What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5427030 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 to [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5427030?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427030?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427030?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13617141-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5427030 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 to [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5427030?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427030?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427030?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13617141-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 2, 15 Harakeke Street, Riccarton, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5427030 — Mould & damp

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The tenant’s claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond, but she has not filed a cross claim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of their claim. Because the landlord has not filed an application, the bond must be refunded in full to the tenant. Maintenance and Healthy Homes
The tenant also claims compensation for breach of the landlord’s obligations relating to the condition of the premises. Among other things the tenant says that the premises suffered from an accumulation of mould during the tenancy and that it affected her and children’s health. Law
Section 45 of the Act provides that the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety and ensure that the premises comply with Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
The applicant is required to prove each of their claims to the civil law standard of proof, namely on the balance of probabilities. That means that the applicant must provide enough evidence to prove that the factual basis for each clam is more likely than not to be true. Background
This tenancy started in January 2025 and ended in December 2025 after the tenant served a termination notice.
The premises are a two-bedroom 1960s unit between other contiguous similar units.
The landlord has owned the premises for the past two and a half years. Before that it was owned by her father and sister. It has been a rental property since the father bought it in 1997.
The landlord took over the previous tenancy and then granted this tenancy.
The landlord lives in Australia and her sister acts as her agent in New Zealand when she is not here. The sister is named as the landlord’s New Zealand agent in the tenancy agreement.
The tenant said that she began to have concerns about mould in the premises in August. She sent an email to the landlord on 19 August expressing her concerns. In it, she said that the heat pump was working.
The landlord was in New Zealand at the time, and she and her sister tried to arrange a time to inspect the premises. For some reason the parties could not agree on a mutually convenient time and there was no inspection. The landlord asserted that the tenant denied her access to the premises. My impression is that there was fault on both sides. I note that the landlord could have served a notice requiring access for an inspection. She said that she did not think that the tenant would allow her in.
At about the same time the tenant was referred to Tamaiti Healthy Homes who inspected the premises on 26 August. They produced a report on 18 September. The tenant said that she sent the report to the landlord, but the landlord denied that. The tenant then accepted that she did not send the landlord the report. The first time that the landlord saw the report was during the hearing.
The report stated that the extractor fan in the bathroom was very old, extremely noisy and did not function efficiently, that the heat pump in the living area was not functioning at all and that one of the bedrooms had mould on the ceiling and window frame and was uninhabitable and there was also mould in the other bedroom. Discussion
To be successful in her claim relating to the condition of the premises the tenant must prove that the landlord has been in breach of one or more of her relevant obligations. The presence of mould does not prove that the landlord is in breach of one of those obligations. It may or may not be a consequence of a breach. There are possible causes of mould other than a defect of the premises.
The primary question is, were the premises defective in some way during the tenancy? The best evidence that the tenant has produced comes from the Tamaiti report. But there are problems with that.
The most obvious problem is that the report was not sent to the landlord and so she was not aware of its findings. Where there is a defect, the landlord must usually be aware of it before they come under a duty to remedy it or become liable to compensate the tenant.
In relation to the heat pump, the tenant had told the landlord that it was working and there is no evidence that the landlord was told that it wasn’t. Because the landlord was not made aware of a problem with the heat pump, she cannot be held responsible for it. I note as well that the landlord produced an invoice for servicing the hear pump after the tenancy ended and there is no indication from it that it was not working. The technician did find that the remote was missing its back and so was not working.
By the same reasoning, the landlord cannot be held responsible for a faulty bathroom fan.
I accept that there was mould in the premises. That has been proved by the Tamaiti report and photographs provided by the tenant. As I have said, that alone does not prove a defect or failure to meet HHS.
Possibly the tenant’s best point is that after she reported mould in the premises to the landlord, she did not inspect the premises to investigate the cause. In some circumstances that can allow an inference to be drawn that there is a defect. A landlord should not be able to ignore a problem and then claim that the tenant has not provided hard evidence to prove that there was a defect. In that sense, landlords who fail to investigate a genuine complaint are at risk of an adverse finding being made against them.
In this case the landlord did not ignore the problem. She made attempts to arrange an inspection. The tenant was unusually unaccommodating in terms of allowing an inspection. The landlord could have made more effort, but I accept that she felt it would not make a difference. It is striking that given the seriousness of the situation as presented by the tenant (she said that one of her children had to go a live with her grandmother because of the effect of mould on her health) that the tenant did not make more effort to facilitate access to the premises.
There is also the fact that the tenant did not report a specific defect. She reported the presence of mould which is not necessarily an indicator of a defect.
At the hearing, the landlord said that there was a HHS report for the premises. I asked her to provide it to the Tribunal and she has done so. The report dated 26 January 2021 found the premises largely compliant. Ceiling insulation and draughts needed attention, and the landlord has provided evidence that they were attended to. Result
The tenant has not produced enough evidence to prove her claims. If the Tamaiti report had been provided to the landlord possibly the result would have been different. But even then, there was good evidence from the landlord that the premises were compliant. It follows that the apart from her claim to the bond, the tenant’s claims must be dismissed.
I note that the landlord has produced evidence in support of post tenancy claims. But without an application, I cannot consider them.
I make no order for payment of the filing fee.
There was no application for name suppression.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The tenant’s claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond, but she has not filed a cross claim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of their claim. Because the landlord has not filed an application, the bond must be refunded in full to the tenant. Maintenance and Healthy Homes
The tenant also claims compensation for breach of the landlord’s obligations relating to the condition of the premises. Among other things the tenant says that the premises suffered from an accumulation of mould during the tenancy and that it affected her and children’s health. Law
Section 45 of the Act provides that the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety and ensure that the premises comply with Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
The applicant is required to prove each of their claims to the civil law standard of proof, namely on the balance of probabilities. That means that the applicant must provide enough evidence to prove that the factual basis for each clam is more likely than not to be true. Background
This tenancy started in January 2025 and ended in December 2025 after the tenant served a termination notice.
The premises are a two-bedroom 1960s unit between other contiguous similar units.
The landlord has owned the premises for the past two and a half years. Before that it was owned by her father and sister. It has been a rental property since the father bought it in 1997.
The landlord took over the previous tenancy and then granted this tenancy.
The landlord lives in Australia and her sister acts as her agent in New Zealand when she is not here. The sister is named as the landlord’s New Zealand agent in the tenancy agreement.
The tenant said that she began to have concerns about mould in the premises in August. She sent an email to the landlord on 19 August expressing her concerns. In it, she said that the heat pump was working.
The landlord was in New Zealand at the time, and she and her sister tried to arrange a time to inspect the premises. For some reason the parties could not agree on a mutually convenient time and there was no inspection. The landlord asserted that the tenant denied her access to the premises. My impression is that there was fault on both sides. I note that the landlord could have served a notice requiring access for an inspection. She said that she did not think that the tenant would allow her in.
At about the same time the tenant was referred to Tamaiti Healthy Homes who inspected the premises on 26 August. They produced a report on 18 September. The tenant said that she sent the report to the landlord, but the landlord denied that. The tenant then accepted that she did not send the landlord the report. The first time that the landlord saw the report was during the hearing.
The report stated that the extractor fan in the bathroom was very old, extremely noisy and did not function efficiently, that the heat pump in the living area was not functioning at all and that one of the bedrooms had mould on the ceiling and window frame and was uninhabitable and there was also mould in the other bedroom. Discussion
To be successful in her claim relating to the condition of the premises the tenant must prove that the landlord has been in breach of one or more of her relevant obligations. The presence of mould does not prove that the landlord is in breach of one of those obligations. It may or may not be a consequence of a breach. There are possible causes of mould other than a defect of the premises.
The primary question is, were the premises defective in some way during the tenancy? The best evidence that the tenant has produced comes from the Tamaiti report. But there are problems with that.
The most obvious problem is that the report was not sent to the landlord and so she was not aware of its findings. Where there is a defect, the landlord must usually be aware of it before they come under a duty to remedy it or become liable to compensate the tenant.
In relation to the heat pump, the tenant had told the landlord that it was working and there is no evidence that the landlord was told that it wasn’t. Because the landlord was not made aware of a problem with the heat pump, she cannot be held responsible for it. I note as well that the landlord produced an invoice for servicing the hear pump after the tenancy ended and there is no indication from it that it was not working. The technician did find that the remote was missing its back and so was not working.
By the same reasoning, the landlord cannot be held responsible for a faulty bathroom fan.
I accept that there was mould in the premises. That has been proved by the Tamaiti report and photographs provided by the tenant. As I have said, that alone does not prove a defect or failure to meet HHS.
Possibly the tenant’s best point is that after she reported mould in the premises to the landlord, she did not inspect the premises to investigate the cause. In some circumstances that can allow an inference to be drawn that there is a defect. A landlord should not be able to ignore a problem and then claim that the tenant has not provided hard evidence to prove that there was a defect. In that sense, landlords who fail to investigate a genuine complaint are at risk of an adverse finding being made against them.
In this case the landlord did not ignore the problem. She made attempts to arrange an inspection. The tenant was unusually unaccommodating in terms of allowing an inspection. The landlord could have made more effort, but I accept that she felt it would not make a difference. It is striking that given the seriousness of the situation as presented by the tenant (she said that one of her children had to go a live with her grandmother because of the effect of mould on her health) that the tenant did not make more effort to facilitate access to the premises.
There is also the fact that the tenant did not report a specific defect. She reported the presence of mould which is not necessarily an indicator of a defect.
At the hearing, the landlord said that there was a HHS report for the premises. I asked her to provide it to the Tribunal and she has done so. The report dated 26 January 2021 found the premises largely compliant. Ceiling insulation and draughts needed attention, and the landlord has provided evidence that they were attended to. Result
The tenant has not produced enough evidence to prove her claims. If the Tamaiti report had been provided to the landlord possibly the result would have been different. But even then, there was good evidence from the landlord that the premises were compliant. It follows that the apart from her claim to the bond, the tenant’s claims must be dismissed.
I note that the landlord has produced evidence in support of post tenancy claims. But without an application, I cannot consider them.
I make no order for payment of the filing fee.
There was no application for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427030 — Mould & damp at Flat 2, 15 Harakeke Street, Riccarton, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427030 — Mould & damp at Flat 2, 15 Harakeke Street, Riccarton, Christchurch 8011

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