Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5542657 — Mould & damp
Decided 14 Aug 2026 · Published 14 Aug 2026 · Application 5542657
- Mould & damp
- Cleanliness
- Exemplary damages
- Harassment
- Unit Titles
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and guarantor’s names and identifying details.
- Wolfbrook Property Management Limited As Agent For Shore Group Investments Ltd - Raj Singh must pay [The tenant/s] $779.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing on 13 August 2026.
- The tenant is 22 years old. The tenant was represented by her mother, who is also the guarantor under the tenancy agreement. I will refer to the tenant’s representative as “the guarantor”. Background
- The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 3 June 2026 to 30 June 2027. The tenancy is continuing, and the weekly rent is $375.00.
- The premises comprise an apartment in a building owned by a body corporate and its unit owners. When the tenant attempted to move in on 3 June 2026, there were issues with cleanliness and mould in the bathroom. Soon afterwards, the landlord replaced mouldy sealant in the kitchen splash-back, new silicone was applied around the base of the shower cubicle, and cleaning was performed to remove mould in the shower. The cook top, toilet, and carpet were also cleaned. It seems likely that the mould issue arose from the unit being empty and closed for several months.
- Because of the mould, the tenant was not able to move in, and utilised alternative accommodation until 6 June 2026. The landlord has reimbursed the tenant for this cost. Quiet Enjoyment
- On 2 July 2026, the tenant was woken at 9.35pm by two maintenance contractors who wanted to inspect the shower door prior to performing maintenance. Although asked to come back the following day, the contractors said they would only need 10 minutes, otherwise there would be delays. The tenant was aware that the glass shower panel needed to be properly secured, and was worried that it could fall off the wall. The tenant felt pressured to let the maintenance people in.
- In written statements, the tenant said that the contractors had a keycard and had opened the outer door which leads to the entrance doors of her apartment and her neighbours’ unit. Apparently, the contractors were there at that time because they had expected the apartment to be empty.
- The tenant also referred to entry by a tradesperson, without notice, to re-seal the kitchen splashback. The tenant says the experience left her anxious that contractors or other persons may enter the apartment without notice.
- My understanding is that the landlord is both the property manager and the building manager. As the latter, they are engaged by and report to the body corporate. Given that the maintenance personnel were attending to quote for repairs to the interior of the unit, rather than the common property, I consider that they were there as the agent of the owner/landlord. I find that the landlord is responsible for the conduct of their contractors in respect of access to the tenant’s apartment.
- The unannounced visit, late in the evening on 2 July 2026, was a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. The tenant was asleep, dressed in her pyjamas, and the incident has caused her a great deal of distress due to an incident when she was at university. The landlord made it clear at the hearing that they do not condone the contractor’s actions, and they gave a formal apology to the tenant, which I acknowledge.
- I do not view the incident as harassment. It was, in a literal sense, harassing, but the contractors were no doubt trying to do their job, albeit rather too enthusiastically. There was no intention to harm the tenant or to act adversely to her interests; the contractors’ behaviour was negligent, not intentional. However, the guarantor stated that the claim was for exemplary damages, and not compensation.
- Ordinarily, the Tribunal would not go behind such an election but in this case, I consider it would be unjust not to provide the tenant with some remedy. While the tenant may have a predisposition to concerns about her security, she has good reason for that, and anyone living on their own would find it distressing to have unwanted visitors insisting on entry late in the evening. I award general damages for mental distress and anxiety in the sum of $750.00 (two week’s rent). It is unacceptable for a landlord or their agents to insist on entry without notice after 7pm in the evening. The relatively high award recognises the lasting impact on the tenant. Reasonable Security
- The tenant also sought a work order requiring the landlord to add a deadbolt to the tenant’s entrance door, to give her a greater sense of security. Because this is a unit title, and the door connects the premises to the common property, I accept that the landlord probably needed the body corporate’s permission to add a lock. I note clause 14 of the body corporate rules which provides the body corporate with a right of access to maintain security. There are also general rights of access mandated by section 80 of the Unit Titles Act 2010. The body corporate’s permission has been obtained, but the body corporate has specified that the lock must be such that occupants cannot be trapped in an emergency.
- The guarantor did not accept this as a solution and spoke about a lack of trust in the property manager. I understand the tenant’s concerns, but apparently no other apartment has a lock on the entrance door. There is a real and significant health and safety risk if a lock is added that would, in an emergency, mean the tenant could be locked in her room with no ability to gain access from outside.
- I also note that the landlord’s obligation under section 46 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) is to “provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.” I consider that this obligation can be extended to cover not just the locks themselves, but also to who controls access to keys (or in this case, key cards) to enable entry.
- The landlord explained that they have tightened their procedures around access to key cards to prevent a similar incident happening again. It is not clear that the premises are not “reasonably secure” given these changes. The Tribunal cannot direct the landlord to add a lock to an entrance door which might trap the tenant inside. Doing so would also be contrary to the body corporate’s rights and duties.
- I understood the landlord is willing to install the lock at their cost, although that was not the case initially. Installation by the body corporate or the landlord would clearly be in the parties’ interests, to ensure that the work is properly supervised and done professionally. I will not direct the landlord to do the work, because as noted, I consider it goes beyond what the landlord is required by law to do. I trust that the landlord will install a lock to give the tenant greater peace of mind, but I agree with the landlord that whatever is done must meet health and safety requirements. Cleanliness of Premises
- The tenant also claimed exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. This was based on the existence of black mould in the bathroom and an allegation that the property manager said the apartment was clean when it was not. The tenant says that the landlord provided her with marketing photographs rather than photographs of the property itself. There were also photographs taken by the letting agent on 15 May 2026.
- There is a “sight unseen” clause in the tenancy agreement, whereby the tenant confirmed they accepted the property in its present condition, but I do not consider this clause can reduce the tenant’s rights (see section 11(3) of the Act). The entry inspection report dated 28 May 2026 generally shows a clean and tidy apartment. The premises look reasonably clean. There is no obvious or widespread mould.
- An undated document, I assume prepared by the landlord as a submission, stated that there was “minor mould within the grout in the shower, and near the kitchen tap silicon”. There was also “black staining around the toilet porcelain bowl.” The cleaners returned to deal with these issues.
- The tenant was unhappy with the condition of the premises when she moved in. She was entitled to raise concerns, but the standard of cleanliness under the Act may be different to a tenant’s subjective expectations. I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, and they addressed the cleaning issues raised by the tenant within a couple of days. I find it would not be just to award exemplary damages. , Filing Fee and Suppression
- The tenant’s application has been partly successful. I award the filing fee.
- The tenant and guarantor are granted name suppression, as requested