What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5423949 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5423949?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5423949?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5423949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13270680-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5423949 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5423949?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5423949?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5423949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13270680-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5423949 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 28 July 2023.
Arataki Ministries is the sub-landlord of this tenancy. Arataki Ministries has a tenancy agreement with the head-landlord, Propertyscouts Whangarei (as agent for the owner).
Arataki Ministries issued a 90-day termination notice on 17 December 2025.
The tenants’ application raises issues relating to mould and moisture ingress, and seeks an order requiring the landlord to carry out air quality testing. The tenants also argue that the landlord’s termination notice was a retaliatory notice.
The hearing took place in [City] on 11 March 2026. Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Williams and Ms McFarland represented Arataki Ministries. [Contractor] ([Asbestos removal company]) and Ms de Beer (Propertyscouts) participated in the hearing as witnesses. Mould / moisture ingress
[Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] said that during their tenancy they noticed ‘bubbling’ and some flaking of the paint on the walls in the lounge, cracks in the paint on the lounge ceiling, and the skirting board beginning to separate from the wall.
In November 2025, workmen arrived on site and replaced the roof on all of the units at this address (five in total).
On or around 5 November, [Tenant 1] accidentally rolled into the lounge wall when he was sleeping there. [Tenant 1] said that the impact was relatively minimal, but the gib broke.
[Tenant 1] repaired the wall promptly. When he did so, he noticed what appeared to be mould and dampness in the wall cavity. He noticed that the Gib board was crumbling. He took some photographs of this.
The landlord carried out an inspection in early December. [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 1] told the landlord about the mould issue and about two other maintenance issues (broken window latch, leaking sink).
The landlord repaired the window latch and kitchen sink.
On 17 December, the landlord issued notice to terminate the tenancy.
[Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] contacted [Contractor] ([Asbestos removal company]). [Contractor] came to the property. By that time, [Tenant 1] had repaired the damage to the wall in the lounge so [Contractor] could not inspect the wall cavity. He noted the cracks in the lounge ceiling and bubbling on the walls.
He inspected underneath the house. There he found a slow leak from a pipe and an area of staining / mould in the location of that leak. There was also a small amount of pooled water on top of the ground moisture barrier.
He inspected in the ceiling cavity. He noted that the property had recently been re-roofed and he could not see any moisture damage in that area.
[Contractor] recommended that the tenants contact [mould specialist], a mould specialist based in Kerikeri. [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] said that they could not afford to pay for [mould specialist] to travel to the property and prepare a formal report, but they sent him some photographs of the internal wall cavity and [mould specialist] responded by email as follows: From looking at the photos and your timeline of events, it would strongly suggest that water ingress / moisture issues have been going on for some time. In simple terms if you can see mould you have mould. We could surface sample it but it would very likely just tell us that we have mould [...] In relation to your family’s health and to determine if this exposure is a likely reason for the numerous health issues – I would recommend an airborne mycotoxin targeted to the room / area of concern to evaluate the inhalable risk within that space ($1395 plus GST) which includes sampling / reporting / fieldwork time up to 2 hours.
Mr Williams and Ms McFarland said that there were no signs of mould at the property during any of the property inspections. With Propertyscouts, they checked in the areas that mould usually appears, including lifting the carpet in the corner of the lounge and checking underneath it, and checking the backs of curtains.
They said that they were not aware of complaints from any of their other tenants at this address about dampness or mould. They had no information about why the owner had the property re-roofed. They said that they were not aware that this work was going to take place.
Ms de Beer said that the owner wanted to replace the roof as part of a general upgrade of the premises. She was not aware of any complaints / concerns from any of the tenants about dampness or mould until September 2025 when the tenant of Unit B complained of a minor leak. This brought forward the roofing work, which was carried out in November 2025.
Landlords have a legal duty to meet the healthy homes standards 1 and to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 2
The healthy homes standards impose obligations on landlords in respect of heating, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage, and ventilation.
[Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] said that they recently arranged for a healthy homes inspection of the property but they have not yet received the report.
At the time of hearing, there is no evidence to suggest that the premises are not healthy homes compliant.
The landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises is not a warranty that the premises will not suffer any defect during the tenancy. Rather, it is an obligation on the landlord to respond promptly and appropriately to any repair issues that come to their attention. 3
In this instance: a. There is sufficient evidence to show moisture ingress into the wall cavities in the lounge. [Tenant 1]’s photographs of the open wall cavity show discolouration that is consistent with excessive moisture in that area. This is also supported by [mould specialist]’s commentary on the photographs. b. The visible signs of this moisture ingress were bubbling of the paint on the walls and cracks on the paint in the ceiling in the lounge. There is no evidence of persistent or excessive mould on the painted side of the walls, or on any other surfaces in the house. 1 Section 45(1)(bb) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 3 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 c. [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2]’s young daughter suffered health problems during the tenancy, and I understand their concern that the presence of mould in the house may have contributed to those problems. However, it is very difficult to establish cause and effect, and there is simply not enough evidence for me to make a positive finding that there was mould in the air in the premises that compromised the health of the occupants. d. Arataki Ministries was not aware of the mould in the internal wall cavities until after [Tenant 1] accidentally damaged the wall in November 2025. e. Arataki Ministries / Propertyscouts carried out a basic visual inspection for mould, and there was no visible mould. f. [Contractor]’s inspection showed a relatively minor leak and associated water damage underneath the house, unrelated to the wall cavity issue. g. The tenants received information from [mould specialist] in January 2026, recommending “mycotoxin testing”. By then, Arataki Ministries had given the tenant 90-days’ notice, and the tenancy was going to end in March 2026 pursuant to that notice.
My finding is that the landlord’s responses and actions were reasonable, having regard to the information that was available to them at the time.
There was no evidence of mould before November 2025. After November, the only evidence was the tenants’ photographs of the open wall cavity, before the repair. The landlord monitored for visual signs of mould inside the house, but there were none.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider mycotoxin testing, or to take its own professional advice about mould risk in this property, if this was a continuing tenancy. However, as discussed in more detail below, Arataki Ministries made the decision not only to end the tenancy but also to end their involvement as a sub-landlord. In those circumstances, it was reasonable for Arataki Ministries to not embark on mycotoxin testing.
Therefore I find that there is no proven breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations, and no basis for an award of compensation of other damages under this heading. Termination notice
A landlord may issue a 90-day notice to terminate a periodic tenancy. 4
The Tribunal may make an order setting aside a landlord’s termination notice, and may award exemplary damages of up to $6,500, if the Tribunal is satisfied that the notice was retaliatory. 4 Section 51(1) RTA
A retaliatory notice is one where, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated by the tenant exercising a legal right or power or making a complaint about the tenancy. 5
Arataki Ministries issued a termination notice on 17 December 2025.
[Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] argued that the notice was retaliatory because it was a response to them telling Arataki Ministries about the mould behind the wall. They noted that Arataki quickly addressed the two other maintenance issues that they raised at the December inspection, but it seemed that the mould problem was something that Arataki did not want to address.
At the hearing, Mr Williams said that this was not the reason for termination. Mr Williams explained that Arataki provide housing in the addiction and mental health space. Their previous model was to rent properties which they then sub- tenanted (with the head-landlord’s consent) to their clients. Mr Williams explained that Arataki is now moving away from this model. Arataki owns several properties that it will continue to rent out, but it is moving to a model of providing tenancy support to its clients rather than providing accommodation in the capacity of a sub-landlord.
Mr Williams said that Arataki has already issued termination notices to many of its tenants and is continuing to do so as part of that change of strategy.
I acknowledge that the timing of the termination in this instance raised an inference, or at least a concern, that the notice may have been a response to the tenants making Arataki aware of the mould inside the lounge walls.
However, I accept Mr Williams’ oral evidence, which was supported by Ms de Beer, about the broader change that Arataki is undertaking. Arataki, like all other landlords, is not obliged to continue being a landlord. I also note that Arataki issued the notice in December, before there was any suggestion of costly mycotoxin testing, so this is not a case of the landlord terminating the tenancy to avoid a known cost.
My finding is that it is not proven that Arataki issued the termination notice in response to the tenants exercise their legal right to require Arataki to investigate and remedy the mould issue. Arataki was motivated by its decision to cease being a sub-landlord. Therefore, this was not a retaliatory notice. Outcome, name suppression
The tenants’ application raised genuine and legitimate concerns about mould and about the termination notice. 5 Section 54(2)(a) RTA
As noted above, the tenants have proven that there was moisture ingress which caused mould development in the wall cavity in the lounge during their tenancy.
However, it is not proven that Arataki Ministries failed to meet its duty to maintain the premises.
It is also not proven that the termination notice dated 17 December 2025 was a retaliatory notice.
Because are no proven breaches of legal duties owed by the landlord, the outcome must be that the application is dismissed. This should not be interpreted as a finding that the tenant’s application was baseless or that their concerns were not genuine and reasonable.
The tenants sought name suppression.
Although the tenants were not “substantially successful” in the proceedings, 6 it is appropriate to exercise the Tribunal’s discretion to grant name suppression to any party. 7 This decision includes personal information about the tenants. I have also had regard to the tenants’ comments at the hearing that they are finding it difficult to find new accommodation. Any risk that this order could be misused in a way that prejudices the tenants’ opportunity to find new housing would be unjust to the tenants.
Name suppression is granted to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5423949 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5423949 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions