What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5458835 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5458835?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5458835?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5458835?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13808319-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5458835 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5458835?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5458835?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5458835?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13808319-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

45B Strathmore Street, Matua, Tauranga 3110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5458835 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation for mould damage to the lounge drapes following the end of the tenancy. Standard of proof and evidence

In considering the landlord’s claim, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding the landlord’s claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.

While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.

It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence.

The Tribunal must have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

It is intended that this order be as concise as possible to convey the essential facts, the law and the Tribunal’s reasons for its decisions. The landlord’s evidence and submissions

The landlord claimed that the drapes in the lounge had been very badly damaged by mould so that they required drycleaning at a cost of $585.00.

The landlord provided the following evidence and made the following submissions during the hearing: a. A written entry inspection dated 9 May 2025 signed by both parties and recording the lounge curtains and blinds were in good condition with “minor marks. Verticals cleaned April 25”. b. Five photographs of the lounge including the curtains from the start of the tenancy. c. A handwritten exit report dated 25 February 2026 signed by both parties which recorded that the dining room drapes had “some mould on backs”. d. Several photographs of the areas of mould on the back of the curtains facing the windows at the end of the tenancy. e. “The staining was substantially greater than the minor marks that we had noted at the beginning of the tenancy... The drapes required professional cleaning to restore them back to the condition that they were in... We spent quite a lot of time at the property prior to the tenancy commencing, and we did do thorough checks. And if the mould staining had been present, we are very confident that we would have noted that and it would have been recorded in the pre-tenancy inspection, but the pre-tenancy inspection didn't note any mould whatsoever. f. “We had inspected the drapes and we hadn't found any mould on them prior to the Tenancy commencing.” g. The premises are a two-bedroom brick and Decramastic tile roof built in the 1980s which is fully compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards. “The kitchen and bathroom have extraction systems that exceed the minimum requirements and they vent externally. The home is on a concrete foundation and has good quality insulation in the ceiling... The windows all have safety stays so they can be safely left open for ventilation. And there are no ongoing moisture ingress issues with the property. Any maintenance items that have been noted during the Tenancy were addressed really promptly.” h. “We accept that there will be minor wear and tear marks through the property as a result of living in it. But the mould staining that occurred over a relatively short time was excessive. We've submitted photos and the mould staining was actually quite terrible. In contrast, there are some spots on the blind. There's a few marks on the back of the dining room drapes. We considered that to be fair wear and tear and not sufficient to warrant cleaning. But the staining on the back of these curtains was significant. And it was far more than what you would expect to reasonably occur. And I think tenants have got an obligation to make sure that windows are ventilated, that condensation doesn't build up and cause mould issues like this. It was extensive mould. So in our view, that really does go beyond what you would expect to be fair wear and tear.” i. “Mould on curtains and blinds through a house is substantially related to ventilation. If rooms aren't ventilated and condensation is allowed to build up on windows, then that will be a source of mould. The property does not have a mould issue.” j. The curtains were of superior quality that required drycleaning rather than simply washing. k. While there was no heat transfer system installed in the premises, the lounge is very sunny, has windows with catches which can be left ajar safely, together with a ranch slider door and a 7 kw heat pump. l. He did not recall the tenant drawing his attention to any mould issue during the tenancy. The tenant’s evidence and submissions

The tenant provided the following evidence and made the following submissions during the hearing: a. She did not accept that the mould staining was in any way excessive and that she had any liability for the cost of cleaning. b. “The mould was caused by heavy condensation from the single glazed windows and by the curtains being excessively long. They touched the ground causing them to drag on the floor and lean against the windows and doors where they were exposed to moisture. During the winter months, I had to regularly use a window vacuum. I've got a Karcher window vac to remove large amounts of condensation from the windows. The mould was already present on the back of the curtains when we moved into the property. I didn't notice it when we first went in because I wasn't looking at the backs.” c. Early in the tenancy she drew the mould on blinds in a bedroom to the landlord’s attention. She tried to clean these blinds but was unable to remove the staining. The tenant claimed that the presence of this mould indicates that there was mould in the premises at the start of the tenancy. d. “From May until mid-October, I was actually at home in the property full time while I was seeking employment. So meaning that the house was regularly aired out and ventilated throughout both day and the night over the winter months.” e. She claimed that the curtains were old and already had some mould on them at the start of the tenancy. This was unsupported by any photographic evidence. f. The landlord’s photographs of the curtains at the start of the tenancy do not show the backs of the curtains, only the front facing the room. The tenant claimed that the landlord had not proven that the staining was not present at the start of the tenancy. Discussion and decision

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

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.

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.

The landlord’s insurance excess is $1,000.00. The amount claimed is less than that sum and so the distinction between careless and intentional damage is not relevant to the amount claimed by the landlord.

A landlord must provide premises not prone to mould, but there is a joint responsibility to control humidity by the landlord providing a means of heating and the tenant properly ventilating the premises. Responsibility for mould problems can rest with the tenant, if, for instance, the tenant fails to air and heat the premises properly or fails to use the ventilation fans. The tenant is only liable for damage caused by mould if the mould was caused by the tenant’s careless or intentional inaction or actions. In other words, the landlord must prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenant, by action or failure to take reasonable action, caused the mould issue.

The photographs from the entry inspection do not clearly show the state of the area of the curtains which the landlord claims were damaged during the tenancy. The Tribunal accepts the landlord’s verbal evidence that they did not notice such staining while working at the premises prior to the start of the tenancy. Given the thoroughness of the documentation prepared by the landlord and signed by both parties, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord would have referenced such damage, indeed the entry inspection records only minor marks. The Tribunal therefore concludes that further staining occurred during the tenancy.

There is no evidence that the premises were inherently prone to mould due to a lack of maintenance or a defect in its construction. The landlord had met their obligations to provide the usual means of combating mould in the form of adequate heating, ventilation fans and secure window catches.

The tenant’s evidence was that she was at home during the winter months when it is most likely the staining occurred and that she ventilated the property. The landlord has not produced any evidence that she failed to do so, other than the curtain damage. In the absence of such proof, this is a circular argument. Nor has the landlord provided evidence that the tenant engaged in activities that would increase a moisture problem and so the likelihood of mould, such as hanging clothes to dry inside.

The tenant’s contention that a single-glazed property is more susceptible to window condensation despite the presence of ventilation fans and compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards, combined with the tenant’s evidence that the length of the curtains contributed to their resting against the damp glass - which is supported by the landlord’s photographic evidence - so that damage occurred, make the landlord’s claim that the tenant caused the mould issue less likely.

The landlord presented their evidence to a high standard, but on the evidence of both parties before the Tribunal, it is not persuaded that it is more likely than not that the damage was caused carelessly or intentionally by the tenant.

The landlord’s application is therefore dismissed. Name suppression

As the landlord’s application has been unsuccessful, it is appropriate that the Tribunal suppresses the name of the tenant.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation for mould damage to the lounge drapes following the end of the tenancy. Standard of proof and evidence

The Tribunal must have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

It is intended that this order be as concise as possible to convey the essential facts, the law and the Tribunal’s reasons for its decisions. The landlord’s evidence and submissions

The landlord claimed that the drapes in the lounge had been very badly damaged by mould so that they required drycleaning at a cost of $585.00.

The landlord’s application is therefore dismissed. Name suppression

As the landlord’s application has been unsuccessful, it is appropriate that the Tribunal suppresses the name of the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5458835 — Mould & damp at 45B Strathmore Street, Matua, Tauranga 3110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5458835 — Mould & damp at 45B Strathmore Street, Matua, Tauranga 3110

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