What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5415494 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5415494?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5415494?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5415494?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13511908-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5415494 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5415494?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5415494?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5415494?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13511908-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14 Haile Lane, Pohara, RD 1, Takaka 7183 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5415494 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Tonia Allan represented the landlord. Mr Robert Frese represented both tenants.

The applicant sought a work order, compensation and other orders relating to the management of the tenancy.

By the date of the hearing the work order was no longer sought. Some orders sought are beyond any statutory authority of this Tribunal. This order focuses on those claims that do.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

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 [emphasis mine]: “...[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.”

While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented or submissions made at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. Background

This tenancy commenced on 8 July 2025. The tenants had inspected the premises prior to entering into the tenancy agreement.

The tenant’s statement of claim noted they entered this tenancy after approximately “24 months of significant stress and instability, seeking peace, rest, and recovery in a quiet Golden Bay environment. While the property provided partial shelter (a place to sleep and cook), it never became a home due to persistent defects and management failures."

The statement further claimed: “From the start of the tenancy, serious roof leaks affected not only ancillary areas but one of the children’s bedrooms. A bucket was required inside the child’s bedroom, positioned between the play area and sleeping space, to manage water ingress. The carpet in this room developed a persistent damp and mouldy smell, particularly in one corner. Even after professional carpet cleaning, the stain and odour remained. These conditions caused ongoing concern for the applicants, particularly given Lena’s asthma and mould allergy and the presence of children. The property manager minimised these concerns when raised, and the family has been required to live with the smell and compromised condition of the room. The conservatory, presented as usable living space and intended as an art studio, was unusable from day one due to toxic smell, mould, and leaks. It was sealed off entirely from the living space for health reasons and only became usable on 11 November 2025. The loss of this space delayed art projects and resulted in loss of income opportunities. Additional issues included ongoing slate flooring contamination causing iron staining of bare feet and laundry, damaging towels valued at $200, and an unannounced interruption of an essential service when water was shut off without notice on 15 December 2025.”

Remedies sought by the tenants were: a. Rent reduction or reimbursement for loss of amenity b. Compensation for health impact, stress, and loss of income opportunities c. Reimbursement for damaged personal property ($200) d. Orders relating to breach of quiet enjoyment and essential services e. Any further relief the Tribunal considers just

The tenants supplied the following chronology of events: 8 July 2025 – Fixed-term tenancy commenced (12 months). Weekly rent $570. Bond $2,280. Property taken with the understanding it was habitable and that the conservatory formed usable living space. 9 July 2025 – First written notification to the property manager detailing serious defects including roof leaks (conservatory and bedrooms), mould, unusable shower due to pressure/temperature, faulty cooktop, and hygiene concerns. Health conditions (asthma and mould allergy) disclosed. July–August 2025 – Ongoing roof leaks. One of the children’s bedrooms was directly affected by water ingress. A bucket was placed inside the child’s bedroom, between the child’s play area and sleeping space, to prevent further damage to carpet and belongings. The same child’s bedroom developed a persistent damp and mouldy smell in the corner of the carpet. Despite professional carpet cleaning, the stain and smell remained. These concerns were raised and subsequently minimised by the property manager, and the family has had to live with the condition. July–October 2025 – Conservatory confirmed mould-affected and unsafe. Toxic smell present. Room sealed off from the main living space due to health risk. Intended art studio could not be used. 11 November 2025 at approximately 10:00 am – Conservatory finally became usable after roof repairs. Mid-December 2025 – Property manager attended the property without notice, placed her head into the open doorway saying ‘knock knock’ without identifying herself. Consent to inspect exterior taps was only given after this interaction. 15 December 2025 at approximately 3:15 pm – Plumber attended without notice and shut off the household water supply completely (external access only). Child returned from school was unable to shower. Plumber later confirmed instruction came from the property manager. End time unknown. Throughout tenancy – Full rent paid despite prolonged loss of amenity, health impacts, stress, and breaches of quiet enjoyment.

Was there a failure to maintain?

It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.

The Tribunal must also have regard to the age and character of the premises.

Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.

The tenants claim that the landlord failed to remedy several repair issues within a reasonable timeframe. I consider each issue in turn below.

In response, the landlord provided a detailed timeline of issues as raised and actions taken.

I note that commencement of this tenancy was during a significant heavy rain and civil emergency event in the region. Conservatory roof leak

The tenants claim the conservatory was, which is directly connected to the living space via double-glazed sliding doors and was presented as a usable room, was affected by persistent leaks, condensation, toxic odour, and visible mould. They said two independent tradespeople later confirmed the presence of a mould issue, but this was not evidenced. The tenants said that due to health concerns — including asthma and mould allergy within the household — the conservatory was sealed off from the main living area and remained unusable for an extended period.” They claimed the room gave them headaches despite airing it out and using scents. A concern regarding the source of the smell was raised, with the possibility of “meth people” being a cause.

The landlord countered the claim of contractor confirmation of mould and smell. She provided emails from the time where she followed up with the contractor as she had been told by the tenant that the contractor had confirmed the smell in the conservatory was mould and that the room may even need to be taken down. In his response on 24 July 2025 he responded, “Absolutely not” to both claims.

A further email from the previous tenant to the landlord was provided, after the landlord asked him if he had experienced any leaks (conservatory or bedroom) inside during the prior tenancy. He responded that it had never leaked during his tenancy

The landlord advised the tenants the room required more venting than other areas given it was at the back of the house. The tenants responded again with their concern that the issue was more than a lack of ventilation, again citing the strong “chemical like smell”. Further assessment was requested as they wanted to be able to use the room comfortably.

The was a leak on or around 10 July 2025. I heard from the landlord that a handyman applied a temporary repair and a quote for a professional repair by a roofer was obtained. This was accepted by the owners but there were delays in the work being completed due to the inflated demand for such trades in the regions, as well as the preferred roofer absence on holiday.

The tenants claim ongoing water ingress, the landlord disputes this, acknowledging some historic water markings but claiming the initial temporary repair was effective. The conservatory become useable in the tenants’ mind after the full roof repair and two hours of professional cleaning in November.

The agent, in communication to the contractor on 14 July 2025 in relation to the conservatory leak, refers to it being reported as a “couple of leaks” and photos sent by the tenant as being “historical”. She asks him to check and advise of anything new. Two days later, in a series of emails, deficiencies in the existing structure that might be allowing leaks or condensation were identified and a costed solution proposed. It was noted at the time that the roofer would be away until early August and was already booked for most of that month. The agent asked if he had managed an interim solution. He confirmed yes, saying a temporary fix to both conservatory and bedroom “should hold them until the more permanent work” could be done.

There was also a claim of wood rot/damage in the area. The landlord says the contractor was called out and attended to “check for rotten boards and mould”. She said he found neither. In an email reply to the landlord dated 5 November he commented the tenant is hard to please, adding, “I do feel for the owners of the property as they are trying to do everything they can. I can confirm the area is not full of mould or rotten boards not sure what else you can do.”

Based on the evidence and submissions I consider it more than likely there were some water tightness issues with the conservatory over time but not to the claimed extent. That any such issues caused the conservatory to be “unusable from day one due to toxic smell, mould, and leaks” is a more challenging evidential burden for the tenants. It is one they cannot meet. The claim is dismissed. Bedroom roof leak

The tenants claimed that during periods of active leaking, water entered the dwelling to the extent that buckets had to be placed inside one of the children’s bedrooms to prevent damage to both personal belongings and the landlord’s carpet. They stated the affected bedroom developed dampness and a persistent mould smell in the corner of the carpet, which remained even after professional carpet cleaning. They believe the issue was raised with the property manager but was minimised and not remedied, resulting in a need to relocate their young daughter to another room during the leaking period.

As with the conservatory, the landlord pointed to the temporary repair as being effective and that there was no ongoing water ingress issue, and that the child had continued use of the bedroom.

Based on the submissions and photos, the bedroom does appear to have remined in general use as intended.

A single roof leak can take some time to identify and repair but, like the conservatory claim, I do not have evidence of any landlord failure or loss of amenity that justifies specific compensation for roof leaks. The claim must be dismissed. Slate tiles

The kitchen and living areas have a black slate tile flooring. At the start the tenants noted a loose tile for the record. The entry photos show discolouration of what is a natural stone product. This may not be unexpected from such product, due to oxidation, moisture, or other factors. The oxidation can be a cause of black marking on the soles of bare feet as recounted by the tenants.

The issues for the tenants regarding the tiling appear to have grown and at the date of the hearing there was clearly a serious issue with water beneath and coming up between the tiles in some areas. To be clear, this order considers the slate issues raised prior to the latest event as that was a live issue requiring immediate investigation. It is not subject to res judicata. 1

The tenant expressed concern in the application was the impact on bare feet foot traffic as black marking on the feet from tiles was visible, requiring cleaning (and staining of towels). A further concern regarding possible metals entering the body through skin absorption was raised.

The photos provided show areas of the slate grouting that has deteriorated and other areas that were discoloured. The landlord stated the condition of the slate was raised on 18 August by the tenant, after one loose tile being noted by the tenants in the entry report. Her stance is that the areas highlighted were historic and identified in the ingoing inspection report.

Foot staining to bare feet from the slate was claimed and evidenced in a photo. The close review of the slate photos suggested a risk of skin damage from a sharp surface night have been as much a concern although that was not raised by the tenant as a problem.

The problem of foot staining is accepted as real but I consider a known surface such as this requires some consideration, somewhat akin to a stained deck. I do not find any grounds for compensation regarding the slate floor. Stovetop

The tenant experienced intermittent issues with the back left element on the stovetop. In fairness, he cancelled one early callout on 18 July 2025 after it started working. It was raised again in August 2025. The landlord stated she believed it was still an intermittent problem and the advice at that time was for her information only. Nothing was done until it was raised during a routine inspection in October and a work order was then sent. The contractor failed to complete the task and upon follow up in February 2026 it confirmed they had received but missed the work order.

I heard the tenants had an alternative arrangement for cooking and the mutual lack of follow up after the contractor failure to act on the work order suggests the alternative was an acceptable arrangement and I do not consider any grounds for compensation exist here. Other maintenance

There were a number of other maintenance or repair tasks conducted during the tenancy. These have bene considered but none are deemed to be failures of the landlord. Some were instigated at the request of the tenants but the 1 The principle of res judicata applies and that is that when a final judicial decision has been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction the parties are prevented from disputing or questioning that decision in any subsequent litigation. Shiels v Blakely [1986] NZLR 262 CA statutory requirement to do so was not always obvious. The tenants appear to be good tenants who made requests to improve the home for their benefit and the landlord accommodated that as it saw fit.

Further, although the tenants claim to have had to act due to landlord tardiness in arranging contractors, the evidence provided does not support this as a theme during this tenancy. The roofing delay must be viewed in the context of the legacy of the regional event that caused a spike in demand for roofing services.

Did the landlord enter unlawfully?

A landlord may enter a rental property only in specific circumstances and must follow the rules set out in the RTA, specifically s 48. The main situations when a landlord may enter are with the tenant’s consent or, without consent, after adequate and appropriate notice unless it is an emergency.

The tenants asserted a right of prior notice regarding a landlord visit on 12 December 2025 regarding a suspected water leak. It appears the landlord sought, and was granted permission, by one tenant. That was a lawful entry.

The other cited instance was a contractor entry to the external area to address the now confirmed external water leak. That required turning the water off for a brief period. I have considered the respective submissions. I do not find the landlord permitted any unlawful entry, not interfered with the water supply.

I have no evidence of these, or any other entry that would establish grounds for an order here. Did the landlord interfere with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment?

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

Throughout the tenancy, the tenants claim the property manager has repeatedly failed to provide proper notice for attendance at the property. The tenants desired a tighter timeframe of arrival for scheduled inspections. The landlord explained in writing to them the challenges in providing that when on the road conducting multiple inspections over a great distance. Unfortunately, want does not get and the notice as provided was not unreasonable.

The tenants claim the property manager used offensive and inappropriate language in written correspondence. This relates to what the landlord says was a typo in the subject line of an email where the intended “Count” had the “o” dropped. The tenants took offence at this as it could be read by some as an intended description of the tenants rather than any typo. The landlord apologised immediately once made aware of it and she strongly refuted it was anything other than a typo. This was a one-off and all the other correspondence does not indicate any predilection of the landlord to use such language. I do not have sufficient evidence to consider the word used was intentional.

There has been a constant engagement between the tenants and landlord since the tenancy commenced. The tenants are detailed people who clearly expressed their needs or wants in a timely and respectful manner. The completed tasks reflect that. I do not find there has been any unreasonable interference with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment by the landlord.

Should the tenants be compensated?

Section 77(2)(n) RTA allows the Tribunal to grant general damages where a landlord or a tenant has breached a provision of the RTA. These damages can include an amount for distress and pain and suffering.

In Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993 (upheld in the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust, CIV-2018-009-002094 [2020] NZDC 17667) sets out the factors that the Tribunal should take into account when making a damages award, being: a. The nature of the breach b. The duration of the breach c. The effect of the breach.

The biggest possible impact, in terms of loss of amenity, would appear to be the conservatory that was apparently left unused until 11 November due to concerns regarding the perceived health threats. This date was around the final repair to the roof, after the temporary fix earlier. I say perceived as I do not consider there is evidence of any suffered health impacts, nor of ongoing leaks into the area.

It remains curious that it was considered ready for use after a short two-hour surface commercial clean. It has not been my experience to date that such cleaning will resolve any underlying mould issues, or other related concerns. In the absence of suitable evidence, I find the decision of the tenants to not use that area was theirs to make but it is not one that leads to any subsequent compensation for loss of amenity or failure to maintain.

The nature and impact of the breaches as claimed are not supported to the required standard by the evidence provided. The landlord produced counterevidence of many completed tasks during this part of the tenancy.

There have been issues during this tenancy. These are not unexpected through normal use, as well allowing for unusual environmental challenges. Such issues do not lead automatically to compensation. Having considered the nature of the issues, proven duration and clear effects of any of them issue, I do not conclude any order for general compensation should follow.

I conclude by repeating Judge Mather’s words as recorded early in this order; “...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.” From here...

A landlord notice to terminate has been served and the tenants have indicated they desire an earlier exit. In assuming this is open to them they are relying on an offer made earlier in the tenancy last year for them to leave (this was in response to issues raised or occurring at the that time). At the hearing the landlord appeared flexible regarding this. It is hoped the equitable approach to these claims of the tenants are extended to a flexible exit for their convenience, the live issue at the hearing of water ingress through the kitchen floor notwithstanding.

The delay in this order is regretted and the patience of the parties is appreciated. An order of dismissal such as here, when not dismissive of the overall circumstances, requires some deliberation.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Tonia Allan represented the landlord. Mr Robert Frese represented both tenants.

The applicant sought a work order, compensation and other orders relating to the management of the tenancy.

By the date of the hearing the work order was no longer sought. Some orders sought are beyond any statutory authority of this Tribunal. This order focuses on those claims that do.

While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented or submissions made at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. Background

This tenancy commenced on 8 July 2025. The tenants had inspected the premises prior to entering into the tenancy agreement.

Was there a failure to maintain?

The Tribunal must also have regard to the age and character of the premises.

The tenants claim that the landlord failed to remedy several repair issues within a reasonable timeframe. I consider each issue in turn below.

In response, the landlord provided a detailed timeline of issues as raised and actions taken.

I note that commencement of this tenancy was during a significant heavy rain and civil emergency event in the region. Conservatory roof leak

As with the conservatory, the landlord pointed to the temporary repair as being effective and that there was no ongoing water ingress issue, and that the child had continued use of the bedroom.

Based on the submissions and photos, the bedroom does appear to have remined in general use as intended.

Did the landlord enter unlawfully?

I have no evidence of these, or any other entry that would establish grounds for an order here. Did the landlord interfere with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment?

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

Should the tenants be compensated?

The delay in this order is regretted and the patience of the parties is appreciated. An order of dismissal such as here, when not dismissive of the overall circumstances, requires some deliberation.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5415494 — Mould & damp at 14 Haile Lane, Pohara, RD 1, Takaka 7183

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5415494 — Mould & damp at 14 Haile Lane, Pohara, RD 1, Takaka 7183

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a failure to maintain?

Did the landlord enter unlawfully?

Should the tenants be compensated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a failure to maintain?

Did the landlord enter unlawfully?

Should the tenants be compensated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions