What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5250359?

The tribunal order states: Haron & Co Limited must pay Cheyenne Brooke Hagger and Anthony William

How much money was awarded in case 5250359?

Compensation: $3,264.29 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5250359?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5250359?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12277326-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5250359?

The tribunal order states: Haron & Co Limited must pay Cheyenne Brooke Hagger and Anthony William

How much money was awarded in case 5250359?

Compensation: $3,264.29 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5250359?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5250359?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12277326-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21 Duckworth Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5250359 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5250359. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
immediately, being compensation of	$3,264.29		immediately, being compensation of
for failure to maintain and the filing fee of	$27.00		for failure to maintain and the filing fee of

Haron & Co Limited must pay Cheyenne Brooke Hagger and Anthony William Hagger $3,291.29 immediately, being compensation of $3,264.29 for failure to maintain and the filing fee of $27.00.

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by Friday 5 September 2025: a. Clean the mould from the back bedroom and apply an anti-fungal treatment. b. Inspect the leaking window and make it weathertight.

If the landlord does not comply with Order 2, the tenant may request a further hearing to consider making an alternative monetary order or granting any other appropriate remedy.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today.

On 6 May 2025, the tenant applied to the Tribunal for work orders and compensation.

On 13 August 2025, the landlord filed a cross-application. Background

The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a periodic tenancy from 2 November 2022. The weekly rent is $750.00 for a 4-bedroom property.

The tenants raised concerns about maintenance issues in texts dated 3 March 2024, 24 May 2024, and 11 September 2024. The tenants issued a 14-day notice to remedy dated 3 April 2025. This identified issues with mould and broken and damp flooring. In the earlier correspondence the tenants had raised concerns about a leaking window, rusted window latches preventing windows from closing properly, a jamming ranch slider door and the hallway floor.

Maintenance work was performed by the landlord on or about 7 July 2025, at a cost of $6,900.00. This included: • Inspection and replacement of roof tiles and ensuring the roof was watertight. • Inspection and repairs to a leaking window to ensure proper sealing and weatherproofing. • Replacement window latches. • Repairs to the damaged floor in the hallway. • Removal of mould in the bedroom and application of an anti-fungal solution.

An inspection report dated 8 July 2025 noted that a moisture barrier had been installed under the property along with underfloor insulation.

A Healthy Homes Standards compliance report dated 23 July 2025 stated that the premises complied with the Healthy Homes Standards. Relevant Law

Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.

A landlord must provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with the law relating to buildings, health, and safety, and comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.

If a landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, the Tribunal may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work.

If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order.

A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. Failure to Maintain – Work Orders

The tenants acknowledged that some of the maintenance issues they raised in the application have been resolved. The outstanding issues relate to a leaking window and mould in the back bedroom. The tenants said that the issue with mould was limited to one room, although I note there is reference in an inspection report to mould in the middle bedroom.

The tenants said the landlord had painted over the mould but not applied an anti- mould coating. The tenants provided recent photographs said to show the re- emergence of mould in the back bedroom.

Given the landlord accepts there has been a mould problem at the premises, I will make a work order that the landlord appoint suitably qualified tradesperson(s) to clean the mould and apply an anti-fungal treatment.

The tenants said the problem with the leaking window had not been fixed. The landlord has recently performed repairs, including to a leaking window, and the Healthy Homes Standards report did not identify any unreasonable gaps or holes in the building elements. At the same time, the tenants’ lived experience suggests the repairs may not have been successful. I will make a work order for the landlord to appoint a builder to inspect the window and make it weathertight.

The tenants remain concerned about the adequacy of structural supports for the flooring. In the application form, they referred to an “eroding hallway floor, there is [sic] multiple dips and rises in the hallway’s floor which is continuously getting worse”.

The recent repairs included the hallway floor, and the tenants acknowledged that this has improved matters. The evidence does not establish that there is an issue with the foundations. Investigating this would require a report from a builder or structural engineer. The Tribunal is unable to make findings on this issue without expert evidence. Failure to Maintain - Compensation

The landlord had an obligation to maintain the premises and to ensure the premises complied with the Healthy Homes Standards within 120 days after the start of the tenancy.

The tenants claimed compensation in the sum of $5,850.00 on the basis that they had been living with maintenance issues for 2 years. They calculated their loss based on only having the use of three bedrooms rather than four. The tenants said the mould had been growing for months, and due to this issue, the room had been unusable and caused their two-year-old to get sick.

I acknowledge that the tenants started raising issues in March 2024. My impression is that the issues worsened over time. The text message on 6 August 2024 referred to several of the matters included in the application, including mould. An undated text message, which refers to the last inspection on 30 July 2024, noted the worsening problems, including the sinking hallway floor and the tenants’ unsuccessful attempts to clean the mould.

I find that the landlord failed to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age of the premises (internet information indicates it was constructed in 1980). In my view, the landlord should have investigated and performed repairs in mid-2024 when issues with mould, rusted window latches, a leaking window and the damaged hallway floor were raised. In addition, it can be inferred that the premises did not comply with the insulation standard (i.e. the lack of underfloor insulation) and the moisture ingress standard (i.e. the lack of a ground moisture barrier). I take account of the fact that the landlord has now performed repairs, addressing most of the issues and achieving compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards.

I award compensation of $75.00 per week (10% of the rent) from 11 September 2024 (when the tenants followed up concerns put in writing a month earlier) to 7 July 2025 (the date of the invoice for repairs) a period of 42 weeks and 6 days. This results in an award of $3,214.29.

The tenants also claimed for power used by the landlord’s contractors between 30 June and 3 July 2025 (4 days) and on 15 July 2025. They said their power is pre-paid and they had to top the amounts up. There is a text message from the tenants noting contractors leaving at 8.40pm, apparently having given instructions to leave doors open for circulation. I award $50.00 for additional power costs. Agency

I have considered whether the award can be made against the landlord, who are the property managers. The tenancy agreement provided that the landlord was acting as the agent for the owner, whose name was not disclosed. The application of agency principles in this situation is not entirely straightforward.

Agency principles were applied in Edinburgh Realty Ltd v Gray (TT1080 & 1082/97, District Court Dunedin, Judge Saunders, 8 April 1998). The Court held that the property manager, as agent, was not liable for the owner’s repudiation of the tenancy agreement. The Court referred to a submission that the definition of landlord in section 2 of the Act meant the agent had to show that his liability was excluded. The Court said the agent was not responsible for the repudiation and did not become liable as a landlord simply by communicating the owner’s instructions to the tenant.

In Mumby v Gary Brown Realty Ltd (CIV-2010-044-002067, Judge Walker, North Shore District Court, 7 February 2011) the residential tenancy agreement named Gary Brown Realty as the landlord. Applying agency principles, the Court held that the agent was liable on the contract. The Court relied on the Privy Council decision in Basma v Weekes [1950] AC 441 for the proposition that an agent who contracts in his own name does not cease to be contractually bound because the other party knew he was acting as agent.

In Mosley v Stewart [2017] NZDC 14694 the owner argued that his agent, Harcourts, was the landlord. The parties to the tenancy agreement were Harcourts as the landlord but expressly as agent for the owner. The Court stated that the law of agency meant that where a contract is entered into by an agent on behalf of a named principal, the principal assumes the rights and obligations under the agreement and not the agent. The Court noted that the definition of “landlord” in section 2 of the Act means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises and, where appropriate, includes an agent of the landlord.

Recently the District Court revisited the issue in Hamouda v Gralin Property Management (Auckland Central) Limited [2024] NZDC 16642. The tenant appealed the Tribunal’s decision to remove the property managers from the proceeding. The tenant complained that the property managers did not do enough to fix problems at the premises or ignored requests to do so. The owner argued that she contracted the responsibility to ensure compliance with the landlord’s obligations to her property managers. They failed to discharge these obligations and therefore, the owner should not be held liable. The property managers submitted that the owner should take primary responsibility for any defects.

The tenancy agreement recorded that the property manager was acting as the agent of the landlord. After referring to section 2 of the Act, the Court stated: It is clear then, by definition, the RTA expressly stipulates an agent is the “landlord” for all obligations which are owed under the RTA. It follows, this must include a property manager...What this means then is a property manager must meet the obligations which are imposed by the RTA on a landlord, as if it was a landlord. Where liability is imposed on a property manager (as agent) the property manager may be entitled to seek compensation from the owner under general agency law or by way of contract, but that is an issue between the property manager and the owner and not something which can be resolved in the tenancy jurisdiction.

The Court said it was no excuse for a property manager to blame the owner and ignore requests made by tenants when obligations under the Act have been breached.

The present case involves an unidentified rather than an undisclosed principal. The tenants knew that the landlord was acting as the agent of the owner but did not know who the owner was until after they issued the notice to remedy in April 2025. The landlord signed the tenancy agreement as agent but did not identify the principal.

In the Tribunal context, quite typically tenants have all their dealings about the tenancy through property managers and may have little or no dealings with the owner. A residential tenancy agreement is not an ordinary commercial contract but is subject to an overlay of statutory regulation and compliance requirements, designed to uphold various public policy objectives. The significance of this is that tenants are not assumed to be willing to contract with a principal, whoever that may be; the tenant often reasonably believes they are dealing solely with the property manager. This consideration may even give rise to a trade custom or usage that is relevant to the proper interpretation of the contract.

In the residential tenancy context, and in a case involving an unidentified principal, I consider it may be inferred that the property manager, as agent, is contractually liable in addition to the owner, as principal. This is so whether agency principles are applied or because the definition of “landlord” in the Act appropriately includes the property manager in this situation.

For these reasons, I find that the award can be made against the property manager as landlord. Water Invoice

The tenants raised a concern that they have not been receiving regular water bills. The tenants said they received an overdue reminder notice from the water supplier in May 2025. They have now received a final demand for $944.50.

There is an implied term in residential tenancy agreements that water invoices received by the landlord should be presented to the tenants within a reasonable time, so the tenant has an opportunity to challenge the amounts or to budget for payment. It would not be appropriate for the landlord to demand immediate payment of the water arrears. The landlord rightly acknowledged this at the hearing and said a payment plan will be discussed.

I will leave the parties to agree how this issue is to be resolved. Cross-Application

The landlord’s application is dismissed. The only evidence presented in support was an invoice for $9,775.00. This was for repairs to the kitchen and laundry door, repairs to a wall, and to “Replace the damaged wooden flooring caused by water leakage.”

It is unclear how the water damaged flooring relates to the tenants’ actions. As to the repairs to the doors and wall, the landlord could offer no assistance to identify these issues in the inspection reports. Accordingly, it was not discussed with the tenants. Filing Fee

The tenants’ application has been successful. I award the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5250359. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
immediately, being compensation of	$3,264.29		immediately, being compensation of
for failure to maintain and the filing fee of	$27.00		for failure to maintain and the filing fee of