What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4585750 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4585750?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4585750?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4585750?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9332041-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4585750 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4585750?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4585750?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4585750?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9332041-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

34A Malvern Road, Morningside, Auckland 1022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4585750 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants names and identifying details.
The landlord and tenants’ applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a cross application. The landlord is seeking termination for anti-social behaviour and reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenants are claiming that the property was not healthy Homes compliant, failure to maintain, retaliatory notice in response to complaints about the property, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee. Anti-social behaviour- termination – Landlord application
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is excessive noise, disturbance, yelling and screaming at property manager and neighbours.
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy: and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti-social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and. c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
The landlord has given the tenants three notices regarding anti-social behaviour. The first notice was dated 30 April 2023, where the tenants allegedly were screaming, fighting, stomping, and yelling at each other causing excessive noise and disturbing the neighbours at 8am on 28 April 2023.
The second notice was dated 24 May 2023 at 6.21pm where the tenants were yelling, and a neighbour told them to be quiet. One of the tenants began yelling at two neighbours and telling them to ‘fuck off.”
The third breach notice was sent of 24 May 2023 relating to an alleged incident at 4.20pm where one of the tenants was talking loud and aggressively, and was verbally abusive, swore and was rude to the property manager who was there to do an arranged inspection.
The landlord provided text messages from neighbours of the tenants who had been subjected to some abuse from one of the tenants. In addition, the landlord provided to the Tribunal emails of recordings made by neighbours of the behaviour.
The police have been called to the property twice earlier this year because of alleged incidents of anti-social behaviour from one tenant.
The tenants do not dispute the claims of yelling and screaming. The explanation for this behaviour was one of the tenant’s mental health was spiralling out of control during difficult times. They do dispute the claim regarding the property manager and say it was her that was abusive, talking loudly and banging windows.
The tenants have provided documentation of their health issues. [Tenant 1] provided letters from [Medical practice] dated 29 May and 1 July 2023 which states that he is on medication for acute anxiety and is being treated for a mental health condition.
[Tenant 2] provided a letter from [Medical practice] dated 6 June 2023 which states that she suffers from mental health issues which make her prone to panic attacks and severe anxiety.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
I consider it would be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and the fact that the tenants have sought and complying with medication to help with their health issues. The families of the tenants are involved and assisting them, the tenants realised that their behaviour was wrong and have apologised to the neighbours.
The tenants reassure the landlord that there will be no repeat of this type of behaviour.
I can consider the impact on the tenant and the landlord of making an order for termination of the tenancy. I consider that it is not appropriate to terminate the tenancy.
As a result of my findings, I cannot reimburse the landlord’s filing fee. Breach of HHS/Failure to Maintain - Tenants
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must -provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness -provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair -comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 -comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to maintain the property as follows: -Mould, dampness and moisture in the walls and ceilings in the bedroom, hallway, lounge -Orange liquid dripping on their faces in bed from leaking ceiling -Faulty smoke alarm in bedroom -Piece of paper stuffed in cavity between the ceiling and wall -Bathroom wall swollen and warped
The landlord accepts at the start of the tenancy the property was not healthy homes compliant. However, the landlord has 90 days in which to remedy non- compliant areas within a property. The tenancy agreement provided a Current Level of Compliance as of 26 May 2022. The document stated that the property was not compliant, and the tenant signed the document.
The landlord provided a timeline regarding the start of the tenancy and issues raised by tenants.
The timeline states: a) At the start of tenancy on 31 May 2022 the house was not fully Healthy Homes compliant. There was a new kitchen fan, heat top, heat pump, rangehood all installed within 90 days of start of tenancy. b) The landlord provided the Tribunal with invoices from [Heating and ventilation company] for $2581.50 to supplying and installing a heat pump, kitchen and bathroom extractor fan and a door draught stopper.
The tenants complained on 18 th July about mould and the landlord responded the same day and visited the property. At that visit, the property manager found no mould on the ceilings. The property manager actioned a third-party insulation company to check insulation issues.
The landlord provided the tenants with a new dehumidifier on 19 July 2022. An inspection report dated 24 August 2022 stated that the tenants were happy with the dehumidifier, that it was working well and that the moisture levels had been reduced dramatically.
The landlord provided emails between [Healthy homes company] and the property manager. [Healthy homes company] had been instructed to check and investigate issues of mould in the property. [The assessor] for [Healthy homes company] reported back that following their investigations into mould at the property, that it may be the insulation that is a problem. However, [The assessor] stated that the insulation looks fine and that there was no damage or signs of compression or moisture on the existing mould. [The assessor] advised the tenants to ventilate the property and to clean the mould. A leak was found in the ceiling but there were no signs of mould.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with copies of work orders for the property. On 19 July 2022 [Insulation company] were tasked to check for ceiling insulation. On 25 July [Energy efficiency company] reported that their assessors had been through the ceiling and found the insulation in the external wall and ceiling was compliant, thick enough and fine.
The landlord states that the property was healthy homes compliant on 1 July 2022.
In the inspection report dated 24 August 2022 the landlord commented that new hinges had been put on the kitchen cupboards, heat pump installed, that there were two working smoke alarms in good order and that there was no urgent maintenance to be reported during the inspection.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
After considering the evidence provided to the Tribunal about issues raised and timeline to respond and repair, I do not find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
I acknowledge that the photographs provided to the Tribunal do show a property that is old and in need of fresh paint and wall papering.
I am dismissing the tenants claim for breach of Healthy Home Standard and failure to maintain. Retaliatory Notice
For a notice to terminate to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not provide notice terminating the tenancy, therefore there is nothing that I need to determine. I am assuming the tenants were meaning that the anti-social notices were in retaliation for the upset between the property manager and tenants at the inspection on 24 May 2023. That is not something that I can award exemplary damages for. I am dismissing the tenants claim for retaliatory notice.
I am granting suppression of the tenant’s names and details. It is appropriate to do so given the vulnerable nature of the tenants due to their health issues.
The bond can remain at the bond centre until the end of the tenancy.
As neither party were successful in their application, I cannot reimburse the filing fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4585750 — Mould & damp at 34A Malvern Road, Morningside, Auckland 1022

Tenancy Tribunal case 4585750 — Mould & damp at 34A Malvern Road, Morningside, Auckland 1022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions