What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5151132?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5151132?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5151132?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5151132?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12103426-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5151132?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5151132?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5151132?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5151132?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12103426-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5975 State Highway 10, Awanui, RD 3, Awanui 0483 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5151132 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Background

The Case Conference order dated 2 May 2025 sets out the background to this application.

On 26 May 2025 I made an order joining the Kareponia Marae Trust to the proceedings.

The second hearing took place in Kaitaia on 30 June 2025. Mr & Mrs Martin attended the hearing and were assisted by Ms Seddon and Mr Camplin. Mr Subritzky, Mr Matthews, and Mr Maclean (trustees) represented the Kareponia Marae. Mr Raumati (representing Colliers) and Ms Allen (representing LINZ) attended the hearing by phone with the consent of the Tribunal. Kareponia Marae’s perspective

In the previous order I provided some history of this tenancy from the perspective of LINZ / Colliers and Mr & Mrs Martin.

At the second hearing the Trustees provided some comments about the tenancy and the property from the Marae’s perspective.

The Trustees said that: a. The Trust accepted the tenancy because it wanted to retain an interest in the property. The Marae and the community have a strong connection to it. The Trust hopes that the property will be returned to the people one day, but the only property right on offer was a tenancy. b. The Trust was not asked or expected to do any maintenance of the property, or to carry out any other tasks such as inspections. c. The Trust’s only role was to receive rent from the tenant. After it received rent, the same amount was transferred to LINZ the next day. Therefore, the Trust had no rental income to pay for maintenance if it had been required to do any. The claims

The application raises the following issues: a. The condition of the driveway. b. The condition of the windows. c. Mould. d. Ceiling insulation. Driveway

The driveway is approximately 50m long.

It appears to have once had concreted driving strips, which are no longer intact. There is also GAP metal on the driveway.

Mr Martin’s photographs show that on parts of the driveway there are holes, ruts, and areas where the driveway ‘drops off’ from the edge of the remaining concreted areas.

Mr Martin said that couriers do not go up the driveway and he is concerned that emergency services may not go up it.

LINZ’s written submission acknowledged that the driveway was “challenging” but that it “remains passable” and the driveway construction is “typical of rural properties”.

Ms Allen noted that she was able to navigate the driveway when she visited the property in February this year.

Mr Raumati said that Colliers looked into the possibility of improving the driveway, but the contractors who visited the site advised that any attempted repairs are unlikely to be successful. The only option to remedy the driveway is to scrape it out and re-build it, and also address the drainage around the driveway so that it doesn’t wash out again. Colliers / LINZ said that this is very costly and relatively low priority work.

Mr Maclean noted that the Trustees attempted to help by paying (at their own cost) for some more GAP metal to be put on the driveway, but the metal washed out soon after it was laid. Windows

Mr Martin said that: a. The wooden windowsills and frames are rotten. b. There are gaps around windows and doors that allow draughts.

Mr Martin provided photographs of some of the window surrounds, and there are also relevant photographs in the healthy homes assessment report (January 2020) and mould assessment report (April 2024) provided by the landlord.

The photographs show that some of the wooden joinery is deteriorating due to age. There is flaked paint and cracked / discoloured timber.

Some of the joinery is in reasonable condition for its age.

Mr Martin said that the windows and doors throughout the house have gaps that allow unreasonable draughts.

Mr Martin said that Colliers had some work done this year to eliminate the draughts, but over the years the work done on the windows was piecemeal and ineffective.

LINZ obtained a healthy homes assessment report in January 2020. The report addresses draughts in the context of the healthy homes requirement that the home has no unreasonable gaps or holes which cause noticeable draughts. The report notes that: a. There is an old fireplace that has been blocked off but that “would benefit from having something more substantial to ensure it does not allow draughts”. b. The rear door requires a draught excluder (more than 3mm gap under door). c. The following windows require draught excluders due to gaps of 3mm or greater: i. Lounge windows; ii. Master bedroom right hand side; iii. Bedroom 2 left hand side; iv. Bedroom 3 ‘rear window’ v. Bedroom 4; vi. Bathroom louvre missing; vii. Laundry left hand side.

Colliers arranged for work to done in response to the healthy homes report, including in respect of eliminating draughts. Draught stopping work was carried out in April 2022, and further work was done in 2024. Mould

Mr & Mrs Martin said that the house has a significant and potentially dangerous mould problem.

Mr & Mrs Martin provided some photographs showing mould on ceilings and walls, particularly in bedroom 2. The photographs show large areas of dark mould.

Colliers / LINZ said that they have taken all reasonable steps to address the mould.

The house was re-roofed in 2014. As noted above, Colliers / LINZ carried out work to bring the house to healthy homes compliance in 2020-22, even though the healthy homes compliance date for this property was not until July 2025. Colliers / LINZ and their contractors have not been able to identify the cause of the mould problems.

Colliers / LINZ obtained a mould assessment report from WSP in March 2025. The report found that: a. Visible mould was present in one bedroom (bedroom 2) and the bathroom ceiling. b. The moisture level readings in the building materials were low. c. The temperature and relative humidity readings throughout the property were normal for that time of year in that area. d. The site “is experiencing high mould growth and spore release”. e. Remediation and repair of bedroom 2 and the bathroom should be considered. Ceiling insulation

Mr Martin said that earlier this year his son looked into the ceiling cavity and saw that the ceiling insulation was not completed. Some areas had no insulation at all and there ‘piles’ of insulation in other areas.

Mr Martin acknowledged that he has not looked into the ceiling cavity himself.

The Healthy Homes report (January 2020) addresses insulation. It states that there are fibreglass batts in the ceiling. The report notes: We note that the insulation has been poorly laid and that we estimate a range of 120mm to 190mm thick.

The report includes photographs of the ceiling insulation. It does not identify any areas that are missing insulation. The report gave the property a ‘pass’ for ceiling insulation on the grounds that there was insulation in place and it met the minimum thickness requirement.

The mould report also includes one photograph of the ceiling space. The photographs shows some ‘mounds’ of insulation material, but no substantial gaps. Discussion Law

Landlords 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 be habitable and available for residential purposes”. 1

The landlord’s repair obligation is not absolute. The landlord is obliged to take reasonable steps to address maintenance issues within a reasonable timeframe. What is reasonable depends on the specific circumstances.

The scope and extent of the landlord’s maintenance obligation is proscribed by the “age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to be habitable”. 1 Section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)

Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards. 2 The standards impose obligations on landlords in respect of heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping. The standards were introduced in stages and they now (since 1 July 2025) apply to all tenancies. Because this tenancy began in 2016 and it ended before 1 July 2025, the healthy homes standards did not apply compulsorily to this tenancy. Findings Ceiling insulation

The Healthy Homes report and Mould Assessment report show that the ceiling insulation was roughly laid, but: a. There is insulation present. b. The thickness and R-rating of the insulation meets the legal requirements. c. It is not proven that the insulation is incomplete or that parts of the ceiling are missing insulation.

There is no proven breach of a legal duty in respect of ceiling insulation. Driveway, windows, mould

Colliers provided evidence showing that over the period 2018-25 it spent $65,867.27 on repairs and maintenance.

Over the longer period 2008-25 it spent $151,870.20 on repairs and maintenance, which is less than the total rent that it received over that period.

Even with that expenditure, the property needs significant work to make it habitable.

Mr & Mrs Martin’s evidence shows that there were shortcomings and defects in the property that impacted them significantly. The problems with the property, in particular the mould, were not trivial.

However, the evidence does not show that Colliers / LINZ ignored the problems.

In terms of the mould, Colliers / LINZ took all reasonable steps to eliminate leaks and other possible sources of dampness. It replaced the roof. It brought the premises to the Healthy Homes standard. There is no evidence of leaks or excessive dampness in the home.

Colliers / LINZ eliminated the gaps around the windows and doors. 2

Colliers / LINZ investigated the driveway. Colliers did not attempt any repairs because, per the advice that they received and as evidenced by the Marae’s attempts, repairing the driveway is a futile exercise.

The problems that remain are “property problems” but they are not problems that are amenable to repair. The only way to fix the driveway is to remove it and replace it. The only way to prevent further deterioration and rot of the wooden window frames is to remove and replace them. The only way to remove the mould is to replace the affected building materials. Even then, given that the source of the mould hasn’t been identified, there is a chance that it may return.

In short, the property has reached the end of the period during which it is likely to be habitable, without a major and costly renovation. The deterioration of the property is not due to a failure to maintain it. This is borne out by the landlord’s evidence of their total expenditure on maintenance relative to rent. The deterioration is due to the age and construction of the house.

Therefore my finding is that the landlord did not fail to 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 be habitable.

I am satisfied that the landlord took all reasonable and appropriate steps to address the issues raised in this application.

Because the landlord did not breach a legal duty there is no basis to award damages (compensation or exemplary damages) to the tenant.

Therefore, the application must be dismissed.

Reasons

Background