What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4512429?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4512429?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4512429?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4512429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9411655-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4512429?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4512429?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4512429?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4512429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9411655-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat H202, 326 Evans Bay Parade, Hataitai, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 4512429 — Mould & damp

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4512429. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
and reimbursement of the filing fee of	$20.44		and reimbursement of the filing fee of

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Comprendé As Agent For Rebecca Rachel Barnes-Clarke must pay Di Taemumu Richardson $2,465.44 immediately, calculated as compensation in the amount of $2,445 and reimbursement of the filing fee of $20.44.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Hingston.
This fixed term tenancy started in July 2022. The tenancy premises was a two bedroom apartment. The tenant worked from home 100% of the time. There were problems from the start including a leak from the heat pump and leaks from failing plumbing in the complex. The parties agreed the tenancy could end early, and a new tenant moved in on 9 January 2023, two weeks before the fixed term tenancy was due to end. The tenant has claimed the cost of cleaning, and six weeks of rent. The issues I have to decide are: • Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain the apartment? • Should the tenant get compensation?

Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain the apartment?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Under section 45 a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. It is accepted that this obligation should be carried out within a reasonable period of time.
There were a number of maintenance issues from the time the tenant moved in. I note that although there were ongoing issues with the heat pump and water ingress I do not find there was any breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. The issue here is maintenance.
The first trades visit was on 27 July 2022 for several minor issues, including that the heat pump was not producing enough heat. No fault was found, however I am persuaded the heat pump was not functioning properly at the start of the tenancy. On 20 August the ceiling cassette heat pump located in the middle of the lounge ceiling started to leak. This meant the tenant had to put bowls out and move furniture around. An electrician cut holes in the ceiling to identify the problem and found that the appliance had never been installed correctly. The heat pump could not be used to heat or cool without water dripping into the lounge. This was not able to be fixed during the tenancy. The tenant said this was problematic because the apartment was cold in winter, and then too hot to work in come October.
On 22 August one of the dish drawers got an intermittent fault and it took 16 weeks for a part to be ordered and fitted. On 30 August the tenant advised the landlord about the shower not draining properly and this was fixed five weeks later.
As well there were two major water leaks into the lobby adjacent to the apartment. These repairs were run by the body corporate (BC). Essentially the pipes failed and needed to be replaced. The result for the tenant was trades people in the apartment, inspection holes cut into the walls and the ceiling, the skirting boards removed, the wet carpet lifted, and fans and blowers and a dehumidifier installed. All this meant there was damp and dust and noise which affected the tenants’ health.
The landlord submitted that they sent someone to carry out repairs each time an issue was raised, but they were hampered by the BC who would not allow them to install a panel heater in the apartment, and they were hampered by delays in finding parts. Ms Hingston agreed some compensation should be paid to the tenant.
I find the landlord did breach the duty to repair and maintain the dish drawer, the shower and the heat pump within a reasonable period of time. I also note there was a loss of amenity because the tenant was paying rent for appliances she could not use and for an apartment with leaks. I do not find the tenant has established the landlord knew there was a serious problem with the plumbing before the start of the tenancy.

Should the tenant get compensation?

The tenant has claimed six weeks rent as compensation, as well as the cost of cleaning the apartment when she moved out. The parties had a meeting at the end of October and the result was the landlord agreed to list the tenancy and not claim any of the usual costs associated with ending a fixed term tenancy. Most of the claim for rent is because the tenant paid double rent from 6 December until 8 January. The bond was refunded in full at the end of the tenancy.
I find the tenant made a decision to leave the apartment early and I am not persuaded I should allow compensation for the double rent. The apartment was still habitable and the fixed term was due to end on 23 January 2023 anyway. Paying cleaners was another choice the tenant made, and there is no justification in ordering the landlord to reimburse that cost.
I do find the landlord should pay for a loss of amenity for the dish drawer and the heat pump and for the delay in fixing the shower. The tenant also suffered a loss of amenity with the leaks from the failing plumbing. While I accept that the landlord could not control the BC repair process, the landlord is still responsible for managing the impact on the tenant. The obligation the landlord has to the tenant for maintenance and repair does not go away because the BC is involved. Compensation is allowed at $100 from 22 July 2022 until 8 January 2023 and the total amount of compensation is $2445. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4512429. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
and reimbursement of the filing fee of	$20.44		and reimbursement of the filing fee of

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Comprendé As Agent For Rebecca Rachel Barnes-Clarke must pay Di Taemumu Richardson $2,465.44 immediately, calculated as compensation in the amount of $2,445 and reimbursement of the filing fee of $20.44.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Hingston.
This fixed term tenancy started in July 2022. The tenancy premises was a two bedroom apartment. The tenant worked from home 100% of the time. There were problems from the start including a leak from the heat pump and leaks from failing plumbing in the complex. The parties agreed the tenancy could end early, and a new tenant moved in on 9 January 2023, two weeks before the fixed term tenancy was due to end. The tenant has claimed the cost of cleaning, and six weeks of rent. The issues I have to decide are: • Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain the apartment? • Should the tenant get compensation?

Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain the apartment?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Under section 45 a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. It is accepted that this obligation should be carried out within a reasonable period of time.
There were a number of maintenance issues from the time the tenant moved in. I note that although there were ongoing issues with the heat pump and water ingress I do not find there was any breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. The issue here is maintenance.
The first trades visit was on 27 July 2022 for several minor issues, including that the heat pump was not producing enough heat. No fault was found, however I am persuaded the heat pump was not functioning properly at the start of the tenancy. On 20 August the ceiling cassette heat pump located in the middle of the lounge ceiling started to leak. This meant the tenant had to put bowls out and move furniture around. An electrician cut holes in the ceiling to identify the problem and found that the appliance had never been installed correctly. The heat pump could not be used to heat or cool without water dripping into the lounge. This was not able to be fixed during the tenancy. The tenant said this was problematic because the apartment was cold in winter, and then too hot to work in come October.
On 22 August one of the dish drawers got an intermittent fault and it took 16 weeks for a part to be ordered and fitted. On 30 August the tenant advised the landlord about the shower not draining properly and this was fixed five weeks later.
As well there were two major water leaks into the lobby adjacent to the apartment. These repairs were run by the body corporate (BC). Essentially the pipes failed and needed to be replaced. The result for the tenant was trades people in the apartment, inspection holes cut into the walls and the ceiling, the skirting boards removed, the wet carpet lifted, and fans and blowers and a dehumidifier installed. All this meant there was damp and dust and noise which affected the tenants’ health.
The landlord submitted that they sent someone to carry out repairs each time an issue was raised, but they were hampered by the BC who would not allow them to install a panel heater in the apartment, and they were hampered by delays in finding parts. Ms Hingston agreed some compensation should be paid to the tenant.
I find the landlord did breach the duty to repair and maintain the dish drawer, the shower and the heat pump within a reasonable period of time. I also note there was a loss of amenity because the tenant was paying rent for appliances she could not use and for an apartment with leaks. I do not find the tenant has established the landlord knew there was a serious problem with the plumbing before the start of the tenancy.

Should the tenant get compensation?

The tenant has claimed six weeks rent as compensation, as well as the cost of cleaning the apartment when she moved out. The parties had a meeting at the end of October and the result was the landlord agreed to list the tenancy and not claim any of the usual costs associated with ending a fixed term tenancy. Most of the claim for rent is because the tenant paid double rent from 6 December until 8 January. The bond was refunded in full at the end of the tenancy.
I find the tenant made a decision to leave the apartment early and I am not persuaded I should allow compensation for the double rent. The apartment was still habitable and the fixed term was due to end on 23 January 2023 anyway. Paying cleaners was another choice the tenant made, and there is no justification in ordering the landlord to reimburse that cost.
I do find the landlord should pay for a loss of amenity for the dish drawer and the heat pump and for the delay in fixing the shower. The tenant also suffered a loss of amenity with the leaks from the failing plumbing. While I accept that the landlord could not control the BC repair process, the landlord is still responsible for managing the impact on the tenant. The obligation the landlord has to the tenant for maintenance and repair does not go away because the BC is involved. Compensation is allowed at $100 from 22 July 2022 until 8 January 2023 and the total amount of compensation is $2445. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4512429 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat H202, 326 Evans Bay Parade, Hataitai, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4512429 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat H202, 326 Evans Bay Parade, Hataitai, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain the apartment?

Should the tenant get compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain the apartment?

Should the tenant get compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions