Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5432413 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1, 21 Napier Avenue, Takapuna, Auckland 0622
Decided 30 Jun 2026 · Published 30 Jun 2026 · Application 5432413
- Compensation
- Leaks
- Mould & damp
- State of repair
Order
- Pro Management (Auckland) Limited As Agent For Sen Liu & Qian Niu must pay Josh Cameron Dow $2280.00 being compensation.
- The landlord must investigate the cause of the elevated moisture levels identified in the Mykes Healthy Indoor Environments Moisture Assessment Report dated 24 March 2026 and complete all works necessary to return the moisture levels in the bathroom and adjoining room to normal levels. The landlord must also commission follow-up moisture testing confirming that the remedial works have been successful, on or before Wednesday, 15 July 2026.
- As an alternative to compliance with Order 2, or as a consequence of non- compliance with order 2 the landlord must pay the tenant $3000.00 immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- This matter first came before the Tribunal on 23 March 2026. At that time, the applicant alleged that there had been a leak at the property at the end of 2025. The landlord attended within three days, cleaned the floor, and remedied the leak. In my earlier order, I noted that the landlord's response time was appropriate.
- However, the tenant alleged that testing he had undertaken himself using a moisture meter he had purchased showed continued moisture readings of approximately 70%, and he remained adamant that there were elevated moisture levels in the bathroom and in his adjoining bedroom.
- The landlord was equally adamant that this was not the case and did not think any further investigation was warranted. Accordingly, I adjourned the matter and directed the landlord to commission an independent moisture assessment.
- The landlord subsequently filed with the Tribunal a moisture assessment report prepared by Mykes Healthy Indoor Environments on 24 March 2026. This assessment was conducted just under three months after the leak. The report confirmed elevated moisture meter readings above the baseline measurements taken from unaffected areas confirming the tenants allegation.
- During the hearing, Mr Neil Hall, the assessor and author of the report, attended by telephone to give evidence. I asked Mr Hall to contextualise his findings, as it was not apparent from the report alone what was meant by "elevated" or how significant the moisture levels were.
- Mr Hall explained that baseline readings depend upon the material being tested, and that baseline measurements are established by testing unaffected areas of the same material. The baseline readings appear green and were recorded as 129 and 144. Mr Hall stated that, based on those baseline readings, dry timber of the type present at the property, which appeared to be pine, would ordinarily produce green readings below 200. He explained that yellow readings would be approximately between 200 and 250 would constitute a yellow and would indicate some moisture. Readings above 250 would register in the red range and indicate that the material was wet.
- Mr Hall's testing of the affected areas in the toilet and bathroom recorded readings of 676 and 577 respectively, more than double the threshold at which the material would ordinarily be regarded as wet.
- Mr Hall summarised his opinion by stating that he would not allow his own children to live in an area with moisture readings of that nature. He acknowledged, however, that no air quality assessment or mould testing had been undertaken, as those matters were outside the scope of his instructions due to cost.
- The applicant seeks compensation. He asks that $180 per week be refunded for the six-week period following the leak during which he chose not to use the affected bedroom, together with compensation at 30% of that weekly amount for the period thereafter until the hearing. He also seeks work orders requiring the landlord to investigate the underlying cause of the moisture and remedy the issue.
- The landlord was represented by Mr Scott Shi of Pro Management Limited. Initially, Mr Shi appeared dismissive of the matter. He suggested that the moisture assessment had been commissioned on the landlord's own initiative, rather than pursuant to an order of the Tribunal, and downplayed the issue as involving only a minor leak.
- After Mr Hall gave evidence, Mr Shi submitted that the landlord had already given notice to end the fixed-term tenancy and that rectifying the issue would require removal of the walls. His evidence was contradictory. On the one hand, he suggested that substantial remedial work would be required; on the other, he maintained that the issue was negligible.
- On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the concerns raised by the tenant were well founded.
- Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. At the time of my earlier order, Mr Shis suggestion was that the tenant was overstating the issue. However, by 24 March 2026, when the moisture assessment was received, the landlord was fully aware that there was a significant moisture issue. The landlord accepts that, despite that knowledge, no further action was taken. As such, I am satisfied that, the landlord was in breach of section 45(1)(b). The landlord made no attempt to comply with its statutory obligations and, even at the hearing, indicated that it had no intention of undertaking remedial work before the tenancy ends on 6 September 2026.
- In those circumstances, the compensation sought by the tenant is appropriate. I calculate compensation at $180 per week for the six-week period during which the applicant did not use the affected bedroom, totalling $1,080. I also award compensation of $60.00, for the subsequent period of 20 weeks, amounting to $1,200. The total compensation awarded is therefore $2,280.00
- Turning to the work order, the landlord submitted that significant remediation would be required to rectify the highly elevated moisture levels identified in Mr Hall's report. There was little evidential basis for that submission. Rather, it appeared consistent with the landlord's general approach throughout these proceedings of minimising the seriousness of the problem while simultaneously overstating the burden of compliance.
- Mr Shi's principal explanation was that the owners were a young couple who could not afford to undertake the repairs. He made no meaningful attempt to justify the landlord's failure to comply with its statutory obligations or to defend the ongoing breach.
- Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act requires the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes. Requiring further evidence as to the precise scope of the remedial work would inevitably require the matter to be adjourned. Given the Tribunal's scheduling timeframes, it is unlikely that the matter would be reheard before the tenancy has ended.
- Section 78(2) accommodates that uncertainty by requiring the Tribunal to specify that, if a work order is not complied with, the landlord must instead pay a specified monetary amount in lieu of compliance.
- Accordingly, I have ordered that Pro Management Limited undertake all repairs necessary to reduce the moisture levels in the affected areas to normal readings and commission an independent report confirming that the issue has been remedied on or before Wednesday 15 July 2026.
- If the landlord fails or chooses not to comply with that work order, they must instead pay the tenants the sum of $3,000 immediately.
- As the applicant has been successful, I have awarded the filing fee.