What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4562320 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4562320?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4562320?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4562320?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9389709-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4562320 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4562320?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4562320?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4562320?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9389709-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4562320 — Mould & damp

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its principal.
The tenants have claimed compensation because they had to move out of the tenancy premises about four months after they took possession. This is because the mould and damp was so bad in one of the rooms that it could not be used. The tenants were promised compensation by the property manager. The tenants are also concerned there was a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards because of the moisture ingress. The questions for the Tribunal are was there a breach by the landlord and should the tenants get compensation?

Was there a breach by the landlord?

Landlords are required to provide tenancy premises in a reasonable condition and to act promptly when tenants raise concerns. See section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
One of the bedrooms had mould and a bad smell in December 2022, just after the start of the tenancy. I have read the correspondence and considered the submissions made at the hearing. I find the landlord dealt with this issue promptly and it was resolved.
The tenants then contacted the landlord on 19 January 2023 about the damp in another bedroom, the one next to a bank. The landlord arranged a moisture test for 14 February and was alarmed to find elevated moisture levels on two internal walls. The property manager dealing with it at the time promised action as well and compensation and/or reduced rent. The owner was contacted and an offer was emailed to the tenants on 28 February. The proposal at that stage was that the tenants could move out at any time and at short notice, and the payment of compensation.
The landlord found them another tenancy and the owner paid their moving costs. The landlord’s submission is it never paid the additional compensation because it had done everything it could, including acting promptly, helping the tenants into another rental, and paying the moving costs.
After the tenants moved out the owner discovered there was a crack in a concrete retaining wall behind the house and water was seeping under the house and rising up the internal framing of two of the bedrooms. The crack has been treated as new damage – as opposed to gradual damage - by the insurer. The floors in the bedrooms had to be taken up to establish the reason for the very high moisture readings.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I have some emails, but nothing after 28 February 2023. The tenants said there was dirt and rotten wood under the carpets and have provided me with photos, but these are not clear and do not help their claim. I have not been provided with any evidence the moisture ingress was the result of a Healthy Homes breach. The tenants have not persuaded me the landlord knew about the water under the house when they moved in, and I am persuaded the landlord acted promptly. I do not find the tenants have proved the landlord breached its obligations under the RTA.

Should the tenants get compensation?

I accept the tenants had a terrible start to their university year. They moved at the end of the first term, and this was a disruption none of them expected. Some of the tenants were sick. The landlord set up an expectation that compensation would be paid in the email sent on 28 February. However, that email was just a proposal, and I have not been provided with any evidence the landlord agreed to pay a certain amount of money to the tenants. Taking everything the landlord did into account, I do not find the landlord should pay additional compensation. The tenants’ application is dismissed. Other orders
No order is made for the filing fee.
I am using my discretion to order suppression for both parties. This is because there have been no breaches of the RTA, and therefore any public interest is in the law not the names of the parties. See section 95 RTA.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its principal.
The tenants have claimed compensation because they had to move out of the tenancy premises about four months after they took possession. This is because the mould and damp was so bad in one of the rooms that it could not be used. The tenants were promised compensation by the property manager. The tenants are also concerned there was a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards because of the moisture ingress. The questions for the Tribunal are was there a breach by the landlord and should the tenants get compensation?

Was there a breach by the landlord?

Landlords are required to provide tenancy premises in a reasonable condition and to act promptly when tenants raise concerns. See section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
One of the bedrooms had mould and a bad smell in December 2022, just after the start of the tenancy. I have read the correspondence and considered the submissions made at the hearing. I find the landlord dealt with this issue promptly and it was resolved.
The tenants then contacted the landlord on 19 January 2023 about the damp in another bedroom, the one next to a bank. The landlord arranged a moisture test for 14 February and was alarmed to find elevated moisture levels on two internal walls. The property manager dealing with it at the time promised action as well and compensation and/or reduced rent. The owner was contacted and an offer was emailed to the tenants on 28 February. The proposal at that stage was that the tenants could move out at any time and at short notice, and the payment of compensation.
The landlord found them another tenancy and the owner paid their moving costs. The landlord’s submission is it never paid the additional compensation because it had done everything it could, including acting promptly, helping the tenants into another rental, and paying the moving costs.
After the tenants moved out the owner discovered there was a crack in a concrete retaining wall behind the house and water was seeping under the house and rising up the internal framing of two of the bedrooms. The crack has been treated as new damage – as opposed to gradual damage - by the insurer. The floors in the bedrooms had to be taken up to establish the reason for the very high moisture readings.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I have some emails, but nothing after 28 February 2023. The tenants said there was dirt and rotten wood under the carpets and have provided me with photos, but these are not clear and do not help their claim. I have not been provided with any evidence the moisture ingress was the result of a Healthy Homes breach. The tenants have not persuaded me the landlord knew about the water under the house when they moved in, and I am persuaded the landlord acted promptly. I do not find the tenants have proved the landlord breached its obligations under the RTA.

Should the tenants get compensation?

I accept the tenants had a terrible start to their university year. They moved at the end of the first term, and this was a disruption none of them expected. Some of the tenants were sick. The landlord set up an expectation that compensation would be paid in the email sent on 28 February. However, that email was just a proposal, and I have not been provided with any evidence the landlord agreed to pay a certain amount of money to the tenants. Taking everything the landlord did into account, I do not find the landlord should pay additional compensation. The tenants’ application is dismissed. Other orders
No order is made for the filing fee.
I am using my discretion to order suppression for both parties. This is because there have been no breaches of the RTA, and therefore any public interest is in the law not the names of the parties. See section 95 RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4562320 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4562320 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach by the landlord?

Should the tenants get compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach by the landlord?

Should the tenants get compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions