What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5446550 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5446550?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5446550?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5446550?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13822110-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5446550 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5446550?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5446550?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5446550?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13822110-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 9, 315 Worcester Street, Linwood, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5446550 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mrs Boyle represented the landlord

The tenants have applied for a refund of the rent they paid and for compensation of $2,000.00 because they consider that the premises were not in a fit state to be rented. Background

The tenancy started on 6 February 2026. It was a periodic tenancy.

Because the tenants were residing in Queenstown, they asked a friend to view the premises. The tenants’ friend raised no concerns, so they signed the tenancy agreement.

The tenants arrived at the premises on 9 February 2026. They found that the bathroom extractor fan sparked when turned on, the toilet cistern kept flushing, and there was mould under the kitchen cupboards. They also considered that the premises were not sufficiently clean.

The landlord arranged for tradespeople to fix the electrical and plumbing issues, for a cleaner to do additional cleaning, and for their handyman to assess the mould issue under the kitchen bench. The handyman apparently though that the required repair was beyond him.

The tenants considered that the kitchen bench issue was such a large repair job (they thought the whole kitchen bench unit required replacement) that they did not feel it worthwhile for the other repairs to be completed.

They asked to terminate the tenancy. The landlord would not agree to that. They never moved into the premises and paid rent to the end of the required notice period.

Now, they seek reimbursement of the rent they paid and compensation for the disruption caused; they had to move all their goods to a friend’s house and stay in a room there. Issues

The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: • Were the premises in a state where they should not have been rented? • Should the tenants be released from the tenancy and have their rent refunded? • Should the Tribunal award the tenants compensation? Law

Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Discussion

Were the premises in a state where they should not have been rented?

The photos produced in evidence and the other documentation establish that some minor repairs were required and some additional cleaning. That did not mean that the premises were not in a fit state to be rented. The landlord’s statutory responsibility was to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition and to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

Mrs Boyle submitted that the required repairs were easily done, and the landlord acted promptly to arrange those few repairs. But the tenants would not agree to the repairs being done because they felt that the kitchen bench unit had to be replaced.

The photos show evidence of some leaking under the kitchen cabinets, mostly on the underside of the bench. Mrs Boyle said the leaking was probably a slow leak either not noticed or not reported by the previous tenant.

The tenants considered it a major issue because some mould was present. While they might not have physically prevented access for the tradespeople to do the repairs, they made it clear they did not consider the repairs needed until the kitchen bench was replaced.

Mrs Boyle gave evidence that the repair to the kitchen bench – lifting the benchtop and replacing the underside stained MDF timber and removing the mould - took about 4 hours. That included laying new tiles around the bench once it was reinstated.

That the tenants believed a full replacement kitchen bench unit was needed does not establish that it was necessary in fact. The landlord said that the repair that was undertaken was sufficient.

I do not conclude from the evidence that the premises were not in a fit state to be rented. All that was needed were some minor repairs that could have been promptly completed. The bench repair was also able to be completed relatively quickly. Should the tenants be released from the tenancy and have their rent refunded?

There is no legal basis to release the tenants from the tenancy. The Tribunal can reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy in certain (limited) circumstances. But this was a periodic tenancy. The tenants remained liable for rent for 21 days from the date they gave notice (which they seem to accept because they paid rent for that period). There is no basis on which the Tribunal would order a refund of rent properly due and paid.

Should the Tribunal award the tenants compensation?

I have already explained why the Tribunal cannot award a refund of rent. It was rent due under the tenancy agreement (the contract).

Mrs Boyle said that the landlord would have considered some compensation for the cleaning and repair work required at the start of the tenancy. Had the tenants taken possession, they would have been able to seek compensation for their loss of enjoyment of the tenancy depending on the period during which they were inconvenienced by repair work (which Mrs Boyle said was a very short period).

However, they decided not to take possession, so they were unaffected by the repair work.

The tenants cannot be compensated for their decision not to move into the premises, nor for the inconvenience of staying with their friends. That was their choice.

That decision was premature since the electrical and plumbing repairs and the additional cleaning (all relatively minor based on the evidence produced) could have been completed quickly. The landlord acted immediately once the tenants raised those issues.

Rather, the tenants formed a fixed view about the replacement of the benchtop and that in turn made them decide not to move in. They could have waited for the work to be done (it too was completed promptly) and could then have negotiated with the landlord about compensation for any inconvenience due to a delay and a loss of enjoyment.

By acting on their belief that the premises were somehow uninhabitable (when they were not) the tenants are responsible for their losses that followed: the payment of 3 weeks’ rent from the date of notice, and the costs incurred moving to and staying with their friend. In other words, the decision to end the contract was theirs and they must bear the costs associated with that.

This is not a case where contract law principles such as repudiation of contract, or frustration of contract, come into play. Rather, some minor repairs and cleaning were required, but before the work could be done, the tenants chose not to continue with the tenancy.

It is a case however that demonstrates the risk of having a third party view the premises rather than the tenants view the premises themselves. The tenants relied on their friend’s observations and signed the contract. It would have been more prudent to wait and view the premises themselves. Result

For the reasons given I dismiss the application.

The bond has already been returned to the tenants. Name suppression

When asked neither party sought a name suppression order.

Reasons