Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5567886 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat Unit 7A, 85 Poulson Street, Addington,

Decided 21 Sept 2026 · Published 21 Sept 2026 · Application 5567886

Mould & damp
Exemplary damages
Leaks

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

Christchurch

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

K Henry

Dispute themes

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5567886. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee

Order

The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. The first hearing for this matter took place on 15 September 2026 and the second on 18 September 2026.
Both hearings took place via video conference. Representatives of the landlord attended both hearings for the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearings. An attempt was made to contact the tenant at the start of the hearings, but they were unsuccessful. The tenant has not communicated with the Tribunal as to why she would not attend the hearings. The hearings proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the issuing of a termination notice. In the alternative, the landlord has applied for a termination order. Relevant background:
On 03 August 2026, the landlord sent the tenant letter stating that in accordance with section 59 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), the landlord was giving the tenant: ... 7 days’ notice that the tenancy will terminate on 13 August 2026 at 9am. You will need to have vacated the premises by this date. A Mould Identification Analysis conducted on 12 June 2026 with your unit confirmed the presence of Stachybotrys mould. Due to the health risks associated with this type of mould, your unit has been deemed uninhabitable. ...
The tenant did not vacate the premises.
On 21 August 2026, the landlord applied to the Tribunal for a possession order or a termination order in the alternative. Summary of the relevant law:
Section 50(1) of the RTA provides that no tenancy shall be terminated otherwise that in accordance with the relevant provisions of the RTA.
The landlord claims to have terminated the tenancy in accordance with section 59 of the RTA or section 59B of the RTA. Section 59B of the RTA only applies where regulations have been made under it. The only regulations that have been made under that section are the Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026, which do not apply to contamination other than methamphetamine.
Section 59 of the RTA provides for two possibilities depending on how damaged / destroyed the premises are. Section 59(1) provides that where the premises are completely destroyed or “... are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable”: (a) the rent shall abate accordingly; and (b) either party may give notice to the other terminating the tenancy.
If giving notice under section 59(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord must give at least 7 days’ notice and the tenant at least 2 days’ notice. (See subsections 59(2) and (3) of the RTA.)
If the premises are only “... partially destroyed, or part of the premises is so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable”, section 59(4) of the RTA provides: (a) the rent shall abate accordingly; and (b) either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy, ....
If an Order is sought under section 59(4)(b) of the RTA, the Tribunal can only make the order if it: ... is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to reinstate the property or (as the case may require) to require the tenant to continue with the tenancy albeit at a reduced rent.
Section 59 of the RTA does not apply where the destruction or damage is a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement. In that case, section 59A of the RTA applies. The landlord has not asserted that the mould contamination has been caused because of the tenant’s breach of the tenancy agreement.
If a landlord wishes to issue a termination notice under section 59(1) of the RTA, it is important that they have grounds to do so. Giving notice without grounds is a breach of section 50(1) of the RTA which may result in the tenant being awarded compensation for losses suffered as a result of the breach.
In addition, section 60AA of the RTA provides that it is an unlawful act for a landlord to terminate a tenancy or apply to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy if they know they are not entitled to do so. The Tribunal can award exemplary damages for a breach of section 60AA (see section 109 and schedule 1A of the RTA.)
The RTA does not define uninhabitable. In First Avenue Property Ltd v Malik DC Christchurch (VIC-2011-009-001539) 23 November 2011 the Court said that when determining if a premises was uninhabitable it was necessary to consider the personal circumstance of the tenant stating: ... young men occupying a flat might be more robust and able to put up with the privations of earthquake damage than, say, a young family with a child who had bronchial problems that are exacerbated by liquefaction dust or even an elderly couple whose mobility is affected by their age.
In Watkin v Brazier Property Investments Ltd DC Christchurch (CIV-201-009- 001006), 28 November 2011 the Court said: [11] The Dictionary definitions (of habitable and inhabitable) do not advance the matter. The meaning of the word is very much dependant on the context. Accordingly, the term should be assessed in the light of prevailing conditions and expectations of the particular community at the particular time.
An important factor is the length of time the repairs will take. In Strong and Strong v Tither and Tither [2026] NZTT 5496820, the Tribunal pointed out that “[d]amage requiring a short period of time out of the premises does not constitute uninhabitability”. The evidence:
The landlord has provided the results of the test conducted on 12 June 2026.
At the first hearing, the landlord confirmed that the mould was limited to the bathroom. The landlord did not know how long it would take to rectify the issue, or if the tenant (and/or her belongings) could safely remain in the premises while the work was undertaken. The hearing was adjourned to allow the landlord to obtain evidence from a suitably qualified person.
This evidence was provided in advance of the second hearing in the form of an unsigned statement from the Branch Manager of Tech Clean. His statement included the following: a. The test results indicate an advanced level of stachybotrys contamination; b. Tech Clean recommends removal of the existing gib ceiling as mould may be growing through the ceiling void; c. The recommendation is to remove the gib ceiling to determine the level of water ingress and to carry out remediation work; d. The remediation work can be completed in one day; and e. The preference is for the tenant not to be present during the remediation work, however, it is possible to put control measures in place to carry out the work.
During the hearing the landlord accepted that one possible outcome is that the work could be completed within one day and that the tenant could remain in the premises for that work. Findings:
Based on the evidence provided, I am not satisfied that the premises are either wholly or partly uninhabitable.
The landlord’s claims for a possession order or, in the alternative a termination order, are dismissed. As the landlord has failed in its claims, its application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Mould & damp Exemplary damages Leaks Christchurch

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s109, s2026, s50(1), s59, s59(1), s59(2), s59(4), s59A, s59B, s60AA, s8V

Key findings

Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Dispute theme: mould
Dispute theme: leaks

Property management

OTAUTAHI COMMUNITY HOUSING TRUST (applicant)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5567886 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5567886?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5567886?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5567886?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14235133-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

For landlords & property managers

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.

Order a Tenantcheck →

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. The first hearing for this matter took place on 15 September 2026 and the second on 18 September 2026.

Both hearings took place via video conference. Representatives of the landlord attended both hearings for the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearings. An attempt was made to contact the tenant at the start of the hearings, but they were unsuccessful. The tenant has not communicated with the Tribunal as to why she would not attend the hearings. The hearings proceeded in the tenant’s absence.

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the issuing of a termination notice. In the alternative, the landlord has applied for a termination order. Relevant background:

On 03 August 2026, the landlord sent the tenant letter stating that in accordance with section 59 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), the landlord was giving the tenant: ... 7 days’ notice that the tenancy will terminate on 13 August 2026 at 9am. You will need to have vacated the premises by this date. A Mould Identification Analysis conducted on 12 June 2026 with your unit confirmed the presence of Stachybotrys mould. Due to the health risks associated with this type of mould, your unit has been deemed uninhabitable. ...

The tenant did not vacate the premises.

On 21 August 2026, the landlord applied to the Tribunal for a possession order or a termination order in the alternative. Summary of the relevant law:

Section 50(1) of the RTA provides that no tenancy shall be terminated otherwise that in accordance with the relevant provisions of the RTA.

The landlord claims to have terminated the tenancy in accordance with section 59 of the RTA or section 59B of the RTA. Section 59B of the RTA only applies where regulations have been made under it. The only regulations that have been made under that section are the Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026, which do not apply to contamination other than methamphetamine.

Section 59 of the RTA provides for two possibilities depending on how damaged / destroyed the premises are. Section 59(1) provides that where the premises are completely destroyed or “... are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable”: (a) the rent shall abate accordingly; and (b) either party may give notice to the other terminating the tenancy.

If giving notice under section 59(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord must give at least 7 days’ notice and the tenant at least 2 days’ notice. (See subsections 59(2) and (3) of the RTA.)

If the premises are only “... partially destroyed, or part of the premises is so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable”, section 59(4) of the RTA provides: (a) the rent shall abate accordingly; and (b) either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy, ....

If an Order is sought under section 59(4)(b) of the RTA, the Tribunal can only make the order if it: ... is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to reinstate the property or (as the case may require) to require the tenant to continue with the tenancy albeit at a reduced rent.

Section 59 of the RTA does not apply where the destruction or damage is a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement. In that case, section 59A of the RTA applies. The landlord has not asserted that the mould contamination has been caused because of the tenant’s breach of the tenancy agreement.

If a landlord wishes to issue a termination notice under section 59(1) of the RTA, it is important that they have grounds to do so. Giving notice without grounds is a breach of section 50(1) of the RTA which may result in the tenant being awarded compensation for losses suffered as a result of the breach.

In addition, section 60AA of the RTA provides that it is an unlawful act for a landlord to terminate a tenancy or apply to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy if they know they are not entitled to do so. The Tribunal can award exemplary damages for a breach of section 60AA (see section 109 and schedule 1A of the RTA.)

The RTA does not define uninhabitable. In First Avenue Property Ltd v Malik DC Christchurch (VIC-2011-009-001539) 23 November 2011 the Court said that when determining if a premises was uninhabitable it was necessary to consider the personal circumstance of the tenant stating: ... young men occupying a flat might be more robust and able to put up with the privations of earthquake damage than, say, a young family with a child who had bronchial problems that are exacerbated by liquefaction dust or even an elderly couple whose mobility is affected by their age.

In Watkin v Brazier Property Investments Ltd DC Christchurch (CIV-201-009- 001006), 28 November 2011 the Court said: [11] The Dictionary definitions (of habitable and inhabitable) do not advance the matter. The meaning of the word is very much dependant on the context. Accordingly, the term should be assessed in the light of prevailing conditions and expectations of the particular community at the particular time.

An important factor is the length of time the repairs will take. In Strong and Strong v Tither and Tither [2026] NZTT 5496820, the Tribunal pointed out that “[d]amage requiring a short period of time out of the premises does not constitute uninhabitability”. The evidence:

The landlord has provided the results of the test conducted on 12 June 2026.

At the first hearing, the landlord confirmed that the mould was limited to the bathroom. The landlord did not know how long it would take to rectify the issue, or if the tenant (and/or her belongings) could safely remain in the premises while the work was undertaken. The hearing was adjourned to allow the landlord to obtain evidence from a suitably qualified person.

This evidence was provided in advance of the second hearing in the form of an unsigned statement from the Branch Manager of Tech Clean. His statement included the following: a. The test results indicate an advanced level of stachybotrys contamination; b. Tech Clean recommends removal of the existing gib ceiling as mould may be growing through the ceiling void; c. The recommendation is to remove the gib ceiling to determine the level of water ingress and to carry out remediation work; d. The remediation work can be completed in one day; and e. The preference is for the tenant not to be present during the remediation work, however, it is possible to put control measures in place to carry out the work.

During the hearing the landlord accepted that one possible outcome is that the work could be completed within one day and that the tenant could remain in the premises for that work. Findings:

Based on the evidence provided, I am not satisfied that the premises are either wholly or partly uninhabitable.

The landlord’s claims for a possession order or, in the alternative a termination order, are dismissed. As the landlord has failed in its claims, its application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed.