, and a landlord is not in breach where reasonable steps have been taken, and a tenant’s practices materially contribute to the issues.

The tenants did not issue any 14-day notices to remedy during the eleven-year tenancy, nor did they obtain independence expert advice to establish that the condition of the property resulted from a failure to maintain rather than environmental factors, building characteristics, or use of the premises. The absence of such evidence is significant given the nature and quantum of the claim.

In relation to the end bedroom, I accept that the tenants chose not to use that room at times due to discomfort or smell. However, I am not satisfied that the evidence shows the room was objectively uninhabitable, or that any loss of use arose from a proven breach by the landlord.

As to the carpet, I accept that it was heavily worn and at the end of its useful life. The inspection reports record that the wear was age-related. Worn carpet due to age and ordinary use does not, of itself, amount to disrepair. There is no evidence that the carpet posed a safety hazard requiring replacement during the tenancy.

Overall, although the landlord’s own evidence confirms that dampness and wear issues arose from time to time, it also shows that those issues were identified, monitored, and responded to. On the balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied that the landlord breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA in a manner that gives rise to an entitlement to compensation.

The tenants’ application for compensation is dismissed. Name suppression

Both parties sought name suppression. Although the landlord has been successful in this proceeding, I am satisfied that name suppression is appropriate in this case. Section 95A of the RTA permits the Tribunal to suppress identifying details where it is desirable to do so, having regard to the interests of justice of the parties and the principles of justice.

Tenants are entitled to bring claims to the Tribunal and to have those claims determined without an undue fear of public identification or adverse consequences arising from publication. In my view that consideration outweighs any public interest in publication in the circumstances of this case.

Accordingly, the names and identifying details of both the tenants and the landlord are suppression. R Harvey-Lane 25 March 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5381403 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5381403 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions