What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5455255 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]’s application under section 66 of the

How much money was awarded in case 5455255?

Compensation: $13,032.18 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5455255?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5455255?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14031801-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5455255 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]’s application under section 66 of the

How much money was awarded in case 5455255?

Compensation: $13,032.18 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5455255?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5455255?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14031801-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 10B, 15 Mount Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5455255 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Room 10B, 15 Mount Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5455255 — Mould & damp | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5455255. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. Zhanxiang Feng and Huarong Yang’s claim for compensation of	$13,032.18		2. Zhanxiang Feng and Huarong Yang’s claim for compensation of

Claims and awards for application 5455255. Verify on MoJ.

2. Zhanxiang Feng and Huarong Yang’s claim for compensation of

Amount: $13,032.18
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: 2. Zhanxiang Feng and Huarong Yang’s claim for compensation of

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]’s application under section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to reduce the fixed term is dismissed.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]’s claim for compensation of $13,032.18 is dismissed.
The tenancy ended on 30 June 2026, immediately before the commencement of the replacement tenancy on 1 July 2026.
The tenants are liable for rent only up to and including 30 June 2026.
The landlord must refund to the tenants any rent paid or credited for the period commencing 1 July 2026, together with any remaining credit balance after the rent account has been reconciled to 30 June 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,520.00 (BN-25112804) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately.
The Tribunal makes no determination concerning the landlord’s proposed claims for exit cleaning, advertising, reletting, assignment, administrative or other costs. The landlord has not filed a cross-application for those amounts and may pursue any claim separately.

Reasons

The tenants, [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s], entered into a fixed-term tenancy with the landlord, Belong Here NZ Ltd, commencing on 4 February 2026 and due to expire on 9 February 2027.
The tenants seek an order reducing the fixed term, compensation and refund of the bond. Their substantive position is that the premises were affected by significant mould and dampness when the tenancy commenced, were unsafe or unfit for habitation, and caused members of their family to experience physical symptoms. They say those circumstances forced them to vacate the premises on 10 February 2026, only a few days after taking possession.
The tenants seek compensation totalling $13,032.18. This includes hotel accommodation and other costs they say resulted from having to leave the premises, together with recovery of rent and associated losses.
The landlord disputes that the premises were uninhabitable or unsafe. It says maintenance issues were addressed when raised, works were arranged, and an independent inspection subsequently undertaken on 27 February 2026 did not identify any condition rendering the premises unsuitable for residential occupation. The landlord also says the tenants retained the keys until May 2026 and that the fixed-term tenancy continued notwithstanding their decision to live elsewhere.
The hearing was adjourned to allow the parties an opportunity to provide further evidence, including evidence concerning the tenants’ assertion that the condition of the premises had affected their health.
Having considered all the evidence, I am not satisfied that the tenants have established the grounds necessary for an order reducing the fixed term, or that the landlord breached their obligations in a manner giving rise to the compensation claimed. The tenants’ application for compensation is therefore dismissed.
However, the premises were subsequently relet to a replacement tenant from 1 July 2026. The landlord accepts that the tenants’ rental liability therefore ended on 30 June 2026. The landlord has not filed a cross-application seeking reletting, cleaning or other costs. Those matters therefore cannot properly be determined against the tenants in this proceeding.
The bond is to be refunded to the tenants, subject to the final reconciliation of the rent account to 30 June 2026. Any rent paid or credited for a period after 30 June 2026 must also be refunded to the tenants.

What happened at the beginning of the tenancy?

The tenancy commenced on 4 February 2026. The tenants say they received the keys that evening but remained in previously booked hotel accommodation until 8 February, when they moved into the premises.
The following day, members of the family experienced physical discomfort. The tenants inspected the premises and identified what they considered to be significant mould or mould staining affecting carpet in the living area and bedrooms. They notified those involved in managing the tenancy through WeChat and supplied photographs.
The tenants say their concerns were initially ignored. The documentary evidence, however, establishes that there was communication from the landlord concerning maintenance. On 10 February 2026 the landlord advised that repairs to the kitchen cabinetry, carpet and flooring were being arranged. Further communications followed concerning work scheduled for the following week.
The tenants nevertheless considered the premises unsafe. Mrs Yang’s developed symptoms which the tenants described as including difficulty breathing and numbness affecting her mouth and tongue. The family vacated the premises on 10 February and returned to hotel accommodation.
On 13 February 2026 arrangements were made for contractors to access the premises. Works subsequently undertaken included replacement of part of the living-area carpet with hard flooring and replacement of the bathroom vanity.On 15 February 2026 the tenants requested that a qualified inspection agency undertake a mould inspection and provide written confirmation that the premises were fit for habitation.
The tenants formally sought termination of the tenancy on or about 20 February 2026.
The landlord subsequently arranged an independent inspection, which was undertaken on 27 February 2026. The landlord relies upon that assessment as demonstrating that the premises were suitable for residential occupation and that no health hazard was identified which made them unsafe for occupation.
The parties were unable to resolve their dispute. The tenants did not resume occupation of the premises, although they retained the keys until early May 2026. Relevant law
Section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) imposes important obligations upon a landlord. Among other matters, the landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to their age and character and the period during which they are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes, and comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. Those obligations are ongoing.
Section 66 applies where a party seeks early termination of a fixed-term tenancy because of an unforeseen change in circumstances. The Tribunal may reduce the term where there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances and the hardship that the applicant would suffer if the term were not reduced would be greater than the hardship the other party would suffer if it were reduced.
The jurisdiction under section 66 is therefore not simply a general discretion to cancel a fixed-term tenancy whenever a tenant no longer wishes, or considers it undesirable, to remain in the premises. The statutory requirements must be established on the evidence.
Under section 77(2)(n), the Tribunal has jurisdiction to order a party to pay compensation where appropriate. A tenant seeking compensation for breach of a landlord’s statutory obligations must establish, on the balance of probabilities, the relevant breach and the loss resulting from that breach. The amount claimed must also be proved with sufficient evidence and must be causally connected to the established breach.
Section 22B provides the mechanism by which a party may apply to the Tribunal for an order concerning payment of bond money where the parties have not agreed upon its disposition. Section 22B(2) 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 the counterclaim.
The Tribunal determines disputed factual matters on the balance of probabilities. The burden rests upon the party asserting the fact necessary to establish the claim.

Were the premises proved to be uninhabitable?

I accept that the tenants genuinely became concerned about the condition of the premises shortly after moving in. I also accept that the photographs and communications demonstrate that there were issues concerning the condition of the carpet and that maintenance work was required. Indeed, the landlord’s own communications acknowledge that carpet, flooring and other work was scheduled.
I therefore do not accept any suggestion that the tenants simply invented their concerns or that there was nothing requiring attention.
That, however, is materially different from finding that the premises were so contaminated by mould that they were unsafe or unfit for residential occupation.
The tenants bear the burden of proving that allegation on the balance of probabilities.
There is no independent building, mould, environmental or other suitably qualified expert evidence before the Tribunal establishing that, at the commencement of the tenancy, the premises contained mould at a concentration or of a type that rendered the premises uninhabitable or unsafe.
The tenants rely heavily upon photographs. Those photographs are relevant, and I have taken them into account. However, photographs alone cannot reliably establish the nature or extent of any mould contamination, its cause, whether it was active or historic staining, the concentration of airborne mould spores, or whether the condition rendered the premises unsafe for habitation. Those are matters on which appropriately qualified independent evidence would have been particularly significant.
There is also evidence pointing in the opposite direction. The landlord arranged an independent third-party assessment on 27 February 2026. The landlord relies upon that assessment as concluding that the premises were suitable for residential occupation and that no identified health hazard made them unsafe for occupation.
I acknowledge that the assessment occurred after work had been undertaken on 16 February. It therefore cannot conclusively establish the precise condition of every part of the premises when the tenants first occupied them. I have taken that limitation into account and do not treat the report as determinative of the condition on 4 or 8 February.
Nevertheless, when considered together with the absence of independent expert evidence supporting the tenants’ allegation of severe mould contamination, I am unable to find on the balance of probabilities that the premises were uninhabitable when the tenancy commenced.

What weight can be placed on the medical evidence?

The tenants also rely upon the physical symptoms experienced by Mrs Yang and other family members.
The Tribunal does not doubt that Mrs Yang experienced symptoms or that those symptoms were sufficiently concerning for the family to seek medical assistance. Nor is it necessary for the Tribunal to determine whether those symptoms were genuine. I accept that they were.
The difficulty is causation.
The tenants referred to a clinical summary from Auckland City Hospital dated 18 February 2026 which they say recorded that symptoms were likely triggered by environmental factors and referred to the apartment being mouldy. Following the adjournment, the tenants also submitted a further medical examination report and advised that Mrs Yang continued to experience numbness of her lips and tongue, eye symptoms and symptoms described as an allergy.
Even accepting the tenants’ description of the medical evidence, there is insufficient expert evidence establishing that mould at these particular premises caused Mrs Yang’s symptoms.
A medical record recording a patient’s report that the premises were mouldy is not equivalent to an expert environmental assessment establishing the presence, nature and extent of harmful mould, nor does it necessarily establish medical causation.
I therefore accept that Mrs Yang experienced symptoms temporally associated with the family’s occupation of the premises, but I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the evidence establishes that those symptoms were caused by a hazardous condition at the premises.
That distinction is important. The Tribunal’s finding should not be understood as rejecting the tenants’ experience. It is a finding about whether the evidential burden required to impose legal liability upon the landlord has been discharged.
I find that it has not. Did the landlord fail to respond to the tenants’ concerns?
The tenants repeatedly state that the landlord ignored them and failed to provide any solution.
The contemporaneous documentary evidence does not entirely support that characterisation.
There was communication from the landlord on 10 February 2026 acknowledging issues and advising that repairs to the kitchen cabinetry, carpet and flooring had been scheduled. Further communications occurred on 13 February 2026 concerning access for works, and repairs were subsequently carried out on 16 February 2026. The landlord also arranged the independent inspection undertaken on 27 February 2026.
There may have been periods during which the tenants considered the landlord’s response inadequate or too slow, and the tenants clearly wanted a more comprehensive response, particularly replacement or treatment of the bedroom carpets.
However, on the evidence as a whole, I am not satisfied that the landlord simply ignored the reported concerns or refused to take any steps. The documentary record demonstrates maintenance arrangements, contractor attendance and a subsequent independent assessment.
The Tribunal must determine the claim by reference to what the landlord was legally required to do, rather than whether the tenants were satisfied with the landlord’s response. Given my finding that it has not been established that the premises were uninhabitable or contained hazardous mould requiring the remedial work sought by the tenants, the evidence does not establish the alleged breach of section 45.

Should the fixed term be reduced?

The tenants seek to be released from a fixed term which was otherwise due to continue until 9 February 2027.
I accept that the tenants’ concerns about the premises and Mrs Yang’s symptoms caused considerable distress and led them to decide very quickly that they could not continue living there.
However, the statutory requirements of section 66 must still be satisfied.
The central basis upon which the tenants seek reduction is that the premises were unsafe and uninhabitable because of severe mould contamination. For the reasons already given, that proposition has not been established on the balance of probabilities.
The tenants voluntarily ceased occupying the premises on 10 February 2026, but vacating premises does not itself terminate a fixed-term tenancy. Nor does retaining alternative hotel accommodation terminate the contractual and statutory obligations attaching to an existing fixed-term tenancy.
The tenants also retained the keys until May 2026. Although they were not physically residing at the premises, the landlord had not accepted a surrender bringing the tenancy immediately to an end.
Taking the evidence as a whole, I am not satisfied that the statutory grounds for reducing the fixed term under section 66 have been established.
The application under section 66 is therefore dismissed.

Are the tenants entitled to compensation?

The tenants claim $13,032.18 for hotel accommodation, rent, medical and relocation expenses and other associated losses.
Compensation requires more than proof that expenditure occurred. There must be an established breach for which the landlord is legally responsible and a sufficient causal connection between that breach and the loss claimed.
For the reasons already given, the tenants have not established that the landlord provided premises that were uninhabitable, that harmful mould at the premises caused the reported medical symptoms, or that the landlord otherwise breached section 45 in the manner alleged.
The costs of the tenants’ alternative hotel accommodation were incurred following their decision to cease occupying the premises. I accept that this decision was motivated by genuine concern for their health. However, genuine concern does not by itself establish that the landlord was legally responsible for the resulting expenditure.
In the absence of proof of the underlying breach, there is no sufficient legal basis upon which to require the landlord to reimburse those costs.
For the same reasons, the claims for medical, relocation and related expenses have not been established.
The claim for compensation of $13,032.18 is dismissed. When did the tenants’ rental liability end?
There has been an important development since the hearing.
By email dated 18 June 2026, the landlord advised the Tribunal that a replacement tenant had been secured and would commence a new tenancy on 1 July 2026. The landlord expressly accepted that the present tenants’ tenancy would therefore conclude on 30 June 2026 and that ongoing rental liability would cease at that point.
That is the appropriate outcome.
The landlord cannot recover rent from these tenants for a period during which the premises are simultaneously let to and rent is payable by a replacement tenant.
Accordingly, irrespective of the dismissal of the tenants’ application under section 66, their liability for rent under this tenancy ends on 30 June 2026.
The landlord’s earlier evidence was that rent had been paid through to 10 July 2026, together with a credit balance of $576.19. The subsequent accounting must therefore be reconciled to the actual termination date of 30 June 2026.
Any rent paid or allocated for the period from 1 July 2026 onwards is not payable by these tenants and must be refunded or credited to them. Any additional unapplied credit belonging to the tenants must likewise be returned.

What happens to the bond?

Although the tenants’ application refers at one point to a bond of $5,280.00 or $5,820.00, the evidence establishes that $3,520.00 was the bond and that other sums paid were rent or rent in advance.
The landlord says it was lodged with the bond centre on 26 February 2026.
The landlord has referred to potential exit cleaning, advertising, reletting, assignment and administrative expenses associated with obtaining the replacement tenant.
Those matters are not presently before the Tribunal as claims by the landlord.
The landlord has not filed a cross-application seeking compensation or payment from the bond for those costs. Procedural fairness requires that the tenants know the case they are required to meet and have an opportunity to respond to any particular claim, including its legal basis, amount and supporting evidence.
It would therefore be inappropriate to determine those proposed claims, or retain the tenants’ bond against claims which have not been formally brought before the Tribunal.
The landlord remains entitled to file a separate application if it seeks recovery of any properly recoverable costs arising from the early ending of the tenancy. Nothing in this decision determines the merits of any such future application. In particular, the Tribunal makes no finding that the costs identified by the landlord are necessarily recoverable, reasonable, or payable by these tenants. Those matters would require determination upon the evidence and applicable law if a claim is filed.
There being no cross-application or other established claim against the bond in these proceedings, the bond of $3,520.00 is to be refunded to the tenants. Rent credit
The landlord’s evidence was that the tenants’ rent had been paid to 10 July 2026 and that a further credit balance of $576.19 remained.
The tenancy ended on 30 June 2026 because the premises were relet from 1 July.
The landlord must therefore complete a final rent reconciliation calculated only to 30 June 2026. Any amount paid or allocated as rent beyond that date, together with any remaining credit belonging to the tenants, must be refunded.
For clarity, the landlord may not retain rent paid beyond 30 June 2026 merely because it considers that it has other claims against the tenants. Any disputed claim for cleaning, reletting or other costs must be pursued through the appropriate Tribunal process if agreement cannot be reached. Suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides for suppression of names and identifying particulars in prescribed circumstances.
The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in their substantive claims. Their applications under sections 66 and 77(2)(n), which form the principal disputed aspects of their application, have been dismissed. The refund of the bond follows principally because the landlord has not filed a claim against it, rather than because the tenants have established their allegations concerning the condition of the premises.
There is no other sufficient basis established for suppression.
Accordingly, no suppression order is made. Conclusion
I accept that this was a distressing experience for the tenants. They had only recently arrived in New Zealand, became concerned about the condition of the premises almost immediately after moving in, and genuinely believed that the premises were affecting their family’s health.
The Tribunal’s task, however, is to determine whether the legal grounds for the remedies sought have been established on the evidence.
There is insufficient independent evidence to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the premises were uninhabitable because of severe mould contamination, that the premises caused the reported medical symptoms, or that the landlord breached section 45 in a manner giving rise to the compensation sought.
The tenants’ applications for reduction of the fixed term under section 66 and compensation under section 77(2)(n) are therefore dismissed.
The premises were, however, relet from 1 July 2026. The tenants’ rental liability consequently ended on 30 June 2026. Any rent paid or credited beyond that date must be returned following final reconciliation.
The landlord has not filed a cross-application for cleaning, reletting, advertising, administrative or other costs. Those claims are therefore not determined in this proceeding and cannot presently be deducted from the tenants’ bond. The landlord may pursue any such claim separately, and the tenants will then have the opportunity to respond.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5455255. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. Zhanxiang Feng and Huarong Yang’s claim for compensation of	$13,032.18		2. Zhanxiang Feng and Huarong Yang’s claim for compensation of

Claims and awards for application 5455255. Verify on MoJ.

2. Zhanxiang Feng and Huarong Yang’s claim for compensation of

Amount: $13,032.18
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: 2. Zhanxiang Feng and Huarong Yang’s claim for compensation of

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]’s application under section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to reduce the fixed term is dismissed.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]’s claim for compensation of $13,032.18 is dismissed.
The tenancy ended on 30 June 2026, immediately before the commencement of the replacement tenancy on 1 July 2026.
The tenants are liable for rent only up to and including 30 June 2026.
The landlord must refund to the tenants any rent paid or credited for the period commencing 1 July 2026, together with any remaining credit balance after the rent account has been reconciled to 30 June 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,520.00 (BN-25112804) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately.
The Tribunal makes no determination concerning the landlord’s proposed claims for exit cleaning, advertising, reletting, assignment, administrative or other costs. The landlord has not filed a cross-application for those amounts and may pursue any claim separately.

Reasons

The tenants, [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s], entered into a fixed-term tenancy with the landlord, Belong Here NZ Ltd, commencing on 4 February 2026 and due to expire on 9 February 2027.
The tenants seek an order reducing the fixed term, compensation and refund of the bond. Their substantive position is that the premises were affected by significant mould and dampness when the tenancy commenced, were unsafe or unfit for habitation, and caused members of their family to experience physical symptoms. They say those circumstances forced them to vacate the premises on 10 February 2026, only a few days after taking possession.
The tenants seek compensation totalling $13,032.18. This includes hotel accommodation and other costs they say resulted from having to leave the premises, together with recovery of rent and associated losses.
The landlord disputes that the premises were uninhabitable or unsafe. It says maintenance issues were addressed when raised, works were arranged, and an independent inspection subsequently undertaken on 27 February 2026 did not identify any condition rendering the premises unsuitable for residential occupation. The landlord also says the tenants retained the keys until May 2026 and that the fixed-term tenancy continued notwithstanding their decision to live elsewhere.
The hearing was adjourned to allow the parties an opportunity to provide further evidence, including evidence concerning the tenants’ assertion that the condition of the premises had affected their health.
Having considered all the evidence, I am not satisfied that the tenants have established the grounds necessary for an order reducing the fixed term, or that the landlord breached their obligations in a manner giving rise to the compensation claimed. The tenants’ application for compensation is therefore dismissed.
However, the premises were subsequently relet to a replacement tenant from 1 July 2026. The landlord accepts that the tenants’ rental liability therefore ended on 30 June 2026. The landlord has not filed a cross-application seeking reletting, cleaning or other costs. Those matters therefore cannot properly be determined against the tenants in this proceeding.
The bond is to be refunded to the tenants, subject to the final reconciliation of the rent account to 30 June 2026. Any rent paid or credited for a period after 30 June 2026 must also be refunded to the tenants.

What happened at the beginning of the tenancy?

The tenancy commenced on 4 February 2026. The tenants say they received the keys that evening but remained in previously booked hotel accommodation until 8 February, when they moved into the premises.
The following day, members of the family experienced physical discomfort. The tenants inspected the premises and identified what they considered to be significant mould or mould staining affecting carpet in the living area and bedrooms. They notified those involved in managing the tenancy through WeChat and supplied photographs.
The tenants say their concerns were initially ignored. The documentary evidence, however, establishes that there was communication from the landlord concerning maintenance. On 10 February 2026 the landlord advised that repairs to the kitchen cabinetry, carpet and flooring were being arranged. Further communications followed concerning work scheduled for the following week.
The tenants nevertheless considered the premises unsafe. Mrs Yang’s developed symptoms which the tenants described as including difficulty breathing and numbness affecting her mouth and tongue. The family vacated the premises on 10 February and returned to hotel accommodation.
On 13 February 2026 arrangements were made for contractors to access the premises. Works subsequently undertaken included replacement of part of the living-area carpet with hard flooring and replacement of the bathroom vanity.On 15 February 2026 the tenants requested that a qualified inspection agency undertake a mould inspection and provide written confirmation that the premises were fit for habitation.
The tenants formally sought termination of the tenancy on or about 20 February 2026.
The landlord subsequently arranged an independent inspection, which was undertaken on 27 February 2026. The landlord relies upon that assessment as demonstrating that the premises were suitable for residential occupation and that no health hazard was identified which made them unsafe for occupation.
The parties were unable to resolve their dispute. The tenants did not resume occupation of the premises, although they retained the keys until early May 2026. Relevant law
Section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) imposes important obligations upon a landlord. Among other matters, the landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to their age and character and the period during which they are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes, and comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. Those obligations are ongoing.
Section 66 applies where a party seeks early termination of a fixed-term tenancy because of an unforeseen change in circumstances. The Tribunal may reduce the term where there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances and the hardship that the applicant would suffer if the term were not reduced would be greater than the hardship the other party would suffer if it were reduced.
The jurisdiction under section 66 is therefore not simply a general discretion to cancel a fixed-term tenancy whenever a tenant no longer wishes, or considers it undesirable, to remain in the premises. The statutory requirements must be established on the evidence.
Under section 77(2)(n), the Tribunal has jurisdiction to order a party to pay compensation where appropriate. A tenant seeking compensation for breach of a landlord’s statutory obligations must establish, on the balance of probabilities, the relevant breach and the loss resulting from that breach. The amount claimed must also be proved with sufficient evidence and must be causally connected to the established breach.
Section 22B provides the mechanism by which a party may apply to the Tribunal for an order concerning payment of bond money where the parties have not agreed upon its disposition. Section 22B(2) 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 the counterclaim.
The Tribunal determines disputed factual matters on the balance of probabilities. The burden rests upon the party asserting the fact necessary to establish the claim.

Were the premises proved to be uninhabitable?

I accept that the tenants genuinely became concerned about the condition of the premises shortly after moving in. I also accept that the photographs and communications demonstrate that there were issues concerning the condition of the carpet and that maintenance work was required. Indeed, the landlord’s own communications acknowledge that carpet, flooring and other work was scheduled.
I therefore do not accept any suggestion that the tenants simply invented their concerns or that there was nothing requiring attention.
That, however, is materially different from finding that the premises were so contaminated by mould that they were unsafe or unfit for residential occupation.
The tenants bear the burden of proving that allegation on the balance of probabilities.
There is no independent building, mould, environmental or other suitably qualified expert evidence before the Tribunal establishing that, at the commencement of the tenancy, the premises contained mould at a concentration or of a type that rendered the premises uninhabitable or unsafe.
The tenants rely heavily upon photographs. Those photographs are relevant, and I have taken them into account. However, photographs alone cannot reliably establish the nature or extent of any mould contamination, its cause, whether it was active or historic staining, the concentration of airborne mould spores, or whether the condition rendered the premises unsafe for habitation. Those are matters on which appropriately qualified independent evidence would have been particularly significant.
There is also evidence pointing in the opposite direction. The landlord arranged an independent third-party assessment on 27 February 2026. The landlord relies upon that assessment as concluding that the premises were suitable for residential occupation and that no identified health hazard made them unsafe for occupation.
I acknowledge that the assessment occurred after work had been undertaken on 16 February. It therefore cannot conclusively establish the precise condition of every part of the premises when the tenants first occupied them. I have taken that limitation into account and do not treat the report as determinative of the condition on 4 or 8 February.
Nevertheless, when considered together with the absence of independent expert evidence supporting the tenants’ allegation of severe mould contamination, I am unable to find on the balance of probabilities that the premises were uninhabitable when the tenancy commenced.

What weight can be placed on the medical evidence?

The tenants also rely upon the physical symptoms experienced by Mrs Yang and other family members.
The Tribunal does not doubt that Mrs Yang experienced symptoms or that those symptoms were sufficiently concerning for the family to seek medical assistance. Nor is it necessary for the Tribunal to determine whether those symptoms were genuine. I accept that they were.
The difficulty is causation.
The tenants referred to a clinical summary from Auckland City Hospital dated 18 February 2026 which they say recorded that symptoms were likely triggered by environmental factors and referred to the apartment being mouldy. Following the adjournment, the tenants also submitted a further medical examination report and advised that Mrs Yang continued to experience numbness of her lips and tongue, eye symptoms and symptoms described as an allergy.
Even accepting the tenants’ description of the medical evidence, there is insufficient expert evidence establishing that mould at these particular premises caused Mrs Yang’s symptoms.
A medical record recording a patient’s report that the premises were mouldy is not equivalent to an expert environmental assessment establishing the presence, nature and extent of harmful mould, nor does it necessarily establish medical causation.
I therefore accept that Mrs Yang experienced symptoms temporally associated with the family’s occupation of the premises, but I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the evidence establishes that those symptoms were caused by a hazardous condition at the premises.
That distinction is important. The Tribunal’s finding should not be understood as rejecting the tenants’ experience. It is a finding about whether the evidential burden required to impose legal liability upon the landlord has been discharged.
I find that it has not. Did the landlord fail to respond to the tenants’ concerns?
The tenants repeatedly state that the landlord ignored them and failed to provide any solution.
The contemporaneous documentary evidence does not entirely support that characterisation.
There was communication from the landlord on 10 February 2026 acknowledging issues and advising that repairs to the kitchen cabinetry, carpet and flooring had been scheduled. Further communications occurred on 13 February 2026 concerning access for works, and repairs were subsequently carried out on 16 February 2026. The landlord also arranged the independent inspection undertaken on 27 February 2026.
There may have been periods during which the tenants considered the landlord’s response inadequate or too slow, and the tenants clearly wanted a more comprehensive response, particularly replacement or treatment of the bedroom carpets.
However, on the evidence as a whole, I am not satisfied that the landlord simply ignored the reported concerns or refused to take any steps. The documentary record demonstrates maintenance arrangements, contractor attendance and a subsequent independent assessment.
The Tribunal must determine the claim by reference to what the landlord was legally required to do, rather than whether the tenants were satisfied with the landlord’s response. Given my finding that it has not been established that the premises were uninhabitable or contained hazardous mould requiring the remedial work sought by the tenants, the evidence does not establish the alleged breach of section 45.

Should the fixed term be reduced?

The tenants seek to be released from a fixed term which was otherwise due to continue until 9 February 2027.
I accept that the tenants’ concerns about the premises and Mrs Yang’s symptoms caused considerable distress and led them to decide very quickly that they could not continue living there.
However, the statutory requirements of section 66 must still be satisfied.
The central basis upon which the tenants seek reduction is that the premises were unsafe and uninhabitable because of severe mould contamination. For the reasons already given, that proposition has not been established on the balance of probabilities.
The tenants voluntarily ceased occupying the premises on 10 February 2026, but vacating premises does not itself terminate a fixed-term tenancy. Nor does retaining alternative hotel accommodation terminate the contractual and statutory obligations attaching to an existing fixed-term tenancy.
The tenants also retained the keys until May 2026. Although they were not physically residing at the premises, the landlord had not accepted a surrender bringing the tenancy immediately to an end.
Taking the evidence as a whole, I am not satisfied that the statutory grounds for reducing the fixed term under section 66 have been established.
The application under section 66 is therefore dismissed.

Are the tenants entitled to compensation?

The tenants claim $13,032.18 for hotel accommodation, rent, medical and relocation expenses and other associated losses.
Compensation requires more than proof that expenditure occurred. There must be an established breach for which the landlord is legally responsible and a sufficient causal connection between that breach and the loss claimed.
For the reasons already given, the tenants have not established that the landlord provided premises that were uninhabitable, that harmful mould at the premises caused the reported medical symptoms, or that the landlord otherwise breached section 45 in the manner alleged.
The costs of the tenants’ alternative hotel accommodation were incurred following their decision to cease occupying the premises. I accept that this decision was motivated by genuine concern for their health. However, genuine concern does not by itself establish that the landlord was legally responsible for the resulting expenditure.
In the absence of proof of the underlying breach, there is no sufficient legal basis upon which to require the landlord to reimburse those costs.
For the same reasons, the claims for medical, relocation and related expenses have not been established.
The claim for compensation of $13,032.18 is dismissed. When did the tenants’ rental liability end?
There has been an important development since the hearing.
By email dated 18 June 2026, the landlord advised the Tribunal that a replacement tenant had been secured and would commence a new tenancy on 1 July 2026. The landlord expressly accepted that the present tenants’ tenancy would therefore conclude on 30 June 2026 and that ongoing rental liability would cease at that point.
That is the appropriate outcome.
The landlord cannot recover rent from these tenants for a period during which the premises are simultaneously let to and rent is payable by a replacement tenant.
Accordingly, irrespective of the dismissal of the tenants’ application under section 66, their liability for rent under this tenancy ends on 30 June 2026.
The landlord’s earlier evidence was that rent had been paid through to 10 July 2026, together with a credit balance of $576.19. The subsequent accounting must therefore be reconciled to the actual termination date of 30 June 2026.
Any rent paid or allocated for the period from 1 July 2026 onwards is not payable by these tenants and must be refunded or credited to them. Any additional unapplied credit belonging to the tenants must likewise be returned.

What happens to the bond?

Although the tenants’ application refers at one point to a bond of $5,280.00 or $5,820.00, the evidence establishes that $3,520.00 was the bond and that other sums paid were rent or rent in advance.
The landlord says it was lodged with the bond centre on 26 February 2026.
The landlord has referred to potential exit cleaning, advertising, reletting, assignment and administrative expenses associated with obtaining the replacement tenant.
Those matters are not presently before the Tribunal as claims by the landlord.
The landlord has not filed a cross-application seeking compensation or payment from the bond for those costs. Procedural fairness requires that the tenants know the case they are required to meet and have an opportunity to respond to any particular claim, including its legal basis, amount and supporting evidence.
It would therefore be inappropriate to determine those proposed claims, or retain the tenants’ bond against claims which have not been formally brought before the Tribunal.
The landlord remains entitled to file a separate application if it seeks recovery of any properly recoverable costs arising from the early ending of the tenancy. Nothing in this decision determines the merits of any such future application. In particular, the Tribunal makes no finding that the costs identified by the landlord are necessarily recoverable, reasonable, or payable by these tenants. Those matters would require determination upon the evidence and applicable law if a claim is filed.
There being no cross-application or other established claim against the bond in these proceedings, the bond of $3,520.00 is to be refunded to the tenants. Rent credit
The landlord’s evidence was that the tenants’ rent had been paid to 10 July 2026 and that a further credit balance of $576.19 remained.
The tenancy ended on 30 June 2026 because the premises were relet from 1 July.
The landlord must therefore complete a final rent reconciliation calculated only to 30 June 2026. Any amount paid or allocated as rent beyond that date, together with any remaining credit belonging to the tenants, must be refunded.
For clarity, the landlord may not retain rent paid beyond 30 June 2026 merely because it considers that it has other claims against the tenants. Any disputed claim for cleaning, reletting or other costs must be pursued through the appropriate Tribunal process if agreement cannot be reached. Suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides for suppression of names and identifying particulars in prescribed circumstances.
The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in their substantive claims. Their applications under sections 66 and 77(2)(n), which form the principal disputed aspects of their application, have been dismissed. The refund of the bond follows principally because the landlord has not filed a claim against it, rather than because the tenants have established their allegations concerning the condition of the premises.
There is no other sufficient basis established for suppression.
Accordingly, no suppression order is made. Conclusion
I accept that this was a distressing experience for the tenants. They had only recently arrived in New Zealand, became concerned about the condition of the premises almost immediately after moving in, and genuinely believed that the premises were affecting their family’s health.
The Tribunal’s task, however, is to determine whether the legal grounds for the remedies sought have been established on the evidence.
There is insufficient independent evidence to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the premises were uninhabitable because of severe mould contamination, that the premises caused the reported medical symptoms, or that the landlord breached section 45 in a manner giving rise to the compensation sought.
The tenants’ applications for reduction of the fixed term under section 66 and compensation under section 77(2)(n) are therefore dismissed.
The premises were, however, relet from 1 July 2026. The tenants’ rental liability consequently ended on 30 June 2026. Any rent paid or credited beyond that date must be returned following final reconciliation.
The landlord has not filed a cross-application for cleaning, reletting, advertising, administrative or other costs. Those claims are therefore not determined in this proceeding and cannot presently be deducted from the tenants’ bond. The landlord may pursue any such claim separately, and the tenants will then have the opportunity to respond.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5455255 — Mould & damp at Room 10B, 15 Mount Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5455255 — Mould & damp at Room 10B, 15 Mount Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What happened at the beginning of the tenancy?

Were the premises proved to be uninhabitable?

What weight can be placed on the medical evidence?

Should the fixed term be reduced?

Are the tenants entitled to compensation?

What happens to the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What happened at the beginning of the tenancy?

Were the premises proved to be uninhabitable?

What weight can be placed on the medical evidence?

Should the fixed term be reduced?

Are the tenants entitled to compensation?

What happens to the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.