What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5515771 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 5515771?

Compensation: loss of amenity becaus…: $1,700.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: loss of belongings and…: $292.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: tenancy agreement brea…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5515771?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5515771?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14075164-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5515771 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 5515771?

Compensation: loss of amenity becaus…: $1,700.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: loss of belongings and…: $292.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: tenancy agreement brea…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5515771?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5515771?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14075164-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5515771 — Mould & damp

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5515771 — net $3,270.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of amenity because of draughts leaks and mould	$1,700.00	loss of amenity because of draughts leaks and mould
Compensation: loss of belongings and dump fees	$292.00	loss of belongings and dump fees
Compensation: no working smoke alarm	$1,000.00	as a loss of amenity because they were paying for a working smoke alarm. I find $1000 to be reasonable compensation for the 25 weeks from the start of the tena…
Compensation: tenancy agreement breach	$250.00	tenancy agreement breach
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,270.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,270.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is reduced and now ends at 11.59 pm on Friday 21 August 2026.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $3,270.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants have asked for their fixed term tenancy to end because of mould in the tenancy premises. They have also applied for compensation. The questions I have to decide include: • Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)? • Was there a failure to maintain? • Should the landlord pay compensation? • Was there a breach of the duty provide a smoke alarm and a proper HHS statement? • Should I end the tenancy?

Was there a breach of the HHS?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. The tenants’ application did not include claims for the heat pump, missing insulation, or the requirement for a ground moisture barrier. I have not made orders about these.
The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard. The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The tenants showed me a video of the door and window in the bedroom and photos showing the tenants measuring the gaps around these. The landlord said there was draught stopping but more was required to prevent draughts because of the extremely windy weather this year. The landlord installed stopping around the door and left the tenants to install draught stopping on the window.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. Their photos and video establish there were draughts. Their email dated 20 April 2026 advised the landlord of the draughts and nothing was done until 4 July. It seems most likely to me the landlord did not attend to the draught stopping in a timely manner and the tenancy was unnecessarily cold and draughty as a result. This was a breach of the HHS.

Was there a failure to maintain?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45 of the RTA to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenants have had problems with leaks, condensation inside the house, and mould.
The tenants provided a good video showing serious leaks around the bedroom, window, and around one of the doors. They reported this to the landlord when it happened on 26 June. The landlord came to the house and addressed the leaks around the door by installing draught stopping. He left the tenants to address the leaks around the window by leaving them draught stopping tape. The plumbing and weather tightness report done on 23 July sets out that the door appears to be an internal door in an external space and there are no flashings. There are no flashings on the window either. The report writer states the lack of flashings means water is able to track into the wall linings and is a weather tightness issue. There is still a risk of water ingress. I find there was a breach of the duty to repair the window and the door after the leaks.
The tenants first noticed mould in the flat at the end of March. They wrote a comprehensive email to the landlord on 20 April explaining that their efforts to clean, heat, run a dehumidifier, ventilate, and wipe windows were not preventing the significant mould growth in the house. I have seen photos showing mould on the walls and ceilings, on their belongings, and even in the toilet bowl. The landlord said the tenants were away for two weeks in March and they left a window open during a severe weather event. He said this raised the humidity levels in the flat so much that there is a now a mould problem which cannot be managed using the usual steps of cleaning, heating and ventilating. He said has never had mould in the flat before.
The weather tightness report writer found an unprotected hole which is described as a significant point of entry for wind driven rain and draughts and this is “considered a priority defect and a plausible primary contributor to the elevated bedroom wall lining readings...” The landlord said this hole has been fixed.
The report writer observed excessive condensation when the tenants used the heater without ventilating at the same time. He did not say there was wet washing inside or that the tenants were not using the extractors. His recommendation was to increase ventilation when running the heat pump, or maybe install a heat transfer system.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I am not persuaded the tenants left a window open for two weeks. The landlord has made an assumption they were away for two weeks because they messaged on 31 March to say they were home. However that message also states they were away for three days. Their explanation that someone had a key and was ventilating the flat while they were away is credible.
Taking everything into account it seems most likely to me the excessive condensation and mould were a flat fault and not a tenant fault. This is because the hole through the exterior concrete wall and the lack of flashings allowed damp air, rain and draughts into the flat. I find there was a breach of the duty to repair and maintain.

Should the landlord pay compensation?

The tenants have proved there was a loss of amenity because of the draughts, the leaks and the mould from 20 April 2026 to the date of the hearing. I find I should order compensation for the 17 weeks from the time they emailed on 20 April to the date of the hearing.
One of the tenants had asthma for the first time in her life and other respiratory conditions. She moved out and has been paying board at her Mum’s. The tenants have also asked for a full rent refund, reimbursement of the board, and compensation for the cost of the heat pump, the dehumidifiers, and the cleaning products.
It would be unusual for the Tribunal to order a full rent refund when the flat could still be lived in. I find that reimbursement of the cost of boarding for the tenant who had to move out because of respiratory issues was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the maintenance breach. Taking all these factors into account I find $100 a week to be fair compensation for the 17 weeks.
The tenants have also provided me with photos of damaged belongings and receipts for dumping items which had gone mouldy during the tenancy. It seems likely to me this was a problem arising from the failure to maintain. I accept the tenants’ evidence that the shelves, the mirror, the tray and the chopping board were purchased at the start of this tenancy. I have allowed compensation for replacing these and for the trips to the dump in the amount of $292.
The other claims for belongings are dismissed. I do not have enough evidence to show the sheet was that expensive or when it was bought and there could be other reasons why the gaming chair and the gym equipment went mouldy. The tenants are still using the bed base. Was there a breach of the duty provide a smoke alarm and a proper HHS statement?
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45 of the RTA to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. They said they were given a smoke alarm without a battery. It took the landlord 25 weeks to get a new smoke alarm delivered to the tenants, and they installed it with his instructions. The landlord said he was sure the old alarm was functional, but he had no records that he checked the expiry date when this tenancy started.
The is the tenants’ claim to prove. The landlord has not kept proper records so I am more persuaded by the tenant’s evidence. Their application is for compensation. I find there was a loss of amenity because they were paying for a working smoke alarm. I find $1000 to be reasonable compensation for the 25 weeks from the start of the tenancy until 6 August 2026.
The tenants said they were not provided with all the HHS information in the tenancy agreement. A statement was provided but it was not completed fully. The landlord said any missing information was an oversight and not intentional. Under s 13A(1CA) RTA landlords must include in the tenancy agreement a signed statement that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required and including the information prescribed by the HHS regulations.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I find the landlord breached the duty to provide the correct information before the start of the tenancy. The tenants have asked for compensation. I find $250 is fair compensation, which one third of the maximum exemplary damages amount and what I would have ordered had the tenants applied for exemplary damages.

Should I end the tenancy?

The tenants have applied for the reduction of the fixed term tenancy. The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) RTA.
At the hearing the landlord agreed the tenancy can end. For the record I note that I would have ended the tenancy if I was required to make a decision because of the condensation and mould, and because one of the tenants was told to move out for health reasons. Both tenants are on a benefit and it seems likely to me their hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship. The tenancy will end at 11.59 pm on Friday 21 August 2026.
Section 66(2) RTA allows me to order reasonable compensation for the landlord for any resulting loss. The landlord asked me to take his agreement into consideration when deciding the tenants’ claims. I find it would not be appropriate to order compensation for the landlord in this particular case because of the breach of the duty to repair and maintain. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
There are applications for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The tenants’ names are suppressed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords breach the RTA.
I have not made any order for the bond. The parties should complete the usual end of tenancy process.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5515771 — net $3,270.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of amenity because of draughts leaks and mould	$1,700.00	loss of amenity because of draughts leaks and mould
Compensation: loss of belongings and dump fees	$292.00	loss of belongings and dump fees
Compensation: no working smoke alarm	$1,000.00	as a loss of amenity because they were paying for a working smoke alarm. I find $1000 to be reasonable compensation for the 25 weeks from the start of the tena…
Compensation: tenancy agreement breach	$250.00	tenancy agreement breach
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,270.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,270.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is reduced and now ends at 11.59 pm on Friday 21 August 2026.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $3,270.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants have asked for their fixed term tenancy to end because of mould in the tenancy premises. They have also applied for compensation. The questions I have to decide include: • Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)? • Was there a failure to maintain? • Should the landlord pay compensation? • Was there a breach of the duty provide a smoke alarm and a proper HHS statement? • Should I end the tenancy?

Was there a breach of the HHS?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. The tenants’ application did not include claims for the heat pump, missing insulation, or the requirement for a ground moisture barrier. I have not made orders about these.
The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard. The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The tenants showed me a video of the door and window in the bedroom and photos showing the tenants measuring the gaps around these. The landlord said there was draught stopping but more was required to prevent draughts because of the extremely windy weather this year. The landlord installed stopping around the door and left the tenants to install draught stopping on the window.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. Their photos and video establish there were draughts. Their email dated 20 April 2026 advised the landlord of the draughts and nothing was done until 4 July. It seems most likely to me the landlord did not attend to the draught stopping in a timely manner and the tenancy was unnecessarily cold and draughty as a result. This was a breach of the HHS.

Was there a failure to maintain?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45 of the RTA to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenants have had problems with leaks, condensation inside the house, and mould.
The tenants provided a good video showing serious leaks around the bedroom, window, and around one of the doors. They reported this to the landlord when it happened on 26 June. The landlord came to the house and addressed the leaks around the door by installing draught stopping. He left the tenants to address the leaks around the window by leaving them draught stopping tape. The plumbing and weather tightness report done on 23 July sets out that the door appears to be an internal door in an external space and there are no flashings. There are no flashings on the window either. The report writer states the lack of flashings means water is able to track into the wall linings and is a weather tightness issue. There is still a risk of water ingress. I find there was a breach of the duty to repair the window and the door after the leaks.
The tenants first noticed mould in the flat at the end of March. They wrote a comprehensive email to the landlord on 20 April explaining that their efforts to clean, heat, run a dehumidifier, ventilate, and wipe windows were not preventing the significant mould growth in the house. I have seen photos showing mould on the walls and ceilings, on their belongings, and even in the toilet bowl. The landlord said the tenants were away for two weeks in March and they left a window open during a severe weather event. He said this raised the humidity levels in the flat so much that there is a now a mould problem which cannot be managed using the usual steps of cleaning, heating and ventilating. He said has never had mould in the flat before.
The weather tightness report writer found an unprotected hole which is described as a significant point of entry for wind driven rain and draughts and this is “considered a priority defect and a plausible primary contributor to the elevated bedroom wall lining readings...” The landlord said this hole has been fixed.
The report writer observed excessive condensation when the tenants used the heater without ventilating at the same time. He did not say there was wet washing inside or that the tenants were not using the extractors. His recommendation was to increase ventilation when running the heat pump, or maybe install a heat transfer system.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I am not persuaded the tenants left a window open for two weeks. The landlord has made an assumption they were away for two weeks because they messaged on 31 March to say they were home. However that message also states they were away for three days. Their explanation that someone had a key and was ventilating the flat while they were away is credible.
Taking everything into account it seems most likely to me the excessive condensation and mould were a flat fault and not a tenant fault. This is because the hole through the exterior concrete wall and the lack of flashings allowed damp air, rain and draughts into the flat. I find there was a breach of the duty to repair and maintain.

Should the landlord pay compensation?

The tenants have proved there was a loss of amenity because of the draughts, the leaks and the mould from 20 April 2026 to the date of the hearing. I find I should order compensation for the 17 weeks from the time they emailed on 20 April to the date of the hearing.
One of the tenants had asthma for the first time in her life and other respiratory conditions. She moved out and has been paying board at her Mum’s. The tenants have also asked for a full rent refund, reimbursement of the board, and compensation for the cost of the heat pump, the dehumidifiers, and the cleaning products.
It would be unusual for the Tribunal to order a full rent refund when the flat could still be lived in. I find that reimbursement of the cost of boarding for the tenant who had to move out because of respiratory issues was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the maintenance breach. Taking all these factors into account I find $100 a week to be fair compensation for the 17 weeks.
The tenants have also provided me with photos of damaged belongings and receipts for dumping items which had gone mouldy during the tenancy. It seems likely to me this was a problem arising from the failure to maintain. I accept the tenants’ evidence that the shelves, the mirror, the tray and the chopping board were purchased at the start of this tenancy. I have allowed compensation for replacing these and for the trips to the dump in the amount of $292.
The other claims for belongings are dismissed. I do not have enough evidence to show the sheet was that expensive or when it was bought and there could be other reasons why the gaming chair and the gym equipment went mouldy. The tenants are still using the bed base. Was there a breach of the duty provide a smoke alarm and a proper HHS statement?
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45 of the RTA to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. They said they were given a smoke alarm without a battery. It took the landlord 25 weeks to get a new smoke alarm delivered to the tenants, and they installed it with his instructions. The landlord said he was sure the old alarm was functional, but he had no records that he checked the expiry date when this tenancy started.
The is the tenants’ claim to prove. The landlord has not kept proper records so I am more persuaded by the tenant’s evidence. Their application is for compensation. I find there was a loss of amenity because they were paying for a working smoke alarm. I find $1000 to be reasonable compensation for the 25 weeks from the start of the tenancy until 6 August 2026.
The tenants said they were not provided with all the HHS information in the tenancy agreement. A statement was provided but it was not completed fully. The landlord said any missing information was an oversight and not intentional. Under s 13A(1CA) RTA landlords must include in the tenancy agreement a signed statement that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required and including the information prescribed by the HHS regulations.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I find the landlord breached the duty to provide the correct information before the start of the tenancy. The tenants have asked for compensation. I find $250 is fair compensation, which one third of the maximum exemplary damages amount and what I would have ordered had the tenants applied for exemplary damages.

Should I end the tenancy?

The tenants have applied for the reduction of the fixed term tenancy. The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) RTA.
At the hearing the landlord agreed the tenancy can end. For the record I note that I would have ended the tenancy if I was required to make a decision because of the condensation and mould, and because one of the tenants was told to move out for health reasons. Both tenants are on a benefit and it seems likely to me their hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship. The tenancy will end at 11.59 pm on Friday 21 August 2026.
Section 66(2) RTA allows me to order reasonable compensation for the landlord for any resulting loss. The landlord asked me to take his agreement into consideration when deciding the tenants’ claims. I find it would not be appropriate to order compensation for the landlord in this particular case because of the breach of the duty to repair and maintain. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
There are applications for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The tenants’ names are suppressed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords breach the RTA.
I have not made any order for the bond. The parties should complete the usual end of tenancy process.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5515771 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5515771 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach of the HHS?

Was there a failure to maintain?

Should the landlord pay compensation?

Should I end the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach of the HHS?

Was there a failure to maintain?

Should the landlord pay compensation?

Should I end the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.