What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5421680?

The tribunal order states: Bruce Wallis must pay Nadine Ernst and Michael Williamson $143.00

How much money was awarded in case 5421680?

Compensation: Waste Disposal: $115.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421680?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421680?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13360221-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5421680?

The tribunal order states: Bruce Wallis must pay Nadine Ernst and Michael Williamson $143.00

How much money was awarded in case 5421680?

Compensation: Waste Disposal: $115.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421680?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421680?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13360221-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Salcombe Terrace, Welbourn, New Plymouth 4312 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421680 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421680 — net $143.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Waste disposal	$115.00	Waste disposal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$143.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$143.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421680 — net $143.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Waste disposal	$115.00	Waste disposal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$143.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$143.00

Order

Bruce Wallis must pay Nadine Ernst and Michael Williamson $143.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants had a support person.

What is the remedy that the tenants want?

The tenants seek compensation that is based on dampness and mould at the premises.
They claim: a. $3,000 for goods they say they need to dispose of; b. $2,000 for stress and cleaning; c. $115 for fees incurred in disposing of goods at the waste station d. $300 for additional waste station fees not yet incurred; and e. $39 for a specialist mould removal cleaning product during the course of the tenancy.
The tenancy has now ended. Civil burden of proof
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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. Law
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The RTA requires compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). The HHS provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in relation to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage. Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy.
The HHS mean that the property must have effective drainage systems to remove storm and ground water from the tenancy building, and a ground moisture barrier if there is an enclosed subfloor space, unless it is not reasonably practicable to install one. The purpose of a ground moisture barrier is to reduce moisture rising from the ground into the home, which can contribute to dampness and mould.
Where a premises has a suspended floor, that floor must be fully covered by qualifying underfloor insulation (unless a specific exemption applies). Ventilation must be provided and this includes extractor fans vented to the outside in the bathroom and kitchen (there are limited exceptions). The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
Under s 45(1)(b) RTA a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to their 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. 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.
However, I also concur with the opinion of the Tribunal in Marks v Godfrey 15/01390, HN 25/08/2015 and [Suppressed] [2021] NZTT 4293251 to the effect that all properties should be checked regularly and maintained as required. There should be preventative maintenance as well as repair. This is implicit in s 45(1)(b), RTA.
Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes an obligation to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after the discovery of the need for repairs to the premises. The RTA also provides a mechanism for tenants to raise work required at the premises more formally with the landlord. In particular tenants are able to provide the landlord with a breach notice (a 14 day notice) and if work is not completed in a timely way, tenants can seek a work order from the Tenancy Tribunal that requires the landlord to remedy the breach.
That is consistent with section 49 RTA which requires that a party mitigate their loss. In the context of this claim, this means that the tenant must take any necessary steps to limit the loss they have incurred from a landlord breach. Failure to maintain the premises and breaches of HHS leading to dampness and mould
The tenants say that the factors below, which they say are also their own individual alleged breaches, mean that the landlord failed to maintain the property leading to dampness and mould. Bathroom extractor fan
I heard that the bathroom does not have an extractor fan. The tenant says this is in breach of the HHS.
The tenancy started some nine years ago. On the basis of the evidence before me the HHS compliance date is 1 July 2025.
The landlord says that he thought he had an exemption for the extractor fan in the bathroom, a tradesperson told him the property was exempt many years ago due to the fact this is a Lockwood home. The landlord had no additional information or evidence of this exemption. He says he has now been told there is no exemption and so he has fitted an extractor fan to the window. He has done this since the tenancy ended.
I am satisfied there has been a breach of the HHS for ventilation by there being no extractor fan in the bathroom by the compliance date. I am not satisfied that the landlord has sufficiently proven an exemption applied.
I have taken this into account when assessing whether there has been a failure to maintain in relation to mould and dampness below. Small hole in ceiling
The tenant says the landlord has breached the HHS for moisture and draught stopping due to a small hole in the ceiling in the back bedroom.
I heard from the tenants that the size of the hole is about 1cm x 1cm or 2cm x 2cm. The tenants say they think they can see daylight though the hole. They told the landlord about this on 10 January 2026 as they were moving out. They say they did not notice it before.
The landlord says the hole is no bigger than if he were to put his little finger into it and the roof is over the top of it. It does not lead to anywhere or outside – if it was, he says it would be leaking. He thinks it is a hole left by Lockwood manufacturing. He says he poked a small stick up the hole and it just jammed.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven that there has been a breach of the draught stopping or moisture ingress standard by this hole. I am not satisfied that this is a hole that is causing a draught. If it was, I would have expected the tenants to have noticed it earlier than at the very end of their tenancy (which was lengthy).
I find the moisture ingress HHS is not relevant to this hole as that HHS relates to drainage systems and moisture barriers.
I am also not satisfied that the tenant has proven that this hole has had any impact or connection to the mould/dampness issues raised. This has not therefore been taken into account when assessing whether there has been a breach in relation to mould/dampness below. Hole in floor of toilet by pipe
The tenant says the landlord has breached the HHS for draught stopping by leaving a small gap in the floor by a toilet pipe.
The tenants say they felt wind here and told the landlord about it in November 2025. I heard how replacement plumbing was done during the tenancy and so it was not clear when this hole had appeared. It seems that a new pipe was put in an existing hole and the plumber had not put silicone around it. The landlord says that the hole was not bought to his attention. If it was an issue his plumber would have easily sealed it. He does not consider it to have been a hole which would have caused a breeze.
The photograph provided indicates an extremely small gap. I am not satisfied that the tenants have proven if and when the landlord was advised of this gap or that it was causing a draught or in need of attention after plumbing was undertaken.
Therefore, I am not satisfied there has been a breach of the draught stopping standard. I am also not satisfied that the tenant has proven that this issue has any impact on the mould/dampness issue. This has therefore not been taken into account when assessing whether there has been a breach in relation to mould/dampness. Roof
The tenant says there was a failure to maintain the roof. The tenant says that during the course of the tenancy they were concerned about mould and wondered if the source of the problem was the roof.
The tenants say there was rust on the roof. The tenants say that the landlord covered existing holes with washers and this should not have been done. They say the roof was old and looked like it had leaked.
The landlord says that there was no leaking but, during the course of the tenancy, the roof was painted due to surface rust and then the existing lead nails heads had begun to pop due to their age. Roofers therefore came to re- screw the roof using a more modern technique of using screws with washers.
I am not satisfied that the tenants have proven that the roof leaked during the course of the tenancy or that there was an existing or ongoing problem relating to a roof leak or that the maintenance was not sufficient.
I am also not satisfied that the tenant has proven that the roof had any impact on the mould/dampness issue. This has therefore not been taken into account when assessing whether there has been a breach in relation to mould/dampness. Garage leak
The tenants say that water came into the garage leeching through a wall and came through a subfloor door on a couple of occasions. They say this is in breach of the HHS for moisture ingress and drainage. They say they told the landlord about it, but he effectively said there was nothing he could do about it.
The landlord says that what he meant was that he didn’t know what could be done about it, but he has since discovered, since the tenancy ended, that a storm water drainpipe had been rerouted by a plumber about 2 years ago to discharge the down pipe from the roof into the kitchen waste sump. The storm water then was going over the sump due to a lack of a bend in the pipe resulting in the water discharging under the house/into the garage in the place where the landlord says it is quite damp. The landlord says there has been issues with plumbing under the bathroom in the house but the rest of it is quite dry. This drainage issue has been resolved after the tenancy ended.
I find that it is proven that there has been a breach of the HHS for moisture ingress and drainage here as there was a drainage problem causing water to incorrectly drain into the garage/underfloor area.
I have taken this into account when assessing whether there has been a failure to maintain in relation to mould and dampness. Insulation and moisture barrier
The tenants say the landlord has failed to completely insulate the property under the floor and failed to complete the moisture barrier. This is in breach of the moisture ingress HHS and the insulation standard.
I heard how a moisture barrier and new installation were installed in August/September 2025 but it was not complete.
The tenants refer to there being no moisture barrier over a vertical side of the outside floor which has a large cut away portion (it could be described as a trench) by garage double doors. This leaves a large portion of earth exposed under the house.
I also heard how there is no moisture barrier under the bathroom and no insulation in that place either. The tenants say they were told this by the landlord, by the installers and also a plumber.
The landlord says he relied on the tradespeople he engaged to properly install a moisture barrier. He says that a portion under the bathroom/toilet was left so that a plumbing issue could be sorted. He says he has called the tradespeople many times, but they have not finished the job.
I am satisfied that the tenant has proven a breach of the HHS for insulation and moisture ingress here in respect of the moisture barrier and insulation. There is no dispute that insulation/moisture barrier is not complete, at least in part, under the bathroom. This is sufficient to establish a breach of these standards.
Further, the purpose of a moisture barrier is to stop moisture from evaporating in the sub floor space. Leaving a large amount of earth exposed in a trench under the property is unlikely to prevent moisture from evaporating in the sub floor space. While I am not satisfied that it is proven that this omission alone establishes a breach of the moisture ingress and drainage standard, I find that the failure to enclose this section would likely undermine the effectiveness of the moisture barrier as a whole and therefore overall dampness levels in the property.
I have taken the above into account when assessing whether there has been a failure to maintain in relation to mould/dampness. Shower walls
The tenant says that the shower was not maintained, and this contributed to a mould/dampness problem.
I heard how at the bottom the shower lining which was fibre board was disintegrating. A tradesperson attended the property and covered the board with a metal cover as a solution. The tenants said this blanketed the problem.
I heard how, for 3 to 4 years, they then experienced a foul smell when they showered. I heard how a plumber came many times to investigate the problem but in the end one of the tenants worked out what the problem was – the rotting board behind the metal. This was reported to the landlord who arranged a tradesperson to remedy the issue “pretty quickly”.
I heard how the issue was fixed in the middle of 2025.
The landlord agreed that this happened. It took a while to resolve the issue because initially the fault was thought to be a plumbing issue (I heard how the landlord had experienced issues with Dux Quest piping at the property). The landlord provided details from the handyman saying while this fix has worked in other properties it did not work here.
I am satisfied that the tenant has proven that the landlord failed to maintain the shower. Three to four years to identify and repair an ongoing defect is a substantial period of time. I am satisfied that the deterioration of the board would likely have contributed to dampness. The board was left breaking down for a significant period in a room with no extractor fan. I have taken this issue with the shower into account when assessing whether there has been a failure to maintain in relation to mould/dampness. Lino
The tenants say that the landlord failed to maintain the lino in the bathroom area. They say it is asbestos. There are two areas, one area between the bathroom and the toilet, where the lino has worn in a small patch, and another area by the sink where the lino has lifted. They say this has contributed to moisture issues and they are concerned about asbestos. The tenants say they have spoken about the issue multiple times to the landlord. Someone did come to look at it in November 2025. That is not long before the tenants moved out.
The landlord says there is no asbestos. He knew about the first small patch at the start of the tenancy. The area was stapled down. It was not worth replacing a large lino area which was otherwise good for this small patch. Since the tenants have moved out the landlord says he has remedied the issues.
Based on the evidence before me I am not satisfied that the tenants have proven the existence of any asbestos. I am not satisfied that the small worn patch amounts to a failure to maintain.
I am not satisfied that the tenants have proven when the landlord first knew when the lino was lifting but it is clear the landlord knew there was an issue from November 2025 when the tradesperson visited the premises.
Although the landlord did not see it as a major issue, the issue would have caused the tenants an inconvenience and would have been a hazard for tripping. I consider that there has been a very brief period in which the tenant has proven there has been a failure to maintain the lino. That said I do not consider there to be a sufficient link proven between this failure and the dampness/mould issue and the compensation that is claimed.
I find that the moisture ingress HHS is not relevant to this issue as this relates to drainage systems and moisture barriers. Mould and dampness analysis
Mould is a type of fungus that spreads by releasing airborne spores. These spores are present in both indoor and outdoor environments. Mould thrives in warm, humid conditions and is typically controlled through adequate ventilation, effective heating, moisture reduction (such as dehumidification), and regular cleaning. While mould can develop from poor ventilation, it can also result from leaks or other forms of water ingress.
Under the RTA both landlords and tenants have responsibilities relating to dampness and mould. Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy (s 40(1)(c) RTA). This includes ventilating the property and using heating to keep it dry. Tenants must also notify the landlord of any defects that may be contributing to mould. Landlords must maintain the premises to a reasonable standard, considering their age and character (s 45(1)(b) RTA). This includes investigating and addressing any issues contributing to leaks, dampness, or mould.
In general, tenants are responsible for day-to-day cleanliness, including cleaning minor mould caused by everyday living. Landlords, however, are responsible for mould that arises from structural defects or maintenance failures.
In Warwick Todd Ltd v Tapper TT1381/02, Christchurch, 14/08/2002, it was said: “Mould (or mildew) is a primitive form of fungal growth which grows from spores which abound everywhere. Mould will grow in any home where humidity remains high, but will have difficulty in surviving in one with low humidity. There are two ways to reduce humidity; by heating and ventilation, and ventilation is the most basic requirement. Responsibility for mould problems can rest with the tenant if the tenant fails to air and heat the premises properly. On the other hand the landlord must provide the tenants with the necessary means to heat and air the premises. If appropriate fans and dehumidifiers should be provided. Also devices should be fitted to windows so that they can be left open and also secure. This is especially so if the tenants are away during the daytime as tenants should not be required to leave the premises insecure in order to ventilate them. A tenant must also tell the landlord where there is a mould problem so that the necessary action can be taken. The landlord is also required to provide premises that are not prone to mould. If the premises have an inherent problem, such as bad construction or water lying under the premises, the landlord has the responsibility to remedy the fault. Premises must be able to be used and lived in, in the normal responsible way, without mould developing. If this can not be done then it is the landlord problem. If the tenants fail to ventilate and heat appropriately when heating and ventilation is available, then it is the tenant’s problem.”
The tenant has established the following relevant breaches: i. A breach of HHS relating to an extractor fan – No fan for the tenancy ii. A breach of HHS for moisture ingress and drainage in relation to the garage and storm water discharge – A problem for 2 years immediately prior to the tenancy ending iii. A breach of HHS for moisture ingress and drainage in relation to the moisture barrier – installed August/September 2025 but incomplete iv. A breach of HHS insulation standards in relation to missing insulation - Incomplete from August/September 2025 v. A failure to maintain in relation to a shower which was discovered to have rotting board (for 3 to 4 years prior to mid-2025)
The tenants say they first raised dampness concerns several years into the tenancy, when trees were cut down to increase sunlight. The landlord disputes this recollection and says the tree work appears related to a neighbouring property. The tenants also say they raised dampness concerns during the investigation into the shower issue. The parties agree the landlord made repeated attempts to diagnose the shower issue, which ultimately revealed rotting and required replacement. The tenants say another notification about dampness occurred when referring to the roof (an invoice provided by the landlord shows the roof being maintained at the end of 2024), but the landlord does not recall dampness being raised at that time.
The clearest evidence of a notification being given about damp problems occurred in October 2024, when the tenant explicitly wrote in a text message: “this house still gets real damp and gets mould all over the walls... and stuff in wardrobes has gone mouldy...” This message indicates that dampness had been a subject of prior conversation, although the exact timing and details of earlier discussions cannot be determined from the evidence.
As at October 2024, on the basis of the evidence before me, there was no extractor fan in the bathroom, no moisture barrier, an ongoing problem in the bathroom with the shower and a storm water pipe discharging under the house. Even though the HHS did not yet need to be fully met at that time, a property must still be free of unreasonable dampness. I am not satisfied that the landlord adequately investigated the concerns raised about dampness in October 2024. The moisture barrier was not installed (and then not installed complete) until the latter part of 2025, the shower not fixed until Mid 2025 and the bathroom extractor fan and storm water pipe resolved only after the tenancy ended.
The landlord disputes that mould was present, relying on observations from a cleaner and a property manager who had said she had seen a bit of mould. In providing her evidence to the Tribunal the property manager accepted she saw mould on the tenants’ belongings at the end of the tenancy but questioned how they were stored. She questioned if what she saw was mould or dust.
However, I accept that photographs provided do show mould: i. on the back of curtains and a net curtain; ii. on some personal items; iii. on areas of the Lockwood home’s wooden walls.
The mould on walls is not extensive as sometimes seen by the Tribunal in cases, but the walls are wooden and therefore less porous and would be less prone to mould than plasterboard. The mould on porous items such as curtains and a beanbag is more severe.
I am satisfied that the evidence makes it more likely than not that the home suffered from several issues likely to contribute to excess moisture.
I therefore find that the property was damp and that mould was more likely than not to be present. I am satisfied that the mould resulted from inherent problems with the property rather than from any failure by the tenants to clean or ventilate adequately. The tenants used the premises in a normal, reasonable way, the landlord says he regarded the tenants as keeping the home in a good tidy condition, evidence showed they used moisture-absorbing products. Accordingly, I find that it is more likely than not that the mould issues form part of the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises rather than a tenant failure to ventilate, heat and clean sufficiently. Compensation sought by the tenants
Compensation is intended to restore a party to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. It is not designed to punish the breaching party, but rather to fairly address the loss or harm that has resulted. The underlying principle is one of restoration to compensate for actual loss or detriment suffered.
Where a tenant claims compensation for stress or anxiety, the Tribunal requires some evidence to support that claim. While the Tribunal accepts that dealing with such issues can be upsetting in the absence of objective evidence demonstrating a significant impact on the tenant’s wellbeing, the Tribunal is not satisfied that compensable stress has been proven.
The tenant says she developed shingles due to stress. However, I am not satisfied that the shingles is proven (the document provided has no name and is not clear enough) and in any event there is no proven causal link between the tenancy issues and that medical condition. I decline to award compensation for stress.
The tenants may have carried out additional cleaning at the property due to the dampness. However, the amount of extra cleaning required, above what is normally expected in the course of a tenancy, has not been sufficiently established. Further, the tenants had the ability to mitigate any ongoing loss by applying to the Tribunal (for a work order) when the issues were not addressed.
I decline to award compensation for additional cleaning or cleaning products used at a non-defined point in this lengthy tenancy which are unsupported by receipts.
The tenants say they were required to dispose of numerous household items and seek compensation for waste-station costs.
I make no award for the $300 they estimate as future waste disposal fees. I am not satisfied that all items identified actually require disposal, as some photographed items showed no visible mould. The landlord is not responsible for those. I am also not satisfied that the tenants will, in fact, dispose of the items in the manner claimed. In the absence of clear evidence of both the need for disposal and the true amount and likelihood of the expense being incurred, compensation cannot be awarded.
I do award $115 for the cost of items that have actually been disposed of as evidenced by a receipt as actual loss.
While not all items disposed of may have been subject to mould, I find this sum fair given there would have also been time taken by the tenants to dispose of mouldy goods and travel costs as well.
The tenants seek $3,000 for the cost of their damaged contents. I decline to make this award. The level of compensation sought is not sufficiently supported by evidence. There are no receipts or other evidence to support the tenant’s handwritten list of items. I also do not accept that it is sufficiently proven that all of the items on the list were affected at all by mould (for example, the lounge chair upon which I could view no mould) or so affected to the extent that a replacement was required rather than cleaning the item concerned (e.g. such as low impacted non-porous items). Filing fee and suppression
Because the tenant has established a breach and has had a minor award made in their favour I award reimbursement of the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case (s 95A RTA).
Both parties have had limited success because a breach has been established but the compensation awarded is far below that claimed. I consider that neither party has been wholly or substantially successful and therefore I decline to award suppression of identifying details to either party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421680 — Tenancy dispute at 7 Salcombe Terrace, Welbourn, New Plymouth 4312

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421680 — Tenancy dispute at 7 Salcombe Terrace, Welbourn, New Plymouth 4312

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the remedy that the tenants want?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the remedy that the tenants want?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions