Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5496307 — Mould & damp
Decided 10 Sept 2026 · Published 10 Sept 2026 · Application 5496307
- Mould & damp
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- Auckland Property Management Solutions Limited T/As Ray White Youngs Rentals As Agent For Yike Zhang Fan Yang must pay [the Tenants] $979, being $300 compensation for the mould, $650 for the cooktop reimbursement and $29 for the filing fee, as per the orders below. The balance of their claims are dismissed.
- The application for an adjournment by the landlord is dismissed but the landlord is free to make their own application for compensation and that application should be referred to me for determination.
Reasons
- Only the tenants attended the hearing. After the hearing had commenced, an email was received from the landlord to say he had made a mistake with the dates and wanted an adjournment.
- Before I proceeded further with the hearing, I therefore dealt with that request.
- The Tenancy Tribunal is required to deliver expeditious outcomes. Section 85 of the RTA provides: 85Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
- When parties who are duly served with the notice of hearing do not attend, it wastes the resources of the Tribunal, as well as those of the other party.
- I am not prepared to adjourn the matter because the landlord received the notice of hearing and did not attend. Background
- The tenancy was for a fixed term. It started on 4 April 2025 and ended on 19 February 2026, although the tenants moved out on 7 February 2026.
- The tenants are claiming damages from the landlord because: a. there was a lot of mould in the property and the premises was very cold, b. one of the tenants damaged an element on the cook top and the tenants were then forced to pay for a brand-new cooktop, c. when the tenants moved in, they had to clean up from the prior tenant. The landlord said thank you but also that he did not ask the tenants to do that. d. one of the tenants slipped on the floor and the landlord did not install any anti slip floor covering, e. the tenants feel the landlord did not get a new tenant into the property soon enough, and waited an excessive amount of time before replying to their December email about wanting to leave the fixed term early, and f. the tenants were forced to pay for half the cost of gardening work after the tenancy came to an end. The cooktop
- On 28 April 2025, a pot slipped out of the tenant’s hand and fell onto the element. The element cracked but it was still useable.
- The tenants told the landlord about it straightaway and sent a photo.
- The agent said he would send someone to take a look at it. The agent fixed the cooktop, and it was replaced with a brand new one.
- The tenant’s complaint is that they had to pay $650 for the new cooktop. The landlord covered just the cost of the excess.
- They did not challenge this at the time; they just paid. The landlord said that if the tenant did not pay, the landlord would deduct the cost from the bond. They were unaware of their legal rights. They want to claim this sum back. Mould and cold
- Every week, the tenants say they had to clean the mould off from the around the windows, in the bathroom ceiling and in the kitchen. They said they aired the house as much as they could.
- They sent the landlord emails about the mould, but nothing was done.
- The tenants produced copies of photographs of the mould.
- The premises was also very cold. There was one heat pump but the property remained very cold. Their youngest child was three years old and the tenant had to keep him away from day care because he was sick. The tenant’s children were sick most of the time.
- The coldness drove the tenants to leave the property. The tenants also wanted to leave because the rent was very high and the tenants wanted to be in another school zone.
- The landlord said he would send someone to look at the house when they complained about the cold. An inspector came into the house, but he did not come inside. Instead, some more insulation product was put in underneath the house. Exit issues
- When the tenants were shifting out, there were issues. The tenants had a fixed term tenancy. They asked for early release on December 28 th . The landlord was not immediately available to deal with the request. On 12 January 2026, the landlord finally replied to say they would not allow them to leave until 3 weeks after 19 th February 2026.
- The tenants did not accept this and left on 7 February 2026, paying rent up to 19 February 2026.
- The tenants were very unhappy with the delays in responding to them. They are also unhappy that although they had told the landlord they were leaving earlier, the landlord said he would need an additional week of the property being empty. The tenants paid rent until 19 February 2026. They complained about this but the landlord said it needed a further week to get the property ready for the next tenant.
- On the 25 th of February, the tenants got an email from the landlord to say the tenants would have to pay for the tidy up to the garden, $230. They tenants disagreed with this but compromised on paying half. They want to claim back for the half they paid. They did not get a chance to go back and tidy up the gardens themselves. Analysis The cooktop.
- I accept the tenant’s evidence he has paid for a new cooktop of $650. He said the landlord’s excess was $40 and it covered the excess.
- Payment does not, by itself, establish that the tenant was legally liable or prevent a later claim.
- If I had heard this claim as a landlord claim, then likely I would have determined the damage was caused by the tenant and was accidental.
- In fixing any amount in favour of the landlord I would of course consider depreciation / betterment and the like.
- I have no evidence from the landlord before me and the landlord has not made their own application.
- I intend to order that the full amount be reimbursed to the tenant. The landlord is of course free to make their own application for compensation relating to the cook top. That application should be determined by me.
- Therefore, although I am ordering that the $650 be paid back to the tenants, I am making no substantive determination about the merits of the landlord’s claim for compensation for the cooktop. The exit and entry issues
- In a fixed term the landlord is entitled to be paid rent up until the expiry of the fixed term or any earlier date of commencement of a new tenancy. 1 A fixed term can certainly be vacated earlier but only by agreement of the landlord and the landlord is not compelled to reach such an agreement.
- I make no award for any compensation regarding the amount of rent the tenant paid up until the termination of the tenancy on 19 February. There was no compulsion on the landlord to negotiate fast, especially over the Christmas period.
- The gardening cost is in a different category than the cooktop cost. It arose at the end of the tenancy; the tenants have negotiated this amount down from what the landlord was seeking. I consider this to have been a full and final settlement of the cost of the gardening. They are not entitled to recover it back.
- When the tenants moved in, they had to clean up from the prior tenant. The landlord said thank you but also that he did not ask the tenants to do that. They never made any claim for that work at the outset of the tenancy. There was nothing put forward corroborating the work done or the condition of the property 1 Auckland Property Management Ltd v Folland [2020] NZDC 628 (20 January 2020) at that time. There was no evidence they first asked the landlord to do the clean up. They are only raising this at the end of the tenancy
- This claim is therefore not proven on the balance of probabilities.
- Likewise, I consider the slippery floor to be unproven. There is nothing corroborating this or assisting me to establish that it was a breach of the landlord’s obligations. The mould and cold
- In relation to mould, the presence of black mould may signify an inherent mould issue, but in a prior decision of the Tenancy Tribunal, Semmens, Hannah Louise v Wadman, Brian, 2 the Tribunal said: It is the case, that mould is commonly present throughout all residential dwellings in New Zealand to some degree. Mould is ordinary, and of itself simply having mould would not be sufficient to establish a breach on the part of the landlord for which compensation could be ordered. Rather, what a tenant must establish, is that there are defects with the premises which have caused the mould to develop, or to be at a more extensive level than would otherwise be reasonably expected in a dwelling at that meets the required building standards.
- The presence of mould in a property can be caused by a variety of factors, including some form of defect in the premises, a lack of ventilation or both. The fact that mould is present in a house is not in and of itself enough to show that it was not in a reasonable state of repair, and the opinion of unqualified persons is often not persuasive 3 : Repia v Walsh Trust.
- The tenants produced photographs showing mould and also water seeping underneath a window.
- I consider the mould here was slightly more than would be normally seen. The water seeping under the window is certainly evidence the premises were damp.
- The landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
- Under s 45 of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. A landlord must also comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. 4 2 [2022] NZTT Manukau 4310605 3 DC Waitakere, CIV-2011-090-00056, 27 April 2011 4 Section 45 of the RTA
- The obligation of the landlord to provide premises in a reasonable state of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage (see Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 5 ) Further, a tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises and the need for repair. 6
- A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 7 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 8 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 9 .
- Here, I accept the tenant’s evidence they complained about this. I award them $300 by way of loss of amenity and compensation for having to clean away the mould so often. I have not made any award for coldness because I find this claim to be unproven. There are no expert reports which verify the insulation was lacking or the property was not healthy homes compliant.
- Because [the tenants] has succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
- I also award them name suppression because they have had success.