What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5437269 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5437269?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5437269?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5437269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13383991-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5437269 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5437269?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5437269?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5437269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13383991-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Giffords Creek Lane, Rapaura, RD 3, Blenheim 7273 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5437269 — Mould & damp

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The landlord sought compensation for paint damage to a bathroom wall and windows.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.” Background
This tenancy commenced 4 March 2020 and ended 8 December 2025.
The property was under a series of property managers, but this vacated application was made by the owner.
In 2020 the bathroom was fully renovated, including relining and repainting.
Flaking of the paint finish around the external opening bathroom window was noticed by the tenants and reported to their agent in 2023. The problem was raised in at least two routine inspection reports (Nov 2023 and Nov 2024) that were provided to the owner.
The owner had the painter return in early 2024 and a verbal assessment was that moisture ingress was the cause. A repair strategy was discussed but not actioned.
No notice was provided to the tenants regarding any behavioural concerns that may be causing the damage.
The bathroom is mechanically ventilated with opening windows. The bathroom is south facing and shaded by large trees (the need for vegetation maintenance were raised in routine inspection reports).
It is accepted the failing paint was on the external wall only.
The tenancy ended and the agent has subsequently returned the bond to the tenant, seemingly aware of this owner application with a claim against the bond.
To summarize, the bathroom was freshly painted in 2020. It started to fail in 2023, and deterioration continued. Despite moisture ingress being raised at the time, no subsequent discussion with the tenants, from either the owner or agents, raised tenant behavioural concerns that might be contributing to the damage. No repair was undertaken.
The owner has moved back into the premises and the wall remains “as was”. Quotes for repainting were provided. Legal issues for consideration Tenant responsibilities
Section 40(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires the tenant keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy and (d) requires the tenant to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs Landlord responsibilities
The landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its 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.
The tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA as stated above.
Therefore, 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. Mitigation of loss
Section 49 RTA requires where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, “the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract”.
In Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726 the District Court confirmed the test of what the landlord ought to do to mitigate its loss is a factual one and depends on: a. Whether the landlord took all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss; and b. More particularly, whether it acted reasonably having regard to all the circumstances of the case. Wear and tear
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
In Nixon v Geal-Otter DC North Shore, 30 January 1996, [1996] RTHNZ 2, 1996 WL 35049225, Judge Thorburn stated: Adjudicators and the Court must be careful to recognise that in any tenancy there will be a deterioration of condition because of fair wear and tear. It can be no other way. Mere use of premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration of condition Discussion
The photos and other evidence establish an ongoing deterioration of the bathroom externally facing wall and windows. That is accepted. The cause is more challenging.
The tenants notified the landlord of the flaking as they are required to do. This issue was raised repeatedly with no immediate repair, nor any notice to the tenants regarding any purported failure by them that may be contributing to the obvious damage.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenants are responsible for the damage as evidenced and the application must be dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The landlord sought compensation for paint damage to a bathroom wall and windows.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.” Background
This tenancy commenced 4 March 2020 and ended 8 December 2025.
The property was under a series of property managers, but this vacated application was made by the owner.
In 2020 the bathroom was fully renovated, including relining and repainting.
Flaking of the paint finish around the external opening bathroom window was noticed by the tenants and reported to their agent in 2023. The problem was raised in at least two routine inspection reports (Nov 2023 and Nov 2024) that were provided to the owner.
The owner had the painter return in early 2024 and a verbal assessment was that moisture ingress was the cause. A repair strategy was discussed but not actioned.
No notice was provided to the tenants regarding any behavioural concerns that may be causing the damage.
The bathroom is mechanically ventilated with opening windows. The bathroom is south facing and shaded by large trees (the need for vegetation maintenance were raised in routine inspection reports).
It is accepted the failing paint was on the external wall only.
The tenancy ended and the agent has subsequently returned the bond to the tenant, seemingly aware of this owner application with a claim against the bond.
To summarize, the bathroom was freshly painted in 2020. It started to fail in 2023, and deterioration continued. Despite moisture ingress being raised at the time, no subsequent discussion with the tenants, from either the owner or agents, raised tenant behavioural concerns that might be contributing to the damage. No repair was undertaken.
The owner has moved back into the premises and the wall remains “as was”. Quotes for repainting were provided. Legal issues for consideration Tenant responsibilities
Section 40(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires the tenant keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy and (d) requires the tenant to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs Landlord responsibilities
The landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its 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.
The tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA as stated above.
Therefore, 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. Mitigation of loss
Section 49 RTA requires where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, “the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract”.
In Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726 the District Court confirmed the test of what the landlord ought to do to mitigate its loss is a factual one and depends on: a. Whether the landlord took all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss; and b. More particularly, whether it acted reasonably having regard to all the circumstances of the case. Wear and tear
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
In Nixon v Geal-Otter DC North Shore, 30 January 1996, [1996] RTHNZ 2, 1996 WL 35049225, Judge Thorburn stated: Adjudicators and the Court must be careful to recognise that in any tenancy there will be a deterioration of condition because of fair wear and tear. It can be no other way. Mere use of premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration of condition Discussion
The photos and other evidence establish an ongoing deterioration of the bathroom externally facing wall and windows. That is accepted. The cause is more challenging.
The tenants notified the landlord of the flaking as they are required to do. This issue was raised repeatedly with no immediate repair, nor any notice to the tenants regarding any purported failure by them that may be contributing to the obvious damage.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenants are responsible for the damage as evidenced and the application must be dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5437269 — Mould & damp at 6 Giffords Creek Lane, Rapaura, RD 3, Blenheim 7273

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5437269 — Mould & damp at 6 Giffords Creek Lane, Rapaura, RD 3, Blenheim 7273

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