How much money was awarded in case 4514715?

The reconciled net award was $250.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4514715?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4514715?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9154854-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4514715?

The reconciled net award was $250.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4514715?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4514715?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9154854-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4514715 — Mould & damp

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4514715 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4514715 — net $250.00 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$250.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants and Landlords names and identifying details.

The landlords must replace the cracked glass window-pane within 10 working days of the date of this order. The landlords must not charge the cost of this to the tenants.

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $250.00 immediately, being compensation for detriment caused by the leaking kitchen skylight.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

All of the named parties attended the hearing on 27 June 2023.

Both parties have made applications to the Tribunal.

The tenants are currently living in the house however a notice of termination has been given by the landlords on the grounds that the premises are to be put on the market for sale within 90 days. The termination date is 9 July 2023. The tenants have not challenged the notice so I have not reviewed this issue.

The tenants have applied for:- a. Work orders to fix some issues b. Compensation for maintenance issues, c. Compensation relating to open homes being disruptive.

The landlords have applied for:- a. termination of the tenancy for breach of the maximum number of occupants allowed, b. A fine for the above breach, and c. compensation for repairs to the hot-water cylinder.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.

However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.

The tenancy agreement specifies the number of occupants as 2 adults and 5 children.

The tenants acknowledge that they have had six children living with them from about December 2022. [The tenant/s]’s 11-year old son has come to live with them after custody proceedings.

After hearing the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenants discussed this possibility with the landlord’s agents at the time that they applied for the tenancy and again when this became more likely to happen.

The landlords said that the house is big enough to accommodate another child but that their main concern is that more people will cause more wear and tear on the house.

My decision is: a. It is probable that the tenants did advise the landlords’ agents of the extra person, b. The landlords did not tell the tenants (formally or informally) that this was a significant issue for them, and c. Even if this is a breach of the maximum occupants, it is not serious enough a breach to justify terminating the tenancy.

This application is dismissed. Landlords claim for compensation for tempering valve

For a landlord to prove a claim for damage to premises they must show that it occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is proven, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

The landlords say that the tenants must be responsible for a tempering valve on the hot-water cylinder needing to be replaced because this needed to be done only after they moved in. They say that a plumber told them that these valves should last at least 5 years and this one has lasted about 4 years.

The tenants report that an electrician they asked, told them that these valves often wear out when on a wetback hot-water system such as this one.

The plumbers invoice simply says the valve was “faulty”. In the absence of any other information, the landlord has not shown that the damage or replacement was more than wear and tear from normal use.

This claim is dismissed. Maintenance

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlords took too long to repair maintenance issues. This can be a breach of section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

After considering the evidence from both parties, I list the issues and my decisions below: a. Pot-holes in the driveway – the landlords did all they could to progress this issue with their insurer and contractors however it proved to be more complex than they had thought. The work has now been done. The tenants did the right thing by reducing the effect of the pot-holes by filling the holes with bricks. There was no real detriment to the tenants. This claim is dismissed. b. Leaks from skylights in the kitchen, in the entrance way, and in the laundry – I am satisfied that the kitchen leak was significant and affected the tenants’ use of the facilities. For example, water dripped onto the microwave and benches. It has taken over 4 months to fix this properly. The landlords did send a contractor earlier however the first repair failed. The landlords are not at fault as they were let down by the contractor however the tenants have suffered detriment under the contract. I award compensation of $250.00. c. Rangehood – this was disconnected in August 2022 as it was faulty. A replacement extractor fan was then installed which the tenants say does not help to extract cooking moisture because of its location. The landlord has provided a compliance certificate and I am satisfied that it does comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. The design of the house means it could not be installed over the stove as it could not be ducted outside in that position. There is no breach by the landlord. d. Broken window – the tenants say that one of the windows cracked when they opened it soon after the tenancy started because it was stuck from paint that was not fully dry. My decision is that the tenants were not careless and that it is the landlords’ responsibility to have the glass repaired. The landlords must not charge the tenants for this repair. The tenants sensibly attached a “frosting” layer over the crack so that it would not break further or hurt anyone. I have made a work order. Notice to sell premises

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has not given them written notice that the premises were placed on the market for sale. This is a legal requirement under section 47 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

A landlord must also advise any prospective tenants if the house is on the market.

It became clear in the hearing that the landlords’ agent did give the tenants notice that the house was on the market. They received an email on 5 December 2022.

The tenants say they are upset that the landlord chose to send them this notice rather than reply to their 14-day notice of breach about maintenance concerns.

Legally, the landlords gave the tenants the notice to sell. I am also satisfied that the landlords did pay attention to maintenance issues as they were raised. There may have been some communication breakdown passing on the maintenance information to the tenants at times.

This claim is dismissed. Breach of privacy or quiet enjoyment due to open homes

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenants have six children and say they would have preferred that there were no open homes, but viewings done by appointment only. They felt this would be less disruptive.

I said in the hearing that the viewing agent’s schedule of one open home (of half an hour) per week is seen as reasonable by the Tribunal. It is possible that viewings by appointment could be more disruptive as they may end up being more frequent.

This claim is dismissed. Suppression of names

Both the landlords and the tenants have successfully defended most of the claims made. They are both entitled to suppression of their names from the published order; s95A RTA.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4514715 — net $250.00 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$250.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants and Landlords names and identifying details.

The landlords must replace the cracked glass window-pane within 10 working days of the date of this order. The landlords must not charge the cost of this to the tenants.

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $250.00 immediately, being compensation for detriment caused by the leaking kitchen skylight.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

All of the named parties attended the hearing on 27 June 2023.

Both parties have made applications to the Tribunal.

The tenants have applied for:- a. Work orders to fix some issues b. Compensation for maintenance issues, c. Compensation relating to open homes being disruptive.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenancy agreement specifies the number of occupants as 2 adults and 5 children.

The tenants acknowledge that they have had six children living with them from about December 2022. [The tenant/s]’s 11-year old son has come to live with them after custody proceedings.

The landlords said that the house is big enough to accommodate another child but that their main concern is that more people will cause more wear and tear on the house.

This application is dismissed. Landlords claim for compensation for tempering valve

The tenants report that an electrician they asked, told them that these valves often wear out when on a wetback hot-water system such as this one.

This claim is dismissed. Maintenance

A landlord must also advise any prospective tenants if the house is on the market.

It became clear in the hearing that the landlords’ agent did give the tenants notice that the house was on the market. They received an email on 5 December 2022.

The tenants say they are upset that the landlord chose to send them this notice rather than reply to their 14-day notice of breach about maintenance concerns.

This claim is dismissed. Breach of privacy or quiet enjoyment due to open homes

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenants have six children and say they would have preferred that there were no open homes, but viewings done by appointment only. They felt this would be less disruptive.

This claim is dismissed. Suppression of names

Both the landlords and the tenants have successfully defended most of the claims made. They are both entitled to suppression of their names from the published order; s95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4514715 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4514715 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions