What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5387102 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5387102?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5387102?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5387102?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14059023-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5387102 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5387102?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5387102?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5387102?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14059023-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

5 Lucas Place, Weymouth, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5387102 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5387102 — net $978.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: failing to provide premises reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy	$350.00	failing to provide premises reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy
Compensation: general damages from damp carpets and effects of mould after leaks had been attended to	$600.00	general damages from damp carpets and effects of mould after leaks had been attended to
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$978.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$978.00

Both parties attended the hearing on 6 August 2026.

The tenant seeks rent abatement in the amount of $17,680, contending prolonged uninhabitability of a substantial portion of the property during the tenancy.

The tenant contends that these areas of the property were severely impacted by pre-existing mould, rapid mould growth, water leaks, significant water damage, inadequate ventilation, and other structural defects, rendering them unsafe and unfit for use: a. Third bedroom (dampness, mould, open wall) b. Kitchen (ceiling mould) c. Bathroom (ceiling and wall mould) d. Laundry (ceiling and wall mould) e. Hallway (dampness and mould-affected carpet)

According to the floor plan, these areas represent approximately 50% or more of the property’s living space therefore the tenant seeks 50% rent abatement for 52 weeks of the tenancy. The total rent abatement sought is $17,680 calculated at $340 × 52 weeks. In addition, the tenant sought compensation in the sum of $5,000 for the ongoing stress, disruption, inconvenience, and adverse health impacts experienced by her children and her during and following the period of tenancy.

Did the landlord comply with their maintenance obligations during the tenancy?

I firstly set out the relevant legal principles that I must address when dealing with complaints raised by the tenant regarding maintenance.

Under section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The landlord must also provide the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy.

A landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they applied to the premises.

A tenant has a corresponding duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs (see section 40(1)(d) RTA).

The landlord’s general obligation is therefore to repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair, either from observing the property or notice from the tenant: “... the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, 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 may be.” (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010; see also Merwald Real Estate v Lanauze DC Auckland, MA151-89, 2 May 1989).

Compensation ought to be awarded for breach of the landlord’s obligations and where the other party has suffered a loss or inconvenience because of that breach.

However, only if the landlord is found to in breach of their obligations under section 45 (as set out above) and the tenant has carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify and allow maintenance to be attended to, would an award of compensation be considered and made.

Where the tenant has not carried out her corresponding duty to notify or not allowed maintenance to be attended to, no award of compensation will be made.

On the other hand, the landlord has received rent from the tenant and is expected to provide accommodation which is suitable to be enjoyed by the tenant in consideration of payment of rent.

I accept the tenant’s evidence that the premises have not been provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the start of the tenancy.

I also accept the tenant’s evidence that mould was present and the parties’ texts and emails show that the landlord has been duly notified of the mould but the landlord has tried to blame the cause of the mould on the tenant, asking her to clean them up each time the issue is raised.

Viewing the photographs, I prefer the tenant’s evidence that mould was not the result of the tenant’s neglect or lack of ventilation at the premises.

I award the tenant compensation for the lack of cleaning at the start of the tenancy.

I also award the tenant compensation for inconvenience and loss of amenity from the effects of mould and damp carpets which were not dried properly by the landlord. The award is modest in light of the landlord’s otherwise quick response to rectify other problems and issues that were brought to their attention.

The other claims by the tenant remain largely unsubstantiated.

The landlord’s inspections conducted during the tenancy, and responses indicate that the landlord has by far and large responded to each issue raised by the tenant (apart from the two items set out in the table above), within a reasonable time.

Tradespeople had been sent and there had been instances in which the tenant had not provided access or not communicated promptly with tradespeople to enable repair work to be carried out.

Leaks have been duly attended to when raised by the tenant.

I reiterate that that only if the tenant has carried out her corresponding duty to notify and allow maintenance to be attended to promptly, would an award of compensation be made in the tenant’s favour.

It is for the tenant to prove with references to texts or emails or inspection notes that the alleged items requiring maintenance has been brought to the landlord’s attention at the material times, and the landlord failing to act.

The tenant’s loss of phone and therefore inability to prove her claims meant that the landlord’s records of communications remain the best evidence before the Tribunal on whether the landlord has been properly notified of items requiring maintenance.

I accept the landlord’s records and timeline of events. Those records show that the landlord had promptly attended to and was prepared to attend to each documented issue raised by the tenant.

The tenant also waited until after the end of the tenancy to raise these claims for compensation. If the tenant had been suffering as contended, the tenant ought to have brought her claims promptly at the material times and not wait until the tenancy has already ended. Work orders can be issued by the Tribunal to address outstanding repairs during the tenancy. Compensation and exemplary damages can be awarded against landlords who wilfully refuse to comply with their maintenance obligations. Waiting until the end of the tenancy to raise them is unhelpful to both parties. Not only does that deprive responsible landlords from the opportunity to carry out repairs, it also means that tenants suffer needlessly for prolonged periods of time.

For those reasons, the remainder of the tenant’s claims fails.

Only the amounts awarded as set out in the above table are proved.

Because the tenant has partly succeeded on her claims, I order reimbursement of the filing fee and suppression of the tenant’s name.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5387102 — net $978.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: failing to provide premises reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy	$350.00	failing to provide premises reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy
Compensation: general damages from damp carpets and effects of mould after leaks had been attended to	$600.00	general damages from damp carpets and effects of mould after leaks had been attended to
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$978.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$978.00