A family ended their tenancy after their landlord failed to address mould issues (not pictured here) at the Waihī property. Photo / Stock Image
A family ended their tenancy after their landlord failed to address mould issues (not pictured here) at the Waihī property. Photo / Stock Image
A family living in a rental significantly affected by mould desperately wanted to move out, but they were torn because it was the only house they had ever lived in with their baby, who died at the property.
But when they found more mould in two of the bedrooms itwas the “final straw” and they left the home in September.
Moving out of the Waihī property was “bittersweet”, a woman told the Tenancy Tribunal at a hearing in March this year, where she claimed her former landlord failed to maintain the home to comply with all building codes and health and safety requirements.
According to the subsequent decision, the woman’s baby daughter had died at the property in mid-2023.
All Access. All in one subscription.From $2 per week
There was no suggestion in the decision that the death was in any way related to the ongoing issues at the property.
However, the woman, who has name suppression, had another baby last year and was on “high alert” for any defects that could cause harm to her children.
The family moved out after finding more mould in two of the bedrooms. Photo / Stock Image 123rf
“She told [the tribunal] that she was torn, she really wanted to leave the property, but it was bittersweet as that was the only house she had ever lived in with her baby who had passed,” the decision stated.
It said that because the woman was simultaneously grieving and adjusting to life with a new baby, making decisions like moving was even more difficult.
The decision detailed how the woman had previously made similar claims against the landlord, who cannot be named, to the tribunal.
Following the earlier claims, she and the landlord settled in March last year after the landlord accepted that the house was leaking through broken cladding on the outside of the property and there was extensive mould growth throughout the house, walls, ceiling and carpet.
At the time, the landlord’s property managers agreed to fix the defects.
However, after the settlement, the landlord cancelled his agreement with the property managers and took over managing the property himself.
He also set about completing the work that was agreed to.
The landlord had fixed the cladding, removed the mouldy carpet, and relaid the flooring by the end of April last year. He also installed an extra concrete pile on the property.
In May last year, a compliance officer confirmed the landlord appeared to have remedied the issues.
The officer advised that, as the work was completed, the woman should start paying full rent of $610. The rent had abated to $490 while the landlord completed the work.
But the woman was uncomfortable with how the work had been done.
She was concerned it had not been completed to a “tradesman-like standard” and said there was still an issue with mould in one of the bedrooms.
It grew on clothing hanging in the wardrobe and could be seen in the joins between the ceiling and the walls.
She told the tribunal that when she raised concerns with the landlord, he said the mould had only come from leaks at the property and they had been fixed.
He said the timber had dried out and had been treated with mould repellent and remover, and there should be no further issues.
In June, she notified the landlord of cracks appearing in the lounge wall and questioned whether the house was “shifting” or if it was caused by a water leak.
The landlord asked her to keep an eye on it.
Two months later, the woman pulled away a dresser in a different bedroom, where her teenager slept, and discovered mould on the walls and carpet, and that the carpet had rotted.
She decided that was the “final straw” and gave her notice to end the tenancy.
House still required ‘major work’
Meanwhile, the woman’s partner got on the roof and discovered water pooling in the same places as the leaks in both bedrooms.
The landlord had a builder at the property two days before the tenancy ended.
The woman told the tribunal at the recent hearing that the builder advised there were numerous problems at the property, including the leaking roof.
The landlord did not provide the tribunal with the builder’s report but acknowledged the house required “major work”, which was yet to be completed.
The tribunal, which could only consider the issues that arose since last year’s settlement, found the mould was caused by leaking in the roof and water coming in through rotten window frames.
“The previous claim illustrated that there were significant problems with mould and water ingress at the property,” the decision stated.
“Given the nature and the extent of the issues at the property, [the tribunal considers] that a reasonable landlord would have conducted a thorough inspection of the property and obtained a builder’s report on the condition of the property at that time.”
It ruled that the landlord should not have taken a “wait-and-watch” approach, and that he was obliged to consider all the potential causes of the mould problem, not just what he thought was the cause.
Several issues were taken into account when considering compensation, including the stress and inconvenience the property issues caused the woman, and that she had to take matters into her own hands, such as by checking the roof and windows.
It also considered the “constant anxiety” she experienced by wondering what was causing the mould, if the landlord had correctly fixed the issues, and the effect it was having, or could have, on her and her children, especially her young baby.
The landlord was ordered to pay the woman $900 in compensation, covering from March last year to when the tenancy ended.
Tara Shaskey joined NZME in 2022 and is currently an assistant editor and reporter for the Open Justice team. She has been a reporter since 2014 and previously worked at Stuff covering crime and justice, arts and entertainment, and Māori issues.
