What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4499236 about?

The tribunal order states: Rentex Limited As Agent For Selina Liu must pay [The tenant/s] $3,400.44

How much money was awarded in case 4499236?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Weekly compensation of…: $2,880.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4499236?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4499236?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9710847-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4499236 about?

The tribunal order states: Rentex Limited As Agent For Selina Liu must pay [The tenant/s] $3,400.44

How much money was awarded in case 4499236?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Weekly compensation of…: $2,880.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4499236?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4499236?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9710847-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

845 Beach Road, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4499236 — Mould & damp

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4499236 — net $3,400.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Weekly compensation of for 24 weeks	$2,880.00	Weekly compensation of for 24 weeks
Compensation: Mould damage	$500.00	Mould damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,400.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,400.44

Order

Rentex Limited As Agent For Selina Liu must pay [The tenant/s] $3,400.44 immediately, as per the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 23 rd May 2023 and 10 th November 2023. Background
The tenancy was from 22 nd October 2021 to 18 th February 2023. It was originally for a fixed term for a year and then was renewed.
The tenancy ended due to the weather events from early 2023.
On 7 th February 2023, the tenant applied for compensation of $8,328.99 for the landlord’s failure to provide or maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant also wanted full rent of $43,920.00 to be refunded due to the premises suffering from dampness and mould. Claims
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with the Healthy Homes Standard (“HHS”).
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord had the premises assessed for HHS by Yoke Insulation Limited on 23 rd July 2021 before the tenancy began. The premises was assessed as being compliant with HHS.
During a routine inspection on 24 th August 2022, the tenant raised an issue with mould upstairs. Both parties agreed to get it checked by the tenant’s father who was a builder.
On 21 st September 2022, the tenant’s father completed an HHS report that highlighted issues with the house. The report noted draught issues due to gaps in the windows and doors, insufficient bathroom fans, and issues with mould and mildew.
As a result of the HHS report, the landlord paid a transperson for 30 hours of work to fix the windows and installed an extra heat pump upstairs.
The tenant was happy to extend the tenancy after the end of the fixed-term due to some of the work having been done and the landlord having promised to do further work.
However due to the flooding and the storm from early 2023, the tenant vacated the premises on 18 th February 2023. Claims
The tenant claimed that a number of items were damaged due to mould. The items included Dr Martens sandals, Rag & Bone NY Beha Boots, Off-White belt, Windsor Smith booths, Converse platform limited edition shoes, other assorted clothing items and bags that had been kept in a cupboard.
The tenant also sought costs for cleaning supplies, running cost for dehumidifiers, and the entire rent back.
It seems that the issues really came to surface after the premises was inspected thoroughly by the tenant’s father.
The tenant accepted never having served the landlord a 14-day notice to fix any of the issues with the house previously.
There was no evidence of the tenant having raised any of the issues earlier on during the tenancy.
The landlord said that the landlord had relied upon the previous HHS report from July 2021. The landlord also said that the landlord attended to the issues raised by the tenant once notified.
After the first hearing of this matter, the landlord was given an opportunity to have the premises assessed again for HHS.
On 26 th May 2023, the premises was assessed by All Clear for HHS, and it was found that the drainage, ceiling insulation and heating had been non-compliant.
As a result, the landlord rectified the issues and the premises was assessed as being fully HHS complaint on 25 th August 2023. Amounts awarded
I find that there is no basis for the tenant to claim full rent back. I do not find that the premises was not maintained to the extent of it being uninhabitable.
I also do not find that there is any basis to award exemplary damages as the landlord was in the landlord’s right to rely on the HHS report obtained in July 2021. I do not find that the landlord had intentionally failed to provide or maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. I do not find that the landlord had intentionally not complied with HHS.
Once issues were notified to the landlord by the tenant, the landlord had the issues attended to. Although the tenant questions the standard of workmanship, they were attended to in a reasonable manner.
However, I find that it is more likely than not that the premises was not compliant with HHS at least from 5 th September 2022 when it was assessed as non-compliant by the tenant’s father.
Although I do not award exemplary damages, I find that the tenant should be compensated for living in a non HHS-complaint premises.
From that point to the end of the tenancy, I reduce the rent by $120.00 to compensate the tenant for the issues for the final 24 weeks.
I order the landlord to compensate the tenant $2,880.00.
In relation to items damaged by mould, I grant the tenant $500.00. This includes the depreciated items, any extra electricity and cleaning products. Filing fee reimbursement
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4499236 — net $3,400.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Weekly compensation of for 24 weeks	$2,880.00	Weekly compensation of for 24 weeks
Compensation: Mould damage	$500.00	Mould damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,400.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,400.44

Order

Rentex Limited As Agent For Selina Liu must pay [The tenant/s] $3,400.44 immediately, as per the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 23 rd May 2023 and 10 th November 2023. Background
The tenancy was from 22 nd October 2021 to 18 th February 2023. It was originally for a fixed term for a year and then was renewed.
The tenancy ended due to the weather events from early 2023.
On 7 th February 2023, the tenant applied for compensation of $8,328.99 for the landlord’s failure to provide or maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant also wanted full rent of $43,920.00 to be refunded due to the premises suffering from dampness and mould. Claims
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with the Healthy Homes Standard (“HHS”).
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord had the premises assessed for HHS by Yoke Insulation Limited on 23 rd July 2021 before the tenancy began. The premises was assessed as being compliant with HHS.
During a routine inspection on 24 th August 2022, the tenant raised an issue with mould upstairs. Both parties agreed to get it checked by the tenant’s father who was a builder.
On 21 st September 2022, the tenant’s father completed an HHS report that highlighted issues with the house. The report noted draught issues due to gaps in the windows and doors, insufficient bathroom fans, and issues with mould and mildew.
As a result of the HHS report, the landlord paid a transperson for 30 hours of work to fix the windows and installed an extra heat pump upstairs.
The tenant was happy to extend the tenancy after the end of the fixed-term due to some of the work having been done and the landlord having promised to do further work.
However due to the flooding and the storm from early 2023, the tenant vacated the premises on 18 th February 2023. Claims
The tenant claimed that a number of items were damaged due to mould. The items included Dr Martens sandals, Rag & Bone NY Beha Boots, Off-White belt, Windsor Smith booths, Converse platform limited edition shoes, other assorted clothing items and bags that had been kept in a cupboard.
The tenant also sought costs for cleaning supplies, running cost for dehumidifiers, and the entire rent back.
It seems that the issues really came to surface after the premises was inspected thoroughly by the tenant’s father.
The tenant accepted never having served the landlord a 14-day notice to fix any of the issues with the house previously.
There was no evidence of the tenant having raised any of the issues earlier on during the tenancy.
The landlord said that the landlord had relied upon the previous HHS report from July 2021. The landlord also said that the landlord attended to the issues raised by the tenant once notified.
After the first hearing of this matter, the landlord was given an opportunity to have the premises assessed again for HHS.
On 26 th May 2023, the premises was assessed by All Clear for HHS, and it was found that the drainage, ceiling insulation and heating had been non-compliant.
As a result, the landlord rectified the issues and the premises was assessed as being fully HHS complaint on 25 th August 2023. Amounts awarded
I find that there is no basis for the tenant to claim full rent back. I do not find that the premises was not maintained to the extent of it being uninhabitable.
I also do not find that there is any basis to award exemplary damages as the landlord was in the landlord’s right to rely on the HHS report obtained in July 2021. I do not find that the landlord had intentionally failed to provide or maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. I do not find that the landlord had intentionally not complied with HHS.
Once issues were notified to the landlord by the tenant, the landlord had the issues attended to. Although the tenant questions the standard of workmanship, they were attended to in a reasonable manner.
However, I find that it is more likely than not that the premises was not compliant with HHS at least from 5 th September 2022 when it was assessed as non-compliant by the tenant’s father.
Although I do not award exemplary damages, I find that the tenant should be compensated for living in a non HHS-complaint premises.
From that point to the end of the tenancy, I reduce the rent by $120.00 to compensate the tenant for the issues for the final 24 weeks.
I order the landlord to compensate the tenant $2,880.00.
In relation to items damaged by mould, I grant the tenant $500.00. This includes the depreciated items, any extra electricity and cleaning products. Filing fee reimbursement
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4499236 — Mould & damp at 845 Beach Road, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4499236 — Mould & damp at 845 Beach Road, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

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