Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5428939 — Mould at 34 Rata Street, Wairakei, Taupo 3332
Published 15 April 2026 · Application 5428939
Mixed / unclear
- Mould
- State of repair
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
- Exemplary damages
- Harassment
- Leaks
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Mixed / unclear
From published order
Location
Taupo
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Steens
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,386.00 (BN-17484811) immediately apportioned as follows: The Landlord: $1,930.00 The Tenant: $456.00
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The Tenant sought a refund of her bond and opposed the Landlord’s claim against the bond. The Tenant made claims of her own for compensation and exemplary damages.
- The Landlord cross-applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- A Landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission: ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
- Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the Landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the Tenant proves otherwise.
- Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the Landlord’s insurance, the Tenant’s liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks’ rent (or four weeks’ market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
- Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord’s insurance, the tenant’s liability is limited to four weeks’ rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant’s conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
- Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
- Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
- I am satisfied the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. substantial contamination of carpet in two bedrooms, with tracking into the hallway and some contamination in the lounge, from human urine, faeces and some dog-related soiling; and b. a ripped curtain.
- On the carpet issue, I prefer the evidence of the professional carpet cleaner and the contemporaneous photographs over the Tenant’s evidence that the remaining odour was simply from wet carpet (or, as inferred, from prior tenants) following cleaning.
- The cleaner described a strong urine smell on entry, extensive staining and tracking through two bedrooms into the hallway, faecal staining in corners, and concluded that further in-place cleaning was impractical. The cleaner recommended uplift and disposal of the carpet and underlay, with treatment of the subfloor before reinstatement.
- The Tenant accepted that her daughter had a medical condition which could result in urine and faecal accidents, and accepted in substance that some incidents may have been missed notwithstanding her own cleaning efforts. The tenant also accepted that dogs were living in the premises also, and although she said they never defecated or urinated in either room, if she missed her daughters accidents it is plausible that she missed animal accidents also. That does not establish intentional damage, but it does support the Landlord’s case that the contamination occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear.
- I do not accept the Tenant’s argument that liability falls away because the carpet had been removed before the later meeting on 30 December 2025. The timing of removal may affect the precision with which the damage can later be assessed, but it does not negate the other evidence of serious contamination.
- There was sufficient photographic and cleaning evidence for me to make findings in despite of the carpet having been removed between 17 and 30 December.
- I am satisfied the carpet damage was caused carelessly rather than intentionally. The daughter’s medical condition explains how the incidents occurred, but not why the contamination remained at a level which made replacement reasonably necessary. The Tenant was responsible for keeping the premises clean and for the actions of people and animals at the premises with her permission. She has not disproved liability.
- I also accept the Landlord’s claim for the ripped curtain. The evidence was that it was new at the start of the tenancy, it was damaged during the tenancy, and the amount claimed for replacement is $280.00. This is more than fair wear and tear and the amount claimed is proved.
- As to quantum for the carpet, I am satisfied replacement of carpet in the affected rooms and adjoining hallway was reasonably necessary. I am not satisfied it was reasonable to pass on to the Tenant the cost of replacing all carpet throughout the dwelling, for this kind of tenancy-purposed accommodation.
- I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The Landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached her obligations, and should not be better or worse off.
- In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy and its likely remaining useful life. The evidence was that the carpet was about 12 years old, but also that it was in generally good to fair condition at the start of the tenancy, subject to a small pre-existing stain in one bedroom. The photographs confirm this.
- Doing the best I can on the evidence, I assess the Landlord’s reasonable compensable loss for the carpet at $1,650.00. That reflects that the soiling damage made replacement in the affected rooms and adjoining hallway reasonably necessary.
- The total amount awarded to the landlord is therefore $1,930.00, being $1,650.00 for carpet damage and $280.00 for the curtain.
Did the Landlord fail in its obligations owed to the Tenant?
Maintenance – s 45
- The Tenant claims that the Landlord breached obligations under s 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and seeks compensation and exemplary damages. The Tenant’s allegations concern mould inside the premises and a – ostensibly connected - roof leak, fencing, and the Landlords’ conduct following the tenancy.
- Under s 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00: s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied the Tenant has proved any breach of section 45.
- As to the roof leak and mould, the Tenant’s account shifted as to when the issue was first raised, and she proved unreliable on dates on at least two occasions. I explained to her why I must be critical of her evidence in this regard. Overall, the Landlord’s recollection of timing was stronger.
- There was evidence of discussions between the parties about a roof inspection by the Landlord. I do not accept on this evidence that there was an extensive (structural) mould issue or a prolonged failure by the Landlord to address a known serious leak such as would amount to a proved breach of s 45.
- It transpires that there was a leak, but it was a minor one on the evidence before me. More importantly, however, aside from one photograph showing a small patch of mould on the ceiling near the leak, roughly the size of a ten-cent coin, there was little reliable evidence of any wider mould or dampness at the premises of a kind that would establish that the premises were not maintained in a reasonable state of repair, or that the Landlord was in breach of s 45.
- As to the fence and gate, the evidence was conflicting and unsatisfactory on both sides. There were no photographs of the fence before the tenancy, or before the Tenant’s own, alleged, fence improvements, and no clear messages from the Tenant requiring full replacement.
- Part of the fence did in fact fail and the Tenant claim it fell onto her boat, causing some damage. I accept that the Tenant was inconvenienced by being without a proper fence for about a week, and that the neighbour temporarily bolted the fallen section back against the existing posts. There is limited evidence as to whether it was an issue after that fix.
- However, the real issue is not whether the fence fell, but whether the Tenant has proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the Landlord failed to maintain the fence in a reasonable state of repair, either by knowing or by constructive knowledge (that term means, that they ought to have known), that it required repair, and then failing to act. On this issue, the evidence was limited and conflicted.
- The Tenant said she had raised concerns about the fence, but was unclear about when, and there were no clear messages or other contemporaneous records showing she had notified the Landlord that the fence was unsafe and required replacement, or that it posed an immediate risk to property. (If the fence was so unstable, as the Tenant claims, it is unclear to me why she parked her boat next to it. This was not put to the Tenant.)
- The fence had already been reinstated when the Landlord heard about it and the gate was operational. The Landlord had offered to provide materials to the Tenant to repair the fence, but they were sceptical about why the fence had fallen over to begin with; I gather they thought the Tenant was somehow responsible, but they had not solid proof either way. The Tenant also relied in part on what neighbours had apparently said about their own dealings with the Landlord in relation to the replacement of boundary fencing between the properties. I place little weight on that information. It is hearsay, relates to another fence, and does not assist greatly in determining the condition of this particular fence at the relevant time. I also have no pictures of that fence.
- Against that, the Landlord said the fence in question was not in poor condition. The Landlord pointed to the fact it had survived Cyclone Gabrielle when another rear fence had not and said that other fencing at the property had in fact been replaced when needed.
- The Landlord also said the Tenant, or her household had interfered with the fence, including by removing a post to get a caravan in and by installing a post and attaching the fence to it. The Tenant denied removing a post, but it was at least clear that some work had been undertaken by or for the Tenant in that area. There were no photographs showing the state of the fence before those works, and no expert or other reliable evidence from which I could determine whether the failure was due to age and neglect, storm damage, poor ground conditions, or subsequent interference.
- The Landlord indicated they had offered to provide replacement materials to reinstate the fence. That issue was directly disputed, and the filed evidence did not resolve it.
- In those circumstances, I cannot safely find that the Landlord failed to maintain the fence in a reasonable state of repair. At most, the evidence establishes that the fence failed and that there was then a dispute about who was liable. Had the Tenant expressly asked the Landlord to replace the fence I may have approached the matter differently, but again, there was limited evidence of this.
- For the same reasons set out above, I find that the Tenant has not established that the Landlord is liable for the claimed cost of repairing the boat.
Did the Landlord harass the Tenant or otherwise breach her quiet enjoyment?
- The Tenant also alleged harassment and intimidation by the Landlords and their son, and said her quiet enjoyment was breached.
- Under s 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a Tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the Landlord, and the Landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the Tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the use of the premises. A contravention of s 38(2) which amounts to harassment is an unlawful act.
- The factual allegations were these. First, the Tenant said that at the final inspection on 17 December 2025 there were three vehicles present, including the Landlords’ adult son, and that she felt intimidated. She said there was discussion about smell in the carpet, but no mention of major staining, no exit report was signed, and she left believing matters would be revisited after the carpet had dried.
- Secondly, she said that when she attended again on 30 December 2025 with her partner, again there were three vehicles, she felt outnumbered, was ushered into the house by the son, and found that the carpet had already been uplifted and removed. In her application she described being blocked in, verbally abused, and confronted by multiple family members.
- Thirdly, she alleged that after the tenancy ended the Landlords’ son came to her rural property, revved his Audi, and hand-delivered mail addressed to the tenancy address by placing it in her letterbox. This resulted in her delivering a trespass notice to the Landlord’s home, placing the notice in their letterbox.
- At hearing, that allegation was put as having occurred on or about 1 February 2026, although the Tenant was not clear on the exact date. Following the hearing, the parties were permitted to file limited evidence on this point, and the Tenant filed her own Messenger exchange with a proposed witness (not at the hearing) referred instead to “Wednesday the 30th Jan” when they had gone to town and returned to find hand-delivered mail in the mailbox.
- The Landlords denied harassing the Tenant. Their position was that on 17 December 2025 they attended for the arranged inspection, discussed the smell in the carpet after cleaning, and then left. In relation to the alleged 30 December 2025 harassment, their evidence was that they met outside the property to discuss the bond and carpet issue, that vehicles were parked where they were because of the practical layout at the site, and that the Tenant was not blocked in. They also relied on their son’s work roster from MyTimesheets to say he was working on Sunday 1 February 2026 and therefore could not have attended at the Tenant’s rural address on that date.
- Doing the best I can with the evidence, I accept that the end of this tenancy was tense and that the Tenant genuinely felt uncomfortable and, at least subjectively, intimidated by the Landlords’ son being present at these meetings.
- I also accept that the presence of several family members and vehicles at what ought ordinarily to have been straightforward end-of-tenancy discussions was capable of making the situation feel confrontational. However, subjective discomfort is not enough. The question is whether the Landlords caused or permitted an interference with the Tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the use of the premises, and whether any such conduct amounted to harassment.
- I am not satisfied that threshold is met in relation to the 17 December or 30 December meetings. Those meetings were connected to end-of-tenancy inspection and bond issues. The tenancy was at an end, as was the covenant of quiet enjoyment.
- Neither party was obliged to be present if they were uncomfortable. The evidence does not establish threats, physical intimidation, or conduct of the kind ordinarily associated with harassment.
- The Tenant says she was blocked in and verbally abused; the Landlords deny that. There is no independent evidence resolving that contest. The son’s presence may have been unnecessary and unhelpful, and the overall handling of the dispute may have aggravated matters, but on the evidence before me I cannot safely find that the Landlords caused or permitted harassment within the meaning of s 38.
- The allegation about attendance at the Tenant’s rural property is weaker still. There is a significant inconsistency in the Tenant’s own account as to date. In the hearing notes the allegation was that this occurred on 1 February 2026. The Messenger screenshot later relied on by the Tenant refers instead to “Wednesday the 30th Jan”. That is problematic on its face. Quite apart from the inconsistency between 30 January and 1 February, 30 January 2026 was not a Wednesday, it was a Friday. The witness exchange therefore tends to show only that the Tenant was later seeking support for an allegation that mail had been found in the mailbox after returning from town. It does not identify who delivered the mail, and it does not prove the more serious allegation that the Landlords’ son attended, revved his vehicle, or otherwise harassed the Tenant.
- As for the MyTimesheets screenshot, I do not treat it as conclusive. An “approved” entry in that system does not necessarily mean the underlying data is immutable, and without the underlying audit trail, approval history, admin notes, or raw logs, the screenshot alone cannot rule out retrospective alteration. But that only means the Landlords’ roster evidence is not decisive. It does not fill the evidential gap in the Tenant’s case.
- The burden remained on the Tenant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the Landlords or their son engaged in the conduct alleged. On the material before me, she has not done so.
- In any event, much of the conduct complained of was said to have occurred after the tenancy had ended, and the alleged visit to the Tenant’s new rural address was not an interference with her use of the rented premises. That further weakens reliance on s 38 in this context.
- Taking all of that together, I am not satisfied that the Landlords caused or permitted any interference with the Tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the use of the premises amounting to a breach of s 38, nor am I satisfied that harassment has been proved. This aspect of the Tenant’s claim is therefore dismissed.
- I am not satisfied that any separate amount should be awarded to either party for the filing fees.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s13, s38, s38(2), s40(2), s45, s45(1A), s49B, s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: state of repair
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5428939?
The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,386.00 (BN-17484811) immediately
How much money was awarded in case 5428939?
Verified claim lines are listed on this page.
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5428939?
The primary dispute was Mould. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Leaks.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5428939?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13436749-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.