What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4501241 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 4501241?

Cleaning: $432.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of use of the gar…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4501241?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4501241?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9291330-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4501241 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 4501241?

Cleaning: $432.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of use of the gar…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4501241?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4501241?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9291330-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4501241 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4501241 — net $552.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Clean up following flooding events	$432.00	Clean up following flooding events
Compensation: Loss of use of the garage	$100.00	Loss of use of the garage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$552.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$552.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited and J & R Ford must pay [The tenant/s] $552.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

This matter concerns an application from the tenant in relation to her tenancy at [Tenancy address].
On 27 January 2023, the tenant’s premises was subject to flood damage during a largescale flood event that occurred across Auckland. The tenant says the garage was flooded but the upstairs area was not affected. Unfortunately, the garage was flooded a second time following a further severe weather event a few days later.
The tenant says she cleaned up the garage at her own expense. While she had swept the water away, it kept rising up from the ground in the back left hand corner, which was making it difficult for her dehumidifier to dry the area out. She sought help from the landlord to provide some assistance with drying out the garage and for a moisture detection test to be carried out to ensure the mould was not growing again. The tenant provided photographs of the flooding and multiple text message exchanges with the landlord’s agent.
On 7 February 2023, the tenant issued the landlord with a 14 day notice requesting the following: Have the garage looked at and the issue corrected, including the mould/fungi growing. Reduce the rent in accordance. Have the air conditioning unit properly installed. Have the property dried out. Compensation for clean up cost.
Mould and excessive moisture issues were of critical concern for the tenant because she says black mould was discovered at the start of the tenancy and as a consequence, the carpet was replaced. This was acknowledged by the landlord. The tenant says they had noticed following the flooding in the garage that mould/moisture issues began affecting the upper level because of the excess amounts of moisture coming up from the garage. This posed a significant health risk to the tenant and her family.
The tenant also noted that the Auckland Council had advised her that there was inadequate draining installed for the correct run off of storm water to prevent surface flooding. However, she has not provided any independent evidence from the council to support this. I am therefore unable to give the tenant’s view weight.
The tenant seeks compensation for the clean-up following the floods and damage to her belongings stored in the garage and loss of use of the garage. The tenant initially sought a work order and a rent reduction but no longer pursued this as the landlord had issued a notice to end the tenancy, with the end date being 12 June 2023.
In the response, the landlord disputes the tenant’s claim. The property manager gave evidence that she had managed the property for 4 years before the tenant moved in and no issues regarding flooding had been raised. It was noted that there were no flooding issues until the Auckland Anniversary weekend severe weather event.
The landlord noted it had arranged for Auckland Restoration and Cleaning Ltd to investigate the moisture in the garage. It attended the property on 17 February 2023. The landlord says the delay in remediation was due to widespread flooding and the strain on resources but also access issues due to cancellations by the tenant. The tenant refuted the landlord’s claim regarding access, and asserted that she tried to work with the contractors arranged by the landlord but they often called requesting access when it was not convenient and with little or no notice.
Auckland Restoration and Cleaning Ltd reported in its invoice of 27 February 2023: We attended the above address on 17/02/2023 to inspect a garage which had suffered two large water damage events. At the time of our visit there were still wet surfaces but had dried up to the point there was no standing water and the majority of the blockwork walls were drying out naturally. We did not see any mould on the concrete blocks or concrete but we did see several areas which had efflorescence deposits emerging from the blocks. Efflorescence appears as a white deposit of mineral salts on the face of concrete walls and floors. Efflorescence usually appears in damp sub-floor concrete constructed areas. Efflorescence is driven by hydrostatic pressure, which is the pressure exerted by moisture as it moves through concrete to the lowest point. Water has been running through the blocks, possibly from the ground behind the garage. During our inspection we did not notice any build up of mould on the concrete surfaces but we cannot guarantee that mould could not be present in other arears of the house. Efflorescence is very common in garages and factories of concrete block construction when wet. Mould will normally grow over a relatively short period of time when there is a wet organic source. In our opinion and at the time of our visit we did not detect any mould on the concrete block walls or concrete flooring.
The landlord noted that Auckland Restoration and Cleaning Ltd investigated the moisture in the garage but found no mould. It also noted from the report that the property would dry out naturally. It submitted that the owner had declined to reduce the rent because the garage was not a “habitable space” and does comply with the Healthy Homes standards due to installation of a moisture barrier.
In this case, clearly the issues with the premises were not caused by any breach of the tenancy agreement. Rather, it was an “act of God” due to a significant rainfall events that caused flooding in many parts of Auckland.
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. While the flooding issues are not of the landlord’s doing, the obligation to remedy the damage remains with the landlord, and the costs of doing so, must be met by the landlord.
The landlord also has an obligation to properly investigate and respond to any issues arising within a reasonable time.
I have heard from the parties and considered the evidence. I not satisfied that the landlord has properly investigated the matter. Given the property has had extensive mould and moisture issues previously, an investigation should have been done in relation to dampness in the upper level to ensure it had not been affected and that if it had, that it was drying out properly.
In the present case, the tenant assisted with the remediation, through their own labour. I consider that the landlord should reimburse the tenant for the costs associated with that, including the labour costs and costs for items used. I therefore award the cost sought by the tenant of $432.00, which I consider reasonable.
I note the tenant had been able to continue living in the premises, albeit with the inconvenience of the lack of use of the garage, including storage. I award the tenant compensation of $100.00 for loss of use of the garage.
There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal to determine the tenant’s claim for compensation for damage to her belongings due to mould and moisture. This aspect of the tenant’s claim is dismissed.
As the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I consider it reasonable to order the other party to reimburse the filing fee and grant suppression of the applicant’s name and identifying details. Liability of the agent
The tenant’s claim is against the agent. The owner is Sarah Jones For Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited Acting Agent For J & R Ford and Donna Taylor For Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited Acting Agent For J & R Ford, as stated on the tenancy agreement.
There are a number of authorities that deal with the issue of whether agents, owners, or both are liable under a tenancy agreement. The answer usually involves a consideration of the parties’ intent (based on a consideration of the tenancy agreement and all background facts), the principles of agency law, and the extended definition of landlord in the RTA. The extended definition of ‘landlord’ in section 2 RTA which provides that a landlord is the “grantor of a tenancy of the premises: and, where appropriate, includes – (e) An agent of a landlord”.
In the case of Mumby & Agrenz v Gary Brown Ltd (CIV 2010-044-2067), DC North Shore, 07/02/11) the Court considered whether the agent, the owner, or both were liable to the tenant. In that case, although the tenant knew that the agent was acting in that capacity, the Court held that it was nevertheless liable to the tenant (jointly and severally with the owner).
I am satisfied that Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited was acting as an agent in all respects of the tenancy and in the capacity as the landlord. Therefore, this is a situation where it is appropriate for both the owner and the agent to be liable to the tenant as landlord.
The next issue is whether it is appropriate to join the owner as a party and make an order against them. The question is whether to do so would be procedurally fair. In many situations an application for joinder will necessitate an adjournment so that the proceedings can be served on the owner, particularly where the interests of owner and agent may conflict, or where the agent no longer acts for the owner. In the present case, it is reasonable to assume that the owner is aware of the proceedings, the substance of the claims made, and consents to the agent representing the owner. Joining the owner as a party does not give rise to any new factual issues that might necessitate further evidence being called. Therefore, I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case to join the owner as a party. Whether the order is made against the owner, the agent, or both, those parties will have to resolve between themselves who ultimately bears the burden of any costs ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4501241 — net $552.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Clean up following flooding events	$432.00	Clean up following flooding events
Compensation: Loss of use of the garage	$100.00	Loss of use of the garage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$552.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$552.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited and J & R Ford must pay [The tenant/s] $552.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

This matter concerns an application from the tenant in relation to her tenancy at [Tenancy address].
On 27 January 2023, the tenant’s premises was subject to flood damage during a largescale flood event that occurred across Auckland. The tenant says the garage was flooded but the upstairs area was not affected. Unfortunately, the garage was flooded a second time following a further severe weather event a few days later.
The tenant says she cleaned up the garage at her own expense. While she had swept the water away, it kept rising up from the ground in the back left hand corner, which was making it difficult for her dehumidifier to dry the area out. She sought help from the landlord to provide some assistance with drying out the garage and for a moisture detection test to be carried out to ensure the mould was not growing again. The tenant provided photographs of the flooding and multiple text message exchanges with the landlord’s agent.
On 7 February 2023, the tenant issued the landlord with a 14 day notice requesting the following: Have the garage looked at and the issue corrected, including the mould/fungi growing. Reduce the rent in accordance. Have the air conditioning unit properly installed. Have the property dried out. Compensation for clean up cost.
Mould and excessive moisture issues were of critical concern for the tenant because she says black mould was discovered at the start of the tenancy and as a consequence, the carpet was replaced. This was acknowledged by the landlord. The tenant says they had noticed following the flooding in the garage that mould/moisture issues began affecting the upper level because of the excess amounts of moisture coming up from the garage. This posed a significant health risk to the tenant and her family.
The tenant also noted that the Auckland Council had advised her that there was inadequate draining installed for the correct run off of storm water to prevent surface flooding. However, she has not provided any independent evidence from the council to support this. I am therefore unable to give the tenant’s view weight.
The tenant seeks compensation for the clean-up following the floods and damage to her belongings stored in the garage and loss of use of the garage. The tenant initially sought a work order and a rent reduction but no longer pursued this as the landlord had issued a notice to end the tenancy, with the end date being 12 June 2023.
In the response, the landlord disputes the tenant’s claim. The property manager gave evidence that she had managed the property for 4 years before the tenant moved in and no issues regarding flooding had been raised. It was noted that there were no flooding issues until the Auckland Anniversary weekend severe weather event.
The landlord noted it had arranged for Auckland Restoration and Cleaning Ltd to investigate the moisture in the garage. It attended the property on 17 February 2023. The landlord says the delay in remediation was due to widespread flooding and the strain on resources but also access issues due to cancellations by the tenant. The tenant refuted the landlord’s claim regarding access, and asserted that she tried to work with the contractors arranged by the landlord but they often called requesting access when it was not convenient and with little or no notice.
Auckland Restoration and Cleaning Ltd reported in its invoice of 27 February 2023: We attended the above address on 17/02/2023 to inspect a garage which had suffered two large water damage events. At the time of our visit there were still wet surfaces but had dried up to the point there was no standing water and the majority of the blockwork walls were drying out naturally. We did not see any mould on the concrete blocks or concrete but we did see several areas which had efflorescence deposits emerging from the blocks. Efflorescence appears as a white deposit of mineral salts on the face of concrete walls and floors. Efflorescence usually appears in damp sub-floor concrete constructed areas. Efflorescence is driven by hydrostatic pressure, which is the pressure exerted by moisture as it moves through concrete to the lowest point. Water has been running through the blocks, possibly from the ground behind the garage. During our inspection we did not notice any build up of mould on the concrete surfaces but we cannot guarantee that mould could not be present in other arears of the house. Efflorescence is very common in garages and factories of concrete block construction when wet. Mould will normally grow over a relatively short period of time when there is a wet organic source. In our opinion and at the time of our visit we did not detect any mould on the concrete block walls or concrete flooring.
The landlord noted that Auckland Restoration and Cleaning Ltd investigated the moisture in the garage but found no mould. It also noted from the report that the property would dry out naturally. It submitted that the owner had declined to reduce the rent because the garage was not a “habitable space” and does comply with the Healthy Homes standards due to installation of a moisture barrier.
In this case, clearly the issues with the premises were not caused by any breach of the tenancy agreement. Rather, it was an “act of God” due to a significant rainfall events that caused flooding in many parts of Auckland.
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. While the flooding issues are not of the landlord’s doing, the obligation to remedy the damage remains with the landlord, and the costs of doing so, must be met by the landlord.
The landlord also has an obligation to properly investigate and respond to any issues arising within a reasonable time.
I have heard from the parties and considered the evidence. I not satisfied that the landlord has properly investigated the matter. Given the property has had extensive mould and moisture issues previously, an investigation should have been done in relation to dampness in the upper level to ensure it had not been affected and that if it had, that it was drying out properly.
In the present case, the tenant assisted with the remediation, through their own labour. I consider that the landlord should reimburse the tenant for the costs associated with that, including the labour costs and costs for items used. I therefore award the cost sought by the tenant of $432.00, which I consider reasonable.
I note the tenant had been able to continue living in the premises, albeit with the inconvenience of the lack of use of the garage, including storage. I award the tenant compensation of $100.00 for loss of use of the garage.
There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal to determine the tenant’s claim for compensation for damage to her belongings due to mould and moisture. This aspect of the tenant’s claim is dismissed.
As the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I consider it reasonable to order the other party to reimburse the filing fee and grant suppression of the applicant’s name and identifying details. Liability of the agent
The tenant’s claim is against the agent. The owner is Sarah Jones For Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited Acting Agent For J & R Ford and Donna Taylor For Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited Acting Agent For J & R Ford, as stated on the tenancy agreement.
There are a number of authorities that deal with the issue of whether agents, owners, or both are liable under a tenancy agreement. The answer usually involves a consideration of the parties’ intent (based on a consideration of the tenancy agreement and all background facts), the principles of agency law, and the extended definition of landlord in the RTA. The extended definition of ‘landlord’ in section 2 RTA which provides that a landlord is the “grantor of a tenancy of the premises: and, where appropriate, includes – (e) An agent of a landlord”.
In the case of Mumby & Agrenz v Gary Brown Ltd (CIV 2010-044-2067), DC North Shore, 07/02/11) the Court considered whether the agent, the owner, or both were liable to the tenant. In that case, although the tenant knew that the agent was acting in that capacity, the Court held that it was nevertheless liable to the tenant (jointly and severally with the owner).
I am satisfied that Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited was acting as an agent in all respects of the tenancy and in the capacity as the landlord. Therefore, this is a situation where it is appropriate for both the owner and the agent to be liable to the tenant as landlord.
The next issue is whether it is appropriate to join the owner as a party and make an order against them. The question is whether to do so would be procedurally fair. In many situations an application for joinder will necessitate an adjournment so that the proceedings can be served on the owner, particularly where the interests of owner and agent may conflict, or where the agent no longer acts for the owner. In the present case, it is reasonable to assume that the owner is aware of the proceedings, the substance of the claims made, and consents to the agent representing the owner. Joining the owner as a party does not give rise to any new factual issues that might necessitate further evidence being called. Therefore, I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case to join the owner as a party. Whether the order is made against the owner, the agent, or both, those parties will have to resolve between themselves who ultimately bears the burden of any costs ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4501241 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4501241 — Cleanliness

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