What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4535332 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4535332?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4535332?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4535332?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9309612-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4535332 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4535332?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4535332?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4535332?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9309612-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4535332 — 14-day notice

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The claim for refund of the bond is withdrawn.
The tenant’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant lived at the tenancy premises from 2017 until March 2023. The house is built beside a bank, near a stream and is surrounded by trees. The tenant asked to be let out of the latest fixed term tenancy because she became extremely concerned about damp and mould at the house, and the impact this was having on her health. She filed an application because she was concerned the house did not meet the Healthy Homes Standards.
The tenant wants compensation for possessions destroyed by mould, compensation for loss of earnings while living in an unhealthy home, and reimbursement of rent paid while living in a house unfit for habitation. She also wants exemplary damages – which are like a penalty - because the landlord entered the house without giving proper notice, and because of breaches to the Healthy Homes Standards. The questions I have to decide are: • Did this house meet the healthy homes standards? • Should the tenant get compensation because the house was not fit for habitation? • Did the landlord enter the house without giving proper notice?

Does this house meet the healthy homes standards?

The tenant claims the landlord breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). In particular the tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard, but she has concerns about other standards as well.
The tenant provided me with a healthy homes report carried out in April 2021 by Healthy Homes [City], a contractor independent of the landlord. The tenant misunderstood the reason for this report, thinking it to be a health and safety report on her home. She could not understand how real concerns for her — such as mould in some of the rooms — were not part of the final report. We discussed the difference between the HHS and maintenance at the hearing.
The tenant expressed concern that the house was not insulated. She is correct, but this is not a breach of the HHS because there is an exemption if the house is built on a concrete pad, meaning there is no way insulation can be installed. There is also an exemption if the house has a skillion — or sloped — ceiling, because there is no room for insulation to be installed. This house has both a concrete pad and a skillion ceiling.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. The tenant submitted she was told that some insulation could be installed in the ceiling, but she did not have any supporting evidence about this at the hearing. I find the landlord’s HHS report is the better evidence here. This part of the claim is not proved and it is dismissed.
The tenant asked the landlord if a heat pump could be installed downstairs because of damp. According to the report, the heat pump installed in the living room upstairs meets the HHS requirements. I find the landlord has the better evidence about this. This part of the claim is dismissed.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The tenant submitted the lack of a ground moisture barrier meant water could get into the house through the floor. She was also concerned that she could see some old plastic by the concrete pad and she worried this meant moisture could come into the house from there. The landlord’s report states there is no requirement to have a ground moisture barrier because the house is on a concrete pad. I have no idea if the old plastic is a concern because I have no supporting information - say from a builder – explaining that the plastic is the cause of water ingress. This part of the claim is not proved.
The tenant submitted there is no proper drainage at the house, meaning water is not diverted from the rear wall, which results in water ingress. The landlord’s HHS report states that the downpipes discharge into a stormwater reticulation system and there was no evidence of water pooling around the site. This part of the claim is not proved and it is dismissed.
There was a problem with the gutters being blocked, and this was noted in the HHS report. I note the report has not been updated to show if the gutters were cleaned out, but I have not been provided with any evidence which suggests they were blocked from 2021. The routine inspection report carried out in February 2023 has photos showing plants growing out of the gutters again. The landlord made an urgent request for maintenance. I have not been provided with any evidence to suggest the gutters were not cleared.
I find the tenant has proved the gutters needed maintenance during the tenancy. However, I am not persuaded there was also a breach of the moisture ingress healthy homes standard. It seems to me the HHS report done in 2021 confirms the gutters are in place and they are capable of clearing water away from the house and into the storm water system. Keeping the gutters clear during the tenancy remains a maintenance issue. This part of the claim is dismissed.
The claim for exemplary damages is also dismissed because I have not found any breaches of the HHS.

Should the tenant get compensation because the house was not fit for habitation?

The tenant claims that the house was not fit for habitation. What that means for the Tribunal is a consideration of whether the landlord breached its obligations under section 45 of the RTA. Under section 45 a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant submitted the house was in an appalling condition when she moved in and that significant cleaning was required. I was provided with written statements from people who agreed with that assessment. There was an issue with the bedroom carpets when she moved in, and these were replaced soon after the tenancy started. Apart from that carpet, the photos provided by the tenant do not support her claim the house was not reasonably clean when she moved in. This part of the claim is dismissed.
The tenant’s main concern during the tenancy was mould and damp. She submitted that she had problems with belongings going mouldy, and there was mould on some of the surfaces in the house. Her health suffered while she was living there and she put that down to damp and the presence of mould spores. She ran dehumidifiers and she had a Karcher which she used whenever there was condensation on the windows. She opened the windows. The landlord denied there was a problem with mould and damp during the tenancy. The tenant’s photos are of poor quality and do not help her prove the claim the house was damp and mouldy during the tenancy.
The landlord submitted that the tenant did not air the house properly because she did not leave the windows on the latch all day while she was at work. I note that there is no requirement that tenants leave windows in every room ajar all day. It should not take eight hours to properly air a house. All that is required is that some of the windows or doors are opened each day, for enough time for the air to exchange. The time it takes will probably be different in each house.
The tenant went overseas for six weeks and returned in February 2023. When she came home she noticed her health deteriorating. She was bitten by insects and had to fumigate the house. She submitted there were dead insects in the carpet underlay. There is a photo of dead spiders. Some furniture, clothing and kitchen items were mouldy. The tenant and her witness saw these. They said the smell of mould in was overpowering.
During the routine inspection done on 23 February 2023 the landlord found a small patch of mould on the ceiling of the main bedroom. They arranged for the gutters to be cleared and for the house to be washed down. They also arranged for a roofer to make further investigations and roof repairs were completed by 27 March. The landlord would not provide me with any information about what the roofer repaired. They said no other mould was found in the house or in the carpets. They said personal belongings like clothes and bedding will go mouldy if not stored correctly and there is no air flow for six weeks.
The tenant served a 14 day notice on 10 March 2023 that required the landlord to address the mould issue in the house and in the carpets. The landlord had a flooring “specialist” check the carpets on 16 March. The specialist did not find any evidence of carpet moth or an insect infestation. There is no mention of mould in her report either.
Again, this is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have considered her evidence, the statements from friends, the evidence from the witness, the photos and the reports provided by the landlord. I find the tenant has not proved there was a breach by the landlord which resulted in the house being damp and mouldy during her tenancy. Further, I am not persuaded there was a problem with the house which resulted in her belongings going mouldy while she was away. The claims for compensation and exemplary damages are dismissed.

Did the landlord enter the house without giving proper notice?

The tenant claims the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice on 16 March 2023. A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. The relevant notice required here was 48 hours. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
The parties agreed the landlord, the tenant, the owner and a carpet specialist would all meet at the house and inspect the carpets and look for mould. It was very important for the tenant be present so she could present her concerns in person. The first meeting was cancelled by the tenant. A second was arranged for 4pm on 16 March 2023. The tenant’s submission is that she only got notice of this the day before.
The landlord provided me with copies of the notices sent to the tenant. One notice was emailed on 14 March arranging for the inspection to take place on 16 March. This notice actually states the inspection will be on Thursday 17 March, which is not helpful. However, there is clear evidence from all the emails that the tenant understood the meeting would be on 16 March and that she had agreed to that. I find there was consent for the inspection.
The tenant cancelled the carpet specialist on 15 March because of a work commitment. At 3.48pm on 16 March – 12 minutes before the inspection – the tenant emailed the landlord and said “please do not enter the property without my consent at 4pm today”. The landlord submitted she did not see this email before 4pm and so she, and the others, entered the house.
I find there was consent for the entry. I find that withdrawing consent by email so close to the agreed inspection time was ineffective, and it would be unfair of me to penalise the landlord for entering after consent was withdrawn in those circumstances. The claim for unlawful entry and for exemplary damages is dismissed. Other orders
No order is made for the filing fee.
The tenant made an application for suppression. The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, 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. The tenant’s application for suppression is not allowed because the tenant is not the most successful party. See section 95A RTA.
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. I am using my discretion to allow suppression for the landlord because the claim against them has been dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4535332 — 14-day notice

Tenancy Tribunal case 4535332 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does this house meet the healthy homes standards?

Should the tenant get compensation because the house was not fit for habitation?

Did the landlord enter the house without giving proper notice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does this house meet the healthy homes standards?

Should the tenant get compensation because the house was not fit for habitation?

Did the landlord enter the house without giving proper notice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions