What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5476976 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5476976?

Consent Order Award: $2,900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5476976?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5476976?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13716847-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5476976 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5476976?

Consent Order Award: $2,900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5476976?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5476976?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13716847-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5476976 — Mould & damp

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5476976. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Consent order award	$2,900.00		Consent order award

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,900.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the landlord immediately.
The tenants’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
The tenants and the landlord lodged applications. The Landlord’s application
At the hearing the parties agreed to settle the landlord’s application by the release of the full bond to the landlord. The Tenants’ application
The tenants claimed that the landlord breached Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) by failing to install a compliant extractor fan in the kitchen area. The landlord submitted that the premises met the criteria for exemption from the standard.
All premises are required to meet HHS as specified in Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (RTHHSRegs) unless the premises is exempt from a standard.
HHS requires that an externally vented extractor fan be installed in a kitchen. The kitchen in the premises occupied by the applicants did not include an extractor fan.
Section 24 of the RTHHSRegs provides for an exemption if it is not reasonably practicable to install an extractor fan in the kitchen and it was not a requirement to install an extractor fan when the property was built and that ventilation requirements were met by alternative means.
Regarding whether it is practicable to install an extractor fan in the kitchen, the landlord provided evidence from an electrician and a builder. Both contractors stated that an extractor fan could not be installed because of structural limitations within the building. There would have to be a significant modification to the building to enable the installation. The document from the registered electrician stated that the light fitting obstructed the standard installation position for the extractor fan and the light could not be easily relocated. “The electrical routing limitations at the property mean the installation of an extractor fan would require disproportionate and impractical work that goes well beyond what could reasonably be expected”.
The tenants did not provide evidence from a qualified person showing that an extractor fan could be installed.
The tenants also claimed that the premises was unable to be sufficiently ventilated to ensure the home was healthy.
The electrician and builder also referred to the ability to ventilate the premises. The premises is very small - 60sqm. The premises is cross ventilated by windows that open; there is a large extractor fan nearby in the bathroom and the premises contains a DVS Home ventilation system.
The tenants did not provide evidence from a qualified person in support of their claim that the property could not be ventilated.
The evidence provided proves that the premises could be adequately ventilated without a kitchen extractor fan.
I have considered that tenants’ claim that the mould in the premises proves that the property could not be ventilated. The evidence shows that at no time from the start of the tenancy for the first year, the tenants referred to mould in the premises. It does not assist the tenants’ case that they did not contact the landlord if there was a serious issue with mould from January 2025 to January 2026.
The property was inspected for valuation purposes about six months after the tenancy began. The report specifically refers to the absence of mould.
The mould seen in photos that the tenants provided, could occur in a premises with a kitchen extractor fan. Mould in premises can form because of the activity of occupants in the premises. Steam from hot showers, bedrooms where windows are not opened during the day and condensation from single glazed windows can form into mould if not cleaned. In the present case, the landlord pointed to photos of clothes drying on a drying rack inside the premises. This would increase the water content in the air in the premises and could contribute to the mould seen in the photos.
There is insufficient evidence to prove that the mould seen in photos was due to the absence of a kitchen extractor fan.
In summary, based on the evidence provided, the landlord has proved that there are grounds for an exemption from HHS regarding a kitchen extractor fan and that the premises could be adequately ventilated because of the opening windows and DVS. I do not find it proved that the structure of the premises caused mould. For these reasons the tenants’ claim is dismissed. Suppression
The Tribunal may, on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (s.95A(4).
There is no public interest in publishing the parties’ names in this case. The consent between the parties regarding a substantial part of the proceedings warrants their names and identifying details being suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5476976. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Consent order award	$2,900.00		Consent order award

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,900.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the landlord immediately.
The tenants’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
The tenants and the landlord lodged applications. The Landlord’s application
At the hearing the parties agreed to settle the landlord’s application by the release of the full bond to the landlord. The Tenants’ application
The tenants claimed that the landlord breached Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) by failing to install a compliant extractor fan in the kitchen area. The landlord submitted that the premises met the criteria for exemption from the standard.
All premises are required to meet HHS as specified in Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (RTHHSRegs) unless the premises is exempt from a standard.
HHS requires that an externally vented extractor fan be installed in a kitchen. The kitchen in the premises occupied by the applicants did not include an extractor fan.
Section 24 of the RTHHSRegs provides for an exemption if it is not reasonably practicable to install an extractor fan in the kitchen and it was not a requirement to install an extractor fan when the property was built and that ventilation requirements were met by alternative means.
Regarding whether it is practicable to install an extractor fan in the kitchen, the landlord provided evidence from an electrician and a builder. Both contractors stated that an extractor fan could not be installed because of structural limitations within the building. There would have to be a significant modification to the building to enable the installation. The document from the registered electrician stated that the light fitting obstructed the standard installation position for the extractor fan and the light could not be easily relocated. “The electrical routing limitations at the property mean the installation of an extractor fan would require disproportionate and impractical work that goes well beyond what could reasonably be expected”.
The tenants did not provide evidence from a qualified person showing that an extractor fan could be installed.
The tenants also claimed that the premises was unable to be sufficiently ventilated to ensure the home was healthy.
The electrician and builder also referred to the ability to ventilate the premises. The premises is very small - 60sqm. The premises is cross ventilated by windows that open; there is a large extractor fan nearby in the bathroom and the premises contains a DVS Home ventilation system.
The tenants did not provide evidence from a qualified person in support of their claim that the property could not be ventilated.
The evidence provided proves that the premises could be adequately ventilated without a kitchen extractor fan.
I have considered that tenants’ claim that the mould in the premises proves that the property could not be ventilated. The evidence shows that at no time from the start of the tenancy for the first year, the tenants referred to mould in the premises. It does not assist the tenants’ case that they did not contact the landlord if there was a serious issue with mould from January 2025 to January 2026.
The property was inspected for valuation purposes about six months after the tenancy began. The report specifically refers to the absence of mould.
The mould seen in photos that the tenants provided, could occur in a premises with a kitchen extractor fan. Mould in premises can form because of the activity of occupants in the premises. Steam from hot showers, bedrooms where windows are not opened during the day and condensation from single glazed windows can form into mould if not cleaned. In the present case, the landlord pointed to photos of clothes drying on a drying rack inside the premises. This would increase the water content in the air in the premises and could contribute to the mould seen in the photos.
There is insufficient evidence to prove that the mould seen in photos was due to the absence of a kitchen extractor fan.
In summary, based on the evidence provided, the landlord has proved that there are grounds for an exemption from HHS regarding a kitchen extractor fan and that the premises could be adequately ventilated because of the opening windows and DVS. I do not find it proved that the structure of the premises caused mould. For these reasons the tenants’ claim is dismissed. Suppression
The Tribunal may, on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (s.95A(4).
There is no public interest in publishing the parties’ names in this case. The consent between the parties regarding a substantial part of the proceedings warrants their names and identifying details being suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5476976 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5476976 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions