Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5389785 — Mould & damp
Decided 29 Jan 2026 · Published 29 Jan 2026 · Application 5389785
- Mould & damp
- Cleanliness
- Healthy homes
- Leaks
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
- [The landlord] must pay Dan Hutt and Alex Shallcrass the sum of $200.00 immediately.
- By consent, the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 20 April 2026 may be terminated by the tenants on one week’s notice.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted by video. The landlord was represented by Ms N. In this decision, she is referred to has the landlord.
- The fixed-term tenancy began on 18 April 2025 and is due to end on 20 April 2026.
- The tenants seek compensation of $7,360 which comprises a rent reduction of $230 a week from the start of the tenancy. That equates to 32 weeks from 18 April to 27 November.
- The reasons are: a. The property was not properly cleaned at the start of the tenancy. b. There is a raised tile in the floor in the lounge. c. There have been issues with the cladding around the large bay window in the lounge requiring ongoing investigations and repairs. d. The landlord notified them of an inspection but it was not conducted. e. There was a delay in receiving the entry inspection report.
- The onus is on the tenants to establish their claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
- The tenancy started on 18 April 2025, with a weekly rent of $830.00. It is a three-bedroomed property.
- Since 25 September, the tenants have been paying a reduced rent of $730.00. This was in recognition of disruption caused by issues with the cladding.
- The tenants seek a reduction of the rent to $600 from the start of the tenancy.
- The tenancy is a fixed-term tenancy, due to end on 20 April 2026. The landlord agrees that the tenants may be released from the tenancy on one week’s notice. Cleaning
- At the commencement of the tenancy, the tenants sent a text to the landlord saying that the property required further cleaning and that the carpets needed a rug doctor.
- The landlord replied that she had been in touch with a cleaner and they could not “enforce tenants to clean carpets”.
- A cleaner was organised, but that did not happen for another week. The property manager said that she has no control over the availability of contractors. That is not the issue. Under section 45(1)(a), the landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
- The tenants went ahead and hired a rug doctor, but they were then told that the carpets would be cleaned. They were put to the inconvenience of moving the furniture twice.
- On the one hand the landlord said that they had fulfilled the requirement to provide the tenancy in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, but on the other hand, the landlord organised a cleaner and carpet cleaning.
- The landlord’s text contained incorrect information. The Tribunal will not enforce a clause in a tenancy agreement that requires a tenant to have the carpets cleaned at the end of the tenancy, regardless of the state of the property. However, that does not prevent the landlord from cleaning the carpets if required and/or seeking compensation from the exiting tenants.
- The tenants were annoyed that they had wasted time and money organising a carpet cleaner and moving furniture twice and received no compensation for this.
- I accept that there would have been some inconvenience to the tenants.
- I understand the hiring costs of a rug doctor vary depending on the length of the hire. They provided no invoice or receipt for the hire of the rug doctor and no photographs showing the extent of the cleaning required.
- I order compensation of $100.00 for the inconvenience caused by the property (including the carpet) not being properly cleaned at the start of the tenancy. Blind
- At the start of the tenancy, the blind in the lounge was broken. It meant that the tenants could not open the blind for the large lounge bay window, meaning that they could not let the sun in. Through no fault of the landlord, it could not be fixed immediately. The tenants were not sure how long that there was this issue, but it was less than a month.
- I order $100 for the impact of not being able to open the blind for up to four weeks after the tenants moved in. Inspection
- The tenants received a notification of an inspection early in the tenancy. The landlord did not attend.
- Until the hearing, the landlord was unaware of this issue. She thought that it must have been an email that was generated from the system from the previous tenancy.
- Given this was a new tenancy, it is difficult to understand why these tenants received an email notifying them of an inspection that was intended for previous tenants. The landlord should have better systems.
- However, the tenants have not articulated any particular inconvenience caused by this. Tenants are required to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. I make no order for compensation for this issue. Delay in receiving entry inspection
- The tenants have repeatedly asked for a copy of the entry inspection report. It has now been received.
- Although there should be no reason for a delay, the tenants have not established how this has had a negative impact on them. Accordingly, there is no order for compensation for this issue. Moisture
- At the start of the tenancy, on 23 April, the tenant notified the landlord about a bulge in the floor in the lounge. This is by the door. The photo shows a raised area in the tiles. The tenants suggested that there might be water damage.
- They followed up this issue on 28 April and the landlord said that she would get someone to look at it.
- The landlord thought it may have been to do with the underfloor heating. On 29 May a builder visited the premises. The cause of the raised tiles could not be determined. No dampness was identified in that floor area.
- On 25 July a plumber attended for another matter with the shower but also checked for a plumbing leak in relation to the tile but found no water leak under the floor.
- On 2 September a moisture test was undertaken and it was discovered that there was moisture as a result of rain coming in the wall cladding. There are multiple roof levels through which some leaks are occurring. The leaking is weather dependent, and arises when the wind comes from a certain direction. Mould was discovered in the wall. This was not on the same side of the room as the raised tiles.
- The tenants were concerned about asbestos and so the landlord had asbestos testing undertaken. This confirmed there was no asbestos.
- Dehumidifiers were provided and needed to stay on to dry the property out. The tenants were reimbursed for power use.
- On 22 September roofing contractors were engaged. The rent was then reduced by $100 a week from 25 September.
- The tenants are concerned about the ongoing disruption as contractors have undertaken assessments and preparation for the recladding of part of the house, which will be completed this month. Raised tile
- The tenants were asked about the impact of the bump in the lounge between April and September before the moisture test was done.
- In fact, the moisture issue was found by the large bay window, which is not near the bulge in the floor.
- The tenants say that the house was freezing cold and damp. They have not produced evidence of any dampness in the house besides what was found through moisture tests of the wall in the lounge. The tenants have not established that the dampness in the lounge wall or any other issue requiring maintenance or repair has led to the entire house being colder than normal.
- The tenants found a white residue around the side of the house in the tiles. The tenants say that if you google that, it is efflorescence, which is evidence of moisture.
- The tenants provided no independent expert opinion of the presence or nature of any residue on the house. Telling the Tribunal what the internet says about a white residue does not prove on the balance of probabilities that the entire house was wet, damp or cold, or in any way hazardous to their health.
- The cause of the raised tile has not been established. The area under the tile is dry. The tenants suspect that the floor has moved because of the dampness is the walls, but there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the weathertightness issues that have been discovered are related to the raised tile. It may be that the tenants are correct, but I must be satisfied that it is more likely than not to be the case. There is insufficient evidence to enable such a finding to be made. The landlord has undertaken reasonable enquiries to ascertain the cause of it.
What compensation should be ordered in relation to moisture?
- The tenants say that the house was freezing cold and damp from the start of the tenancy and so they should be compensated for that. They say that this should have been identified much sooner, and that a moisture test 6 months after they moved in was not satisfactory.
- The landlord set out the processes she has followed getting tradespeople that are approved by the insurers.
- A failure to take any remedial action would of course be more serious. The question for the Tribunal is not whether the landlord had trouble getting contractors, but how the issue has affected the tenants.
- The independent contractors have found that the cladding on the front wall of the lounge is wet. There is no evidence before the Tribunal of any moisture issues in the rest of the house.
- It is up to the tenants to prove the impact of the defect of the lounge wall on them. There is a raised tile in the lounge and dampness in the wall in the lounge. The tenants were asked how that has affected them. They referred to the issues at the start of the tenancy with cleaning and said that the landlord is not responsive. The tenants are concerned that there may be mould within the other walls. They are worried that this may be detrimental to their health and are worried that the repairs may be extensive.
- The tenants have not established when the dampness in the lounge wall started or that the dampness or mould in the wall in the lounge has had an adverse impact on them.
- The ongoing disruption is a matter for which the tenants should be compensated. I find that communication from the landlord should have been better once the contractors were visiting. The tenants have been left to communicate with the contractors and leave keys for them. Their use of the lounge has been affected.
- The landlord could also have been more responsive to texts and phone calls at times, but the impact on the tenants has not been significant.
- The landlord has offered the tenants early termination of the fixed term lease and a discount of $100 per week has been given. That equates to 12% per week. At the date of the hearing on 15 January, that had been in place for 16 weeks. The landlord has therefore compensated them $1600 so far. Given the disruption has not been on a daily basis, that is a reasonable amount. I do not consider further compensation is warranted.
- As indicated at the hearing, it may be that during the week or two that the actual recladding is taking place, a further reduction might be offered.
- The tenants have had minimal success in their claim and so there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee and no order for non-publication of their name.
- The landlord has been almost wholly successful and so there is an order for non-publication of the landlord’s name.