What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5405869 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5405869?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5405869?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5405869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13043055-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5405869 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5405869?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5405869?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5405869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13043055-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 3, 22 Rawiri Street, Kaiti, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5405869 — Mould & damp

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Hemi, the tenant, and Mr Gordon, representing the landlord, both attended the hearing in-person.
The tenant has applied for failure to maintain, breach of Healthy Homes Standards relating to moisture and drainage and other miscellaneous orders.
The landlord has cross-applied for termination and possession, Notice to Quit.
At the start of the hearing, the landlord withdrew their application and claims, given the tenancy has ended.
During the hearing, the tenant withdrew her claims for breach of Healthy Homes Standards relating to moisture and drainage, as well as her claim for other miscellaneous orders.
The parties agreed that the tenancy ended on 22 December 2025. Burden of proof and evidence
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
Where the parties differ in their evidence in relation to an issue, each party must provide additional supporting evidence of their position. Failure to maintain
Marama Hemi claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. However, the tenant did not apply for exemplary damages.
The tenant said the landlord committed the following breaches in failing to maintain the property in the following ways: a. By not repairing a gap in the side of the bath where water was going behind. b. By not addressing mould in the bathroom. c. By not securing the windows adequately. d. By not dealing with a hole in the floor in the front room. Gap at the side of the bath and mould in the bathroom
The tenant said there was a gap along the side of the bath between the top of the bath and the side wall under the tiling, and that water went behind this gap and warped the wall in the bedroom where she slept. She said water went behind the shower, which was in the bath. The tenant said the bath backed onto her bedroom. The tenant provided photographs of a small gap between the top of the bath along the side wall by the bath and of the wallpaper at the bottom of the bedroom wall peeling off.
The tenant also said there was mould in the bathroom.
The tenant indicated she told the landlord about the bathroom mould not long after she moved in, first on 9 August 2025, and that the landlord said they were going to seal, repaint and put in a new shower. The tenant said later in the tenancy, she sealed part of the gap along the side of the bath with a sealant, as a test, and could see water repelled from the part she had sealed. The tenant believed she had told the landlord about the gap in the side of the bath but the landlord denied being told about this. There was no additional supporting evidence provided, such as copies of texts, from the tenant that confirmed she had told the landlord about the gap in the side of the bath.
The landlord acknowledged having received texts from the tenant on 9 August 2025 and again on 14 November 2025 indicating there was mould in the bathroom. He said that both times he had set up times to visit the property within a few days of each text but could not enter the property either time. He said on the first planned visit, when he showed up the tenant had Covid and so he did not enter the property. The landlord could not recall why he could not enter on the second visit but said that he then arranged for a builder to attend the property on 10 December 2025 to look at the issues. The landlord said the tenant then cancelled the builder’s visit later on the same day he notified her of the builder’s visit, saying she had a tenancy investigator coming to see the property.
The landlord said he told the tenant he was considering resealing and repainting the bathroom and putting in a new shower earlier on in the tenancy, as he was concerned the floor in there might have dropped, but when his builder looked at the bathroom more closely, the builder told the landlord the floor had not dropped and the bathroom facilities were fine, so they did not proceed with any bathroom renovations. The landlord said these bathroom plans and issues were not related to mould at all and denied telling the tenant this.
The tenant provided a video during the hearing, which she said showed mould in the bathroom. In the video, there were some areas along the edges of walls and the ceiling that appeared to have a slim darker rim. The tenant said this was mould, the landlord said there was nothing to show it was mould and could have been just dots on the paintwork, and that if it had been mould it would have been more excessive and prevalent than shown.
In relation to the peeling wallpaper on the bottom of the bedroom wall and the issue of water going behind the gap at the side of the bath, the landlord said there was only a very small gap of around 1-2mm there between the silicone and capping and there was still a lip on the bath. The landlord said it was highly unlikely that any water would have gone through this small gap and, if it had, there would have been more extensive wallpaper peeling of the entire bedroom wall, not just along the bottom end of the bedroom wall, and there would have been mould on the bedroom wall, which there was not. The landlord said he had had a painting business for 20 years and is aware of walls that show moisture and indicated this was not the case in the bedroom.
The landlord said he conducted routine inspections, with one being on 10 October 2025, that he looked in the bathroom, tested the smoke alarms and asked the tenant if there were any issues and she did not inform him of any issues then.
I find there is insufficient additional supporting evidence provided by the tenant to show she notified the landlord about the gap under the tiling at the side of the bath, or that this gap created issues directly with the bedroom wall or shower/bath area. Therefore, I dismiss this claim.
In relation to the tenant’s mould claim, mould is a type of fungus that lives on plant and animal matter. It reproduces by making spores. Airborne mould spores can be found both in indoor and outdoor environments. Mould will thrive in humid conditions (warm and wet). The ways to prevent mould growth include ventilation (air flow), heating (to allow drying out) removing of moisture (dehumidifying) and cleaning (stopping the mould spores from reproducing).
Mould can be caused by a lack of ventilation, but it also can be caused by leaks or water ingress.
If a tenant notices a problem with the mould which may have been caused by a defect with the property, then they have an obligation to notify the landlord. This is because the existence of mould can indicate an underlying defect in the property such as roof leak, or a leaking pipe in the wall. Likewise, a landlord should investigate the cause of mould complained of by a tenant or seen at an inspection and take action to remedy any problems with the property.
Each party has obligations under the RTA to ensure that the property does not become damp and mouldy. A tenant is required to keep premises reasonably clean and tidy during a tenancy (s40(1)(c) RTA), the tenant should ventilate the property and use heat pumps or other heat sources to heat and dry the home. If the tenant notices a defect, then they must notify the landlord.
The landlord’s obligation is to maintain premises to a reasonable level taking into account their age and character (s45(1)(b) RTA). This means investigating any complaints of leaking, or dampness and mould complained of by the tenant.
The tenant’s evidence, acknowledged by the landlord, was that she texted the landlord about mould in the bathroom on 9 August 2025 and again on 14 November 2025, when she did a test with a kebab stick at the side of the bath and it came out black, which she took to be mould.
The landlord’s evidence was that he attended the property for a routine inspection in October 2025, looked in the bathroom and did not find any mould. The landlord’s evidence was that he tried to arrange two visits either side of that routine inspection, soon after the tenant texted him about mould, to look further into this issue, but he could not enter the property on either occasion. Nor could his builder attend the property to investigate this on 10 December 2025 as the tenant cancelled this visit. The landlord disputed that the tenant’s video of the bathroom showed mould and said there was no proof of this.
Generally speaking, tenants are responsible for maintaining cleanliness of the inside of the property during the tenancy, including cleaning or preventing mould, and the landlord is responsible for addressing any mould that might be caused by leaks or other structurally related issues or maintenance.
I find there was insufficient additional supporting evidence provided by the tenant of the cause of any mould in the bathroom, i.e. whether it might have been caused by cleaning and ventilation issues (tenant responsibility) or by structural issues pertaining to a leak (landlord responsibility), for example, or to confirm that it was mould. As such, I dismiss this claim. Securing window
The tenant said the landlord did not secure the windows at the property adequately. She said there was a burglary at the property on 13 July 2025 and she asked the landlord on 14 July 2025 to put safety latches on the windows. The tenant confirmed the landlord put safety latches on all the windows on 21 July 2025, about one week after she requested this. The tenant said the laundry window latch though was just “hanging off” and was no good.
The landlord said they installed safety latches on all the windows, which they believed was above and beyond their strict duty to ensure the window latches were on and functioning properly, but said they were willing to do this, given the burglary, and that they also changed the locks on the front and back doors for the tenant after the burglary. The landlord denied there was anything wrong with the laundry window and said a safety latch had also been put on this, which the tenant confirmed.
The tenant did not provide photographs that showed any issues with the windows. The tenant said her issue here was that she was told by the police after the burglary that the landlord should have put on the safety latches with rivets and not screws, as burglars could just unscrew the screws. The landlord said he had checked with the police about the safety latches, and they had not told him anything about them needing to have rivets rather than screws. The tenant said she did not have the police notes about what she had been told.
I find there is insufficient evidence provided by the tenant about the windows being secured inadequately, or about the police advice that the safety latches should have been put on with rivets rather than screws. The landlord took steps to put safety latches on all the windows a week after the tenant requested this, which I find is a reasonable time frame for the landlord’s response, and that the response was adequate in the circumstances, given the evidence. As such, I dismiss this claim. Hole in living room floor
The tenant said that she discovered a hole in the floor in the living room, when she was vacuuming the carpet on the day she moved out. She said the carpet went to the side and she saw the hole, which she said was around 10cms long x 1cm wide. She indicated she was not aware of this until the day she moved out on 22 December 2025 and so did not tell the landlord about this, even when she left. She did not provide any photographs of this hole. The landlord said he was not aware of this hole and that the tenant had not mentioned this to him at all.
As the tenant did not provide any additional supporting evidence of the hole in the sitting room floor, such as photographs, nor did she tell the landlord about this hole, and that her evidence was that she first discovered this on the day she left the tenancy, I find there is insufficient evidence to prove this claim and so dismiss this claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5405869 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 22 Rawiri Street, Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

Tenancy Tribunal case 5405869 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 22 Rawiri Street, Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions