What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4560950 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4560950?

Compensation: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Lack Of Remote: $200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4560950?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4560950?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9372774-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4560950 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4560950?

Compensation: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Lack Of Remote: $200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4560950?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4560950?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9372774-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

11 Gifford Avenue, Wesley, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4560950 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4560950 — net $1,700.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: lack of remote	$200.00	lack of remote
Compensation	$1,500.00	Compensation
Net award	$1,700.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,700.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4560950 — net $1,700.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: lack of remote	$200.00	lack of remote
Compensation	$1,500.00	Compensation
Net award	$1,700.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,700.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
There will be a work order for the following work: (a) landlord must replace the exposed cladding in the garage so that the area behind the cladding can be made secure and that part of the garage able to be locked. The rent will reduce by $30 per week until those repairs are done. 1 (b) landlord must repair the issue causing mould and leaks to appear in the master bedroom. The rent is to reduce by $50 per week until those repairs are done. 2
The parties have leave to apply to the adjudicator following this order if there is any confusion in the effect of the order or its meaning.
The Rent House Limited as agent for Amarnath Premnath must pay [The tenant/s] $1700.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy commenced on 7 October 2022 and is ongoing.
At the commencement of the hearing, I asked the tenants to clarify their claims. Based on their responses to that question, I record that the tenants’ claims against the landlord are broadly in the following categories: (a) for 5 months the landlord failed to provide a remote for a heat pump installed at the house, (b) water ingress issues: the landlord failed to promptly repair damage caused to the property following the January 2023 flooding in Auckland and in some cases damage has still not been repaired. Further, there were in any event pre-existing water ingress issues with the property, for example leaks in the sun-room, garage and the master bedroom, (c) drainage: the drainage around the house is all blocked, attracting mosquitos and bugs, under the house is wet and not draining, creating mould within the house and especially in closets making everything in it smelly and wet.
The landlord denies the tenants’ claims and allegations. The landlord has filed a cross application but essentially it is simply a defence to the tenants’ claims. The landlord is not seeking compensation from the tenants. Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
I consider it appropriate to deal with the tenant’s claims under s 45 of the RTA, being the section of the RTA which relates to a landlord’s obligations of maintenance and repair.
Under s 45 of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. A landlord must also comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. 3
The landlord has an obligation under the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947, regulation 15, as follows: “Every house shall be free from dampness”. Regulation 17 provides that the materials from which a house is constructed must be sound, durable and, where subject to the effects of the weather, weatherproof. Likewise, the walls and ceilings of every habitable room, bathroom, kitchen, hall and stairway 3 Section 45 of the RTA must be sheathed, plastered, rendered or otherwise treated and shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the local authority. This regulation further provides that every floor shall be kept in a good state of repair, free from crevices, holes and depressions.
The obligation of the landlord to provide premises in a reasonable state of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage (see Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 4 ) Further, a tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises and the need for repair. 5 The landlord's obligation is to then repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair. 6
In relation to mould, the presence of toxic black mould may signify an inherent mould issue, but in a prior decision of the Tenancy Tribunal, Semmens, Hannah Louise v Wadman, Brian, 7 I note that the Tribunal said: It is the case, that mould is commonly present throughout all residential dwellings in New Zealand to some degree. Mould is ordinary, and of itself simply having mould would not be sufficient to establish a breach on the part of the landlord for which compensation could be ordered. Rather, what a tenant must establish, is that there are defects with the premises which have caused the mould to develop, or to be at a more extensive level than would otherwise be reasonably expected in a dwelling at that meets the required building standards.
The presence of mould in a property can be caused by a variety of factors, including some form of defect in the premises, a lack of ventilation or both. The fact that mould is present in a house is not in and of itself enough to show that it was not in a reasonable state of repair, and the opinion of unqualified persons is often not persuasive. 8
I now consider each of the tenant’s claims. (a) For 5 months the landlord failed to provide a remote for a heat pump installed at the house
The tenants discovered when they moved in that there was no remote for the heat pump. They were able to turn the heat pump on manually but it was set at 18 degrees.
The tenants say that when they moved in the landlord said she would get a replacement remote as soon as possible. The tenants then mentioned it a few times later. The landlord said she could not find one and suggested the tenants 4 DC Auckland CIV 2005 004 1762, at [28] 5 S 40(1)(d) of the RTA, Vu v Hutchings [2016 ] NZTT 4054247, at [13] 6 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009 085 1431, at [15], and see further authorities discussed in “Residential tenancy law in New Zealand”, Stewart Benson, 2018, at page 132 7 [2022] NZTT Manukau 4310605 8 Repia v Walsh Trust. DC Waitakere, CIV-2011-090-00056, 27 April 2011 find one themselves and the landlord could compensate. The tenants felt this was the landlord’s responsibility.
Eventually the tenants received a remote in February 2023.
According to the landlord, they accept that the remote was not there. This was because the prior tenant had removed the remote. The landlord tried to arrange a remote but there was a delay. The landlord says that the loss of the remote was in any event over the summer period when the tenants would not have needed the temperature to be up too high.
I am satisfied that the landlord has failed in its obligations to the tenant by failing to provide a working remote for a 5 month period. I accept this was during the summer months, so being set at 18 degrees would not have been too inconvenient.
However I find that some compensation should nevertheless be awarded to the tenant. I award the sum of $200. (b) Water ingress: the landlord failed to promptly repair damage caused to the property following the January 2023 flooding in Auckland and in some cases damage has still not been repaired. Further, there were pre-existing water ingress issues with the property, including a leak in the master bedroom, garage and sunroom.
In late January 2023, it is well known that Auckland suffered a catastrophic flood. The tenants’ premises suffered damage. Water entered the house, which is single level, and came up to the flood board level. Water flooded the garage.
All the under-floor insulation in the house became wet and had to be removed.
The landlord was slow to response to the request for repairs after the Auckland flooding event in January 2023.
The tenants had two bikes stored in the garage and garden tools. No damage was caused to those items. The cladding from part of the garage has been removed, meaning that that part of the garage cannot be used because it is not secure, even although there is a lock on the door. The garage roof already had leaks but these have worsened.
The sunroom carpet was damaged and had human faeces on it from the flood. The tenants ripped it up the day after the flood. After the carpet was ripped up, a visible hole in the floor was discovered. This was not fixed until around April 2023.
There was already a leak in the master bedroom through the window frame and the sun-room in multiple places, which became worse after the flood.
The tenants spent the day after the flood cleaning and trying to repair any damage. The tenants contacted the landlord. The landlord said she would contact the owner to sort out what repairs had to be done, including allegedly getting some form of heating to dry the floor.
The landlord let the tenants know the owner was under stress as his own house had been flooded. The tenants tried to be understanding to give the owner time to deal with his own situation.
The tenants waited for several weeks but heard nothing. The landlord did not provide any heating. The tenants obtained a dehumidifier and used this in the house to help dry it out.
In around mid-February, an insurance Assessor came in to review the damage.
After that, contractors came to the property to remove the wet insulation. This was about 4 weeks after the flood. They cut the internal cladding away from the sunroom and the garage in preparation to replace it.
The cladding the sunroom was only replaced on 2 September. The garage cladding has not been replaced.
There was no underfloor insulation in the property from the time of the flood in January 2023 to June 2023, when it was finally replaced.
As a result of these delays the tenants could not use the sunroom. Further, they say the house became mouldy. With the lack of underfloor insulation, the property felt cold.
According to the landlord: a) the landlord says she visited the property after the floods with the insurance Assessor in February. With the claim needing to be made to the insurance company, repairs were being controlled by the insurance company. b) The sunroom area was lower than the house, which explains perhaps why it flooded. The landlord agrees there was a leak in the sunroom before the flood, but the landlord says that she pointed this out to the tenants at the commencement of the tenancy. c) The landlord says when she visited the house it was not wet. d) The landlord denies saying she would provide a source of heating. e) The landlord agrees the insulation did not get repaired until June, but claims repairs were held up by the insurance company. f) the landlord accepts that the garage has not been repaired. The landlord says the garage was not in a flash condition when the tenants moved in. There are holes in the roof and the cladding has not been repaired. The landlord says the garage condition is largely pre-existing. The landlord does not want to incur the cost of repairing the roof and cladding. She submits that a builder has said the best they can do is pull off the worse parts of the garage roof and put replacement roofing in. g) the landlord disagrees that the garage is unusable. She says that there is a part of the garage is lockable. However, when I examined the photos, I can see that the bottom part of the wall has been removed, exposing it to the outside. So whilst the door can be locked, someone could crawl through the exposed exterior.
I am satisfied the tenants have proven there has been a breach of the landlord’s obligations. There should not have been a hole in the sunroom floor from the outset of the tenancy. I am satisfied that the pre-existing leaks claimed by the tenants were there, indeed, that aspect is not denied by the landlord. I accept the tenants’ evidence as to the condition of the garage.
I also accept there were delays in the repairs post the January flooding but the cause of those delays cannot be visited entirely on the landlord. Any repairs needed to be process through an insurance company and its relevant contractors.
Nevertheless, I consider it appropriate to award some compensation to the tenants.
I deal with the question of compensation below. (c) The drainage around the house is all blocked, attracting mosquitos and bugs. All under the house is wet and not draining, creating mould in the house and especially in closets making everything in it smelly and wet
The tenants say there is a problem with water pooling around a drain at the back of the house and to the front of the garage whenever it rains. The tenants say that the water then runs into the garage so that anything left on the floor will get damaged. The tenants provided photos which verified this.
The tenants say that there is no drainage under the house. They say that when it rains, When the water pools, the water then goes over the top of the water barrier and there is no proper drainage around .
The tenants arranged for a drainage expert ([redacted]) to come around and inspect the property. [Drainage expert] said there was no drainage under or around the house. They said there was a way to connect the drainage into the mains but there were logistic hurdles. [Drainage expert] provided a written report with recommendations for stormwater remediation which was not produced but the tenant read it out loud during the hearing. The landlord has had no opportunity to view that report.
The tenants produced photographs of mould on a couch and on shoes that were stored in a closet in the master bedroom.
Further, they say there is a smell of mould in the house, despite the tenants keeping the house well ventilated. They also keep the dehumidifier on most of the time.
The tenants also wipe off any mould that appears on the walls and in the ceiling.
According to the landlord, the only mould she has ever seen is a bit of mould on the master bedroom. The landlord says the tenants have never complained about this issue.
The landlord denies there is any drainage problem with the house. She accepts that the moisture barrier may be hindering the house drying out.
The landlord says the ingoing condition of the garage was appalling at the outset of the tenants. The landlord has offered to end the fixed term tenancy and can’t understand why the tenants want to stay there.
I accept there is evidence of some mould at the property. Water not draining under the house would likely cause the house to become damp and mouldy.
The tenants did not however produce any expert reports relating to the mould, making it difficult to assess how serious the condition is, particularly in the light of the landlord’s insistence she has only ever seen a bit of mould in the master bedroom.
Nevertheless, I consider some compensation is appropriate. I deal with the question of compensation below. Compensation
The landlord says that in about March of this year, it reduced the rent from $650 to $590 from the start of the tenancy, to compensate the tenants. As at today’s date, this amounts to a monetary compensation to the tenants of $2860. In addition, the landlord has offered a further $1000 to the tenants. The landlord will be putting the rent back up to $650 on 14 October. This means the total rent abatement will amount to around $3120 for the year.
In response, the tenants complain that the rent reduction only came from their contact with the landlord. Initially, the landlord only offered $20 per week reduction.
The tenants are not happy that the garage will not be fixed. The tenants want to be able to use the garage for their bikes and tools. Having a useable garage is an important part of the tenancy for them. The tenant now has to store his dirt bike within the house.
The tenants want more compensation than the landlord is offering. The tenants want a 50% rent reduction from the date of the flooding through to when all outstanding issues are repaired.
For all of the claims made by the tenants (other than the heat pump remote) I am satisfied that the rent reduction to date was appropriate. In addition, I find that the tenants should be awarded an additional $1500.
The landlord has offered to repair the issue causing mould and any leaks in the master bedroom. I record that the landlord is therefore ordered to repair the issue causing mould and leaks to appear in the master bedroom. Until such time as those works are done, the rent is to reduce by $50 per week.
In relation to the garage, I make no work orders, other than the landlord must replace the exposed cladding in the garage so that the area behind the cladding can be made secure. Given the pre-existing condition of the garage I am not satisfied that replacement of the garage or other works should be undertaken. The amount of compensation I have ordered above will compensate the tenant for that loss of amenity. The rent will reduce by $30 per week until the repair works are done.
The parties have leave to apply to the adjudicator following this order if there is any confusion in the effect of the order or its meaning.
Because [The tenant/s] have succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4560950 — Tenancy dispute at 11 Gifford Avenue, Wesley, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4560950 — Tenancy dispute at 11 Gifford Avenue, Wesley, Auckland 1041

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