How much money was awarded in case 4567251?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4567251?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4567251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9383869-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4567251?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4567251?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4567251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9383869-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

234 Wairakei Road, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4567251 — Mould & damp

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4567251 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

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

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

No other orders are made for either application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. One tenant was unavailable but the other three present represented all.

The tenant application sought compensation of $6,024.00. This was based on rent refund of $2,400, a medical cost of $200, damage to property of $440.00, excessive electricity usage of $2,700 and maintenance of $284.00. The tenants cited mould and dampness problems as well as issues with the landlord processing change in tenants and bond records.

The landlord counterclaimed for compensation of $390.00; being for painting of a bedroom wall and replacement of lightbulbs.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

This was a long tenancy with a churn of tenants. By the end of the tenancy there was a discrepancy between the tenants at the end and those recorded at the Bond Centre. Mould in residential premises

In Xiao and Zhao v Dong [2021 NZTT North Shore 4219619 at [26], the Adjudicator found that “generally, landlords will only be responsible for mould that arises in the course of a tenancy, if there were some defects with the tenancy, that the landlord would be responsible for. Some level of mould is a reality in residential dwellings, even dwellings that are well build, warm, ventilated and without defects”. The decision decided the mould was not the responsibility of the landlord because “the tenants have no identified any pre- existing problem with mould at the start of the tenancy”, there was “no evidence before the Tribunal that there is any defect with the structure of the building” and that “the problem with the mould may have arisen as a consequence of how the tenants were living in the dwelling”. Failure to maintain

There were a number of maintenance tasks conducted during the tenancy. However, there were ongoing issues categorised as dampness or mould that impacted the tenants. A claim regarding a failure of the landlord to adhere to the Healthy Homes requirements is dismissed as this tenancy commenced before the effective date required for the cited omission.

Mould and dampness was a problem.

It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s45 is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.

Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.

Having considered all submissions and evidence, I accept that mould was present in the premises and that mould was not solely due to the tenant behaviour. The problem for the tenants is the need for them to advise the landlord accordingly. This does not negate the exchanges between the tenants as to the problem, nor does it disregard the compensation claims as they are accepted as costs incurred by the tenants. But to transfer those costs onto the landlord via any compensation order I need to be satisfied the landlord was, or should have been, aware that the problem was impacting some tenants significantly and the issue was more than behavioural.

I do not find the related problems and impacts were adequately communicated to the landlord. I contrast the subsequent tenant notification process and rapid remediation by the landlord (during the next tenancy) as confirmation the landlord would have taken appropriate remedial action if so notified. I did consider whether this tenant application was the trigger for the subsequent remediation but having compared the timelines I find it more than likely that it was in response to a definitive tenant communication to the landlord. Bond

There was mutual confusion at the end of the tenancy regarding the tenants of record for the bond (at the Bond Centre), versus the final tenants who had paid out departing tenants their share of the bond. The landlord did not help the situation, but I consider she also tried to resolve it through contacting the previous tenants. The earlier departure of one of the final tenants before the end date did not require any commensurate release by the landlord of that tenant’s share of the bond. This appears to have caused some friction, but it was open to the tenants as a collective to make any arrangement if appropriate.

The tenants sought compensation for the landlord’s failure to manage the bond records in a timely and accurate manner. Landlord claims

The landlord sought compensation for the repainting of one bedroom. The tenants accepted some damage was their responsibility but maintain the wall was in poor condition. I agree as this bedroom was to later be remediated as the main source of moisture ingress and related problems. Active management by the tenants of mould required frequent wiping of the walls using active ingredients, this will have accelerated the decline in the wall finish but given the subsequent identification of root cause it would be inequitable to make any compensation order for repainting.

A number of light bulbs were replaced at the end of the tenancy. Some appear to have been long-life energy efficient bulbs that might have justified some sharing of replacement costs given the longevity of these superior bulbs. Merits and justice

The Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. Further, the Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities (see s 85 RTA).

The tenants actively attempted to manage what was an ongoing issue with dampness and mould in some parts of the house. Unfortunately, the messaging to the landlord was not as clear as some internal communication between the tenants. That appears to be due to an internal “hierarchy” that left landlord communication with the longest standing tenant. Some of the other tenants might have been more direct.

I accept the landlord did not keep on top of the bond record but I have some sympathy with the challenge in that task with tenant churn. This order will ensure the bond is returned to the final tenants. If there is any dispute between the tenants on how it is distributed between themselves that requires any determination that is a matter for the Disputes Tribunal.

Given the respective, lesser liabilities of either party for the end of tenancy matters, I have determined the appropriate resolution is to balance each by making no further orders beyond the return of the bond in full to the tenants. In effect, they cancel each out. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.

Further, 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.

The tenants requested name suppression. This is justified given their success regarding the bond return. Suppression by the landlord was not sought but I consider it equally appropriate given the facts.

Order

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

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

No other orders are made for either application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. One tenant was unavailable but the other three present represented all.

The landlord counterclaimed for compensation of $390.00; being for painting of a bedroom wall and replacement of lightbulbs.

In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

This was a long tenancy with a churn of tenants. By the end of the tenancy there was a discrepancy between the tenants at the end and those recorded at the Bond Centre. Mould in residential premises

Mould and dampness was a problem.

The tenants sought compensation for the landlord’s failure to manage the bond records in a timely and accurate manner. Landlord claims

Tenancy Tribunal case 4567251 — Mould & damp at 234 Wairakei Road, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4567251 — Mould & damp at 234 Wairakei Road, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions