What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4498206 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4498206?

The reconciled net award was $500.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4498206?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4498206?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9449444-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4498206 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4498206?

The reconciled net award was $500.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4498206?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4498206?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9449444-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4498206 — Mould & damp

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4498206 — net $500.00 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$500.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant, Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $500.00 immediately, being water usage reimbursement.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The tenant/s] in person (with [The tenant’s witness]) and [The landlord/] by phone.
The premises is 2 storeys. The landlord lived upstairs and used it as an Airbnb. The downstairs was rented out from time to time.
This was a tenancy that started on 23 December 2019 and ended on 31 October 2020. The agreement provided does not show if this was a fixed term tenancy.
[The landlord/s] advertised this property for 2 people. [The tenant/s] have 2 children and had only arrived in the country about a month earlier. They wanted the property and [The landlord/s] agreed.
[The tenant/s] now claims the property was cramped, damp and cold, had poor wifi and they paid for ½ water. [The tenant/s] says the property was illegal and she wants her rights recognised. [The tenant/s] seeks compensation and exemplary damages for paying rent and outgoings(water, power, wifi).
The tenant says she paid rent in cash until she moved out on or about 22 September 2020. When [The landlord/s] moved his piano into the premises, she stopped paying rent.
[The tenant/s] says she waited until she obtained her permanent residency to make her claim. This was received in late 2021. [The tenant/s] filed her claim in February 2023.
Almost 3 years have passed since this tenancy ended.
Section 77 of the Residential Tenancies Act allows the Tribunal to hear claims subject to the Limitation Act 2010.
It is a defence to a claim if it has been filed 6 years after the date of the act or omission on which the claim is based. Section 11(1) Limitation Act 2010.
I consider the Tribunal has Jurisdiction to hear the claim. Extra Rent Paid
[The tenant/s] wants a refund of some extra rent paid. She says she left the premises on or about 22 September 2020 but was liable for rent to 31 October 2020.
It appears that either 2 or 3 weeks rent was not paid by the tenants once [The landlord/s] moved his piano into the property. [The landlord/s] has not made any claim for this.
The level of evidence provided is not sufficient for the tribunal to make any determination of quantum of rent paid or what is owing. This is likely because of the time that has passed. [The tenant/s] did not pay rent for 2 or 3 weeks and therefore suffered no loss during this period as no rent was paid.
The claim for compensation is dismissed. Healthy Homes – Cramped/Cold/Damp/Lack of Insulation/Illegal Dwelling
Though the initial claim is that it was cramped, the tenants took the property knowingly it was advertised for 2 people.
The Healthy Homes Standards came into force for all new tenancies from 1 July 2021.
All private rentals must comply with the standards by 1 July 2025.
[The tenant/s]’s claim in respect of Healthy Homes Standards is outside the timeframe as the tenancy was in 2020.
In respect to insulation and ventilation, [The landlord/s] provided photographs (from a year before the tenants moved in) and a letter from his architect noting the level of insulation, soundproofing and ventilation from the kitchen and bathroom. He noted the flat was in a good order without any signs of dampness or unpleasant smells.
In respect to illegal dwelling, the architect referred to 4 changes that had to be made to get the code of compliance, such as fireline gib to protect the upper level, the concrete slab to be painted with waterproofing membrane, the washing machine area to be mechanically ventilated and thicker polystyrene insulation required on the exposed concrete wall.
The architect states the fire gib would not have affected the safety of the tenants downstairs. The floor slab did not show any trace of moisture or damp after the carpet was lifted. Additional mechanical ventilation would have made a minor difference to the flat. Adding thicker insulation would have made a positive difference to a bedroom but a minor one to the whole flat.
There was a heat pump provided.
[The landlord/s] says the flat was not consented for at the time of the tenancy but received compliance in 2021. It was used by his daughter and family members.
Considering all the factors of this premises, though the property may not have been perfect, it was liveable and at a level that was safe for a dwelling, having all the amenities required for a tenancy. The tenant did not then or soon thereafter suffer loss due to any health and safety matters.
As for damp clothing, this should have been brought up at the time so [The landlord/s] could have addressed the issue.
The claim is dismissed. WIFI, WATER AND POWER
[The tenant/s] claims the wifi was poor for her daughter to use in the bedroom.
[The landlord/s] provided an unlimited wifi system to the benefit of both parties. The parties shared the cost for this. [The tenant/s] said she did not want to pay for the shared wifi but nevertheless continued to do so throughout the tenancy.
It was open to [The tenant/s] to get her own wifi system (as there was another fibre installed) or refuse to pay this sum.
There was a separate meter for provided for power. It is the tenant’s obligation to pay for their power.
[The tenant/s]’s claim for repayment for wifi and power paid during the tenancy is not made out.
[The landlord/s] agrees the water meter was not split and water was shared. [The tenant/s] says she paid $45-$50 dollars a month.
There are no invoices provided. Based on consent, I award [The tenant/s] $500.00 for the water they paid during the tenancy. Lack of Privacy/ No Bin Provided/Noise (Breach of Quiet Enjoyment)
[The tenant/s] says [The landlord/s] would walk past her deck to his veggie garden on the side of the house.
[The tenant/s] said though he had another route [The landlord/s] took the path that passed her front doors. She felt she could not open the curtains and it breached her privacy.
This is a situation where the owner and tenant are living on the same land. It was 2020 and Lockdown in [redacted] for an extended period. People were at home and using their properties to their maximum but keeping apart.
[The landlord/s] says he did not think there were any issues as he felt he was respectful and had a good relationship with [The tenant/s].
He felt he was not intrusive and only entered the tenanted property, once to fix the insinkerator, once to help the daughter with [studies] (as he was a [redacted] teacher) and once for a cup of tea when the witness was present.
[The tenant/s] claims she had to put her rubbish in plastic bags down the driveway and it caused rodents to appear. [The landlord/s] said there was a bin provided but he only asked the rubbish be placed in plastic bags before putting in the bin.
[The tenant/s]’s witness says there was noise from upstairs when it was rented for Airbnb that affected the daughter’s sleep. [The landlord/s] said since February 2020 there were no guests given the Covid lockdown and thus was a lot quieter after the summer.
The Tribunal notes there was soundproofing present in the property as mentioned in the architect’s letter.
The Tribunal is not satisfied these claims are made out. These are largely classed as “breach of quiet enjoyment” type claims. They are of a level that would not cause distress to a reasonable person living in a property like this at that time. No compensation is awarded. Summary
Overall, there may have been some minor issues with the premises, but they should have been raised at the time and [The landlord/s] be given an opportunity to address it.
This claim has been made over 2 years since the tenancy ended. The Tribunal refers to the case of Mercep v Rainger [2021] NZTT Waitakere 4282402 where it is noted “It is not really the Tribunal’s role to do an audit of all the problems a tenant has experienced, only at the end of a two-year tenancy.” Suppression
The tenant is seeking suppression of identifying details in any publication of this order.
If a party has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Both parties have had limited success. Having considered the factors in this case the Tribunal grants suppression of the tenant, landlord and tenancy details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4498206 — net $500.00 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$500.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant, Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $500.00 immediately, being water usage reimbursement.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The tenant/s] in person (with [The tenant’s witness]) and [The landlord/] by phone.
The premises is 2 storeys. The landlord lived upstairs and used it as an Airbnb. The downstairs was rented out from time to time.
This was a tenancy that started on 23 December 2019 and ended on 31 October 2020. The agreement provided does not show if this was a fixed term tenancy.
[The landlord/s] advertised this property for 2 people. [The tenant/s] have 2 children and had only arrived in the country about a month earlier. They wanted the property and [The landlord/s] agreed.
[The tenant/s] now claims the property was cramped, damp and cold, had poor wifi and they paid for ½ water. [The tenant/s] says the property was illegal and she wants her rights recognised. [The tenant/s] seeks compensation and exemplary damages for paying rent and outgoings(water, power, wifi).
The tenant says she paid rent in cash until she moved out on or about 22 September 2020. When [The landlord/s] moved his piano into the premises, she stopped paying rent.
[The tenant/s] says she waited until she obtained her permanent residency to make her claim. This was received in late 2021. [The tenant/s] filed her claim in February 2023.
Almost 3 years have passed since this tenancy ended.
Section 77 of the Residential Tenancies Act allows the Tribunal to hear claims subject to the Limitation Act 2010.
It is a defence to a claim if it has been filed 6 years after the date of the act or omission on which the claim is based. Section 11(1) Limitation Act 2010.
I consider the Tribunal has Jurisdiction to hear the claim. Extra Rent Paid
[The tenant/s] wants a refund of some extra rent paid. She says she left the premises on or about 22 September 2020 but was liable for rent to 31 October 2020.
It appears that either 2 or 3 weeks rent was not paid by the tenants once [The landlord/s] moved his piano into the property. [The landlord/s] has not made any claim for this.
The level of evidence provided is not sufficient for the tribunal to make any determination of quantum of rent paid or what is owing. This is likely because of the time that has passed. [The tenant/s] did not pay rent for 2 or 3 weeks and therefore suffered no loss during this period as no rent was paid.
The claim for compensation is dismissed. Healthy Homes – Cramped/Cold/Damp/Lack of Insulation/Illegal Dwelling
Though the initial claim is that it was cramped, the tenants took the property knowingly it was advertised for 2 people.
The Healthy Homes Standards came into force for all new tenancies from 1 July 2021.
All private rentals must comply with the standards by 1 July 2025.
[The tenant/s]’s claim in respect of Healthy Homes Standards is outside the timeframe as the tenancy was in 2020.
In respect to insulation and ventilation, [The landlord/s] provided photographs (from a year before the tenants moved in) and a letter from his architect noting the level of insulation, soundproofing and ventilation from the kitchen and bathroom. He noted the flat was in a good order without any signs of dampness or unpleasant smells.
In respect to illegal dwelling, the architect referred to 4 changes that had to be made to get the code of compliance, such as fireline gib to protect the upper level, the concrete slab to be painted with waterproofing membrane, the washing machine area to be mechanically ventilated and thicker polystyrene insulation required on the exposed concrete wall.
The architect states the fire gib would not have affected the safety of the tenants downstairs. The floor slab did not show any trace of moisture or damp after the carpet was lifted. Additional mechanical ventilation would have made a minor difference to the flat. Adding thicker insulation would have made a positive difference to a bedroom but a minor one to the whole flat.
There was a heat pump provided.
[The landlord/s] says the flat was not consented for at the time of the tenancy but received compliance in 2021. It was used by his daughter and family members.
Considering all the factors of this premises, though the property may not have been perfect, it was liveable and at a level that was safe for a dwelling, having all the amenities required for a tenancy. The tenant did not then or soon thereafter suffer loss due to any health and safety matters.
As for damp clothing, this should have been brought up at the time so [The landlord/s] could have addressed the issue.
The claim is dismissed. WIFI, WATER AND POWER
[The tenant/s] claims the wifi was poor for her daughter to use in the bedroom.
[The landlord/s] provided an unlimited wifi system to the benefit of both parties. The parties shared the cost for this. [The tenant/s] said she did not want to pay for the shared wifi but nevertheless continued to do so throughout the tenancy.
It was open to [The tenant/s] to get her own wifi system (as there was another fibre installed) or refuse to pay this sum.
There was a separate meter for provided for power. It is the tenant’s obligation to pay for their power.
[The tenant/s]’s claim for repayment for wifi and power paid during the tenancy is not made out.
[The landlord/s] agrees the water meter was not split and water was shared. [The tenant/s] says she paid $45-$50 dollars a month.
There are no invoices provided. Based on consent, I award [The tenant/s] $500.00 for the water they paid during the tenancy. Lack of Privacy/ No Bin Provided/Noise (Breach of Quiet Enjoyment)
[The tenant/s] says [The landlord/s] would walk past her deck to his veggie garden on the side of the house.
[The tenant/s] said though he had another route [The landlord/s] took the path that passed her front doors. She felt she could not open the curtains and it breached her privacy.
This is a situation where the owner and tenant are living on the same land. It was 2020 and Lockdown in [redacted] for an extended period. People were at home and using their properties to their maximum but keeping apart.
[The landlord/s] says he did not think there were any issues as he felt he was respectful and had a good relationship with [The tenant/s].
He felt he was not intrusive and only entered the tenanted property, once to fix the insinkerator, once to help the daughter with [studies] (as he was a [redacted] teacher) and once for a cup of tea when the witness was present.
[The tenant/s] claims she had to put her rubbish in plastic bags down the driveway and it caused rodents to appear. [The landlord/s] said there was a bin provided but he only asked the rubbish be placed in plastic bags before putting in the bin.
[The tenant/s]’s witness says there was noise from upstairs when it was rented for Airbnb that affected the daughter’s sleep. [The landlord/s] said since February 2020 there were no guests given the Covid lockdown and thus was a lot quieter after the summer.
The Tribunal notes there was soundproofing present in the property as mentioned in the architect’s letter.
The Tribunal is not satisfied these claims are made out. These are largely classed as “breach of quiet enjoyment” type claims. They are of a level that would not cause distress to a reasonable person living in a property like this at that time. No compensation is awarded. Summary
Overall, there may have been some minor issues with the premises, but they should have been raised at the time and [The landlord/s] be given an opportunity to address it.
This claim has been made over 2 years since the tenancy ended. The Tribunal refers to the case of Mercep v Rainger [2021] NZTT Waitakere 4282402 where it is noted “It is not really the Tribunal’s role to do an audit of all the problems a tenant has experienced, only at the end of a two-year tenancy.” Suppression
The tenant is seeking suppression of identifying details in any publication of this order.
If a party has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Both parties have had limited success. Having considered the factors in this case the Tribunal grants suppression of the tenant, landlord and tenancy details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4498206 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4498206 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions