What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4588349 about?

The tribunal order states: Ranjeet Singh must pay [The tenant/s] $4,138.04 immediately as set out in the

How much money was awarded in case 4588349?

Compensation: Dump Fees: $117.60 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4588349?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4588349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9643776-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4588349 about?

The tribunal order states: Ranjeet Singh must pay [The tenant/s] $4,138.04 immediately as set out in the

How much money was awarded in case 4588349?

Compensation: Dump Fees: $117.60 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4588349?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4588349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9643776-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

9B Penton Road, Stanmore Bay, Whangaparaoa 0932 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4588349 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4588349 — net $4,138.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of amenity	$2,000.00	loss of amenity
Compensation: dump fees	$117.60	dump fees
Exemplary damages: failure to maintain	$2,000.00	failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,138.04
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,138.04

Order

Ranjeet Singh must pay [The tenant/s] $4,138.04 immediately as set out in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This claim concerns the tenancy of a three bedroom standalone house in Stanmore Bay, Whangaparaoa. The tenancy began on 9 September 2022 and was for a fixed term of one year, but the tenancy in fact ended on 8 May 2023 due to issues with moisture.
The tenants in this proceeding are only two of the three tenants named on the tenancy agreement. The third tenant is not a party to this proceeding, and in fact has provided a letter of support for the landlord. For the purposes of this decision the words “tenants” refers to the tenants who have filed this proceeding.
The tenants moved into the property with their young daughter and occupied two of the three bedrooms. The third tenant occupied the other bedroom.
The tenants say that the two bedrooms were so damp that their possessions became covered in mould and that most of them had to be thrown out. They say that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this obligation 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.
This is a claim by the tenants. They must prove their claim to the civil standard (that is, on the balance of probabilities). For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence in this decision but the parties should be assured that I have carefully considered all of the evidence filed and presented at the hearing when preparing this decision.

Were the premises provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair?

The tenants said that that they discovered that the property was damp when they found mould on their couch in December 2022, only two months after moving. They purchased a new couch only to find that the new couch became mouldy also and soon they discovered mould all over the backs of picture frames, throughout their mattresses and on their drawers and their daughter’s drawers, toys and clothes.
The tenants produced various photos in evidence: a. showing extensive mould at various dates during the tenancy. They said that they would clean their possessions, only for the mould to come back. b. showing damp carpet and underlay, wet areas underfloor including wet insulation and moisture reading tests showing moisture levels (set out).
The tenants explained that became very concerned at the dampness. They contacted the landlord on the following dates to advise of the issue: 30 January 2023, 17 April 2023, 30 April 2023, 1 May 2023, 2 May 2023, 4 May 2023, 5 May 2023, and 7 May 2023.
The inspection reports show that the tenants complained of dampness at the inspections on 4 February 2023 and 24 April 2023.
The tenants produced a report at the hearing showing moisture readings in the walls and skirting boards very high range (87.1 and 119.3 when the acceptable range is between 18 and 20). I accept that this report was prepared by a family member but note the photos showing the readings in various locations.
On 7 May 2023 the landlord met with the tenants at the property. The tenants explained that the floors throughout the house had wet areas and they would need to move out so that it could be properly fixed. The landlord then explained that, given the extent of the problem, they realised it was no longer fit to live in. The landlord sent a letter to the tenant the following day stating as follows: “After the storm early this year the house must have got rain in the Ceiling and is causing moisture right through the house. Since you informed us about the problem we have realised that the house is not fit to live in any longer As we agreed this morning that you would like to move out so we giving you two weeks to move out and also we giving you two weeks rent free from this date”
The tenants said that they moved out immediately and stayed with family due to their concern about the impact of the mould on their health, but they spent the next week getting their possessions to dispose of them and cleaning the property.
In addition to the evidence above the tenants produced letter from a neighbour explaining that there had been flooding at the property just prior to the start of the tenancy, and a copies of their daughter’s patient medial record dated 19 May 2023 noting “two months of cough”, “chronic cough” and “[m]ould infestation in rental property. Mould on cot mattress, cot and cot frames etc”.
At the hearing the landlord explained that the property had been renovated prior to the tenants moving in and that the only thing that was not new was the carpet. They agreed that the property had been flooded by the previous tenants but said that they had dried out the property. The landlord produced a report showing that a large number of dehumidifiers and airmovers had been installed at the property for 2- 5 days prior to the start of this tenancy.
The landlord did not accept that the property was damp. They said that the property itself was not mouldy and that it was only the tenants’ possessions that had become covered with mould. The landlord queried whether the tenants had properly aired their rooms. The landlord also produced a letter from the third tenant stating that they had not experienced issues at the tenancy and had enjoyed living there.
I have considered all of the evidence carefully. I find that the property was not maintained in a proper state of repair. The moisture readings taken are irrefutable evidence of the dampness present in the home. The photos produced by the tenants show very extensive mould which I do not consider could occur unless the conditions were particularly damp, and a number of photos show mould and damp under the carpet and also under the house and in the insulation.
It is noteworthy that the tenants’ two rooms were side by side on the south side of the house. The tenants accepted that the other tenant had not had issues in her room. The other tenant remains a tenant of the landlord (although at a different property).
Ultimately the tenancy was terminated by the landlord at short notice due to serious issues with moisture at the property.

Are the tenants entitled to compensation?

The tenants sought compensation for loss of amenity, for taking time off work while their daughter was sick, for the cost of moving in a hurry, and for the cost of disposing and replacing their possessions which had to be thrown away due to extensive mould.
It is not always easy to quantify compensation payable. In this case the tenant had purchased replacement items second hand wherever they could and did not have invoice for replacement items, and it was not possible to accurately quantify the cost of moving or the time taken off work.
I consider that the best way to quantify the tenants’ loss is to award compensation of $2,000 over the duration of the tenancy, a reduction of approximately $60.00 per week. In coming to this amount I have considered the tenants’ overall portion of the rent, the fact that they used two of the bedrooms and did not get those rooms in the condition that they should a have been provided and maintained, and the fact that they could not safely store their possessions there and have had to replace them.
The tenants did provide invoices for disposing of their damaged items at a nearby refuse station in the amount of $117.60 and I order that amount in addition.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

By failing to property maintain the property the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The fact that the tenant made the landlord aware of the dampness issue on numerous occasions without any action being taken leads me to the inescapable conclusion that the landlord has failed to act intentionally. This is not a case of mere oversight.
The effect on the tenants has been considerable. They had to move at short notice and have concerns for their own health and the health of their daughter. They have had to throw many of their possessions away.
Tenants are in a vulnerable position when it comes to maintenance as they are reliant on landlords taking action to remedy issues. It is in the public interest for landlords to act responsibly and swiftly when advised of maintenance issues by tenants. This is particularly so when the maintenance issue (in this case mould) is a known health risk.
I consider that exemplary damages of $2,000 are appropriate. That amount is slightly less than one third of the maximum award available. In reaching that amount I have taken into account the fact that the landlords responsibly accepted that the fixed term tenancy could not continue due to the extent of the moisture issues and did not charge rent from that date while the tenants removed their possessions. Name suppression and filing fee
The tenants are the successful party and so are entitled to an order for name suppression pursuant to Section 95A RTA. I make an order accordingly.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4588349 — net $4,138.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of amenity	$2,000.00	loss of amenity
Compensation: dump fees	$117.60	dump fees
Exemplary damages: failure to maintain	$2,000.00	failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,138.04
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,138.04

Order

Ranjeet Singh must pay [The tenant/s] $4,138.04 immediately as set out in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This claim concerns the tenancy of a three bedroom standalone house in Stanmore Bay, Whangaparaoa. The tenancy began on 9 September 2022 and was for a fixed term of one year, but the tenancy in fact ended on 8 May 2023 due to issues with moisture.
The tenants in this proceeding are only two of the three tenants named on the tenancy agreement. The third tenant is not a party to this proceeding, and in fact has provided a letter of support for the landlord. For the purposes of this decision the words “tenants” refers to the tenants who have filed this proceeding.
The tenants moved into the property with their young daughter and occupied two of the three bedrooms. The third tenant occupied the other bedroom.
The tenants say that the two bedrooms were so damp that their possessions became covered in mould and that most of them had to be thrown out. They say that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this obligation 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.
This is a claim by the tenants. They must prove their claim to the civil standard (that is, on the balance of probabilities). For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence in this decision but the parties should be assured that I have carefully considered all of the evidence filed and presented at the hearing when preparing this decision.

Were the premises provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair?

The tenants said that that they discovered that the property was damp when they found mould on their couch in December 2022, only two months after moving. They purchased a new couch only to find that the new couch became mouldy also and soon they discovered mould all over the backs of picture frames, throughout their mattresses and on their drawers and their daughter’s drawers, toys and clothes.
The tenants produced various photos in evidence: a. showing extensive mould at various dates during the tenancy. They said that they would clean their possessions, only for the mould to come back. b. showing damp carpet and underlay, wet areas underfloor including wet insulation and moisture reading tests showing moisture levels (set out).
The tenants explained that became very concerned at the dampness. They contacted the landlord on the following dates to advise of the issue: 30 January 2023, 17 April 2023, 30 April 2023, 1 May 2023, 2 May 2023, 4 May 2023, 5 May 2023, and 7 May 2023.
The inspection reports show that the tenants complained of dampness at the inspections on 4 February 2023 and 24 April 2023.
The tenants produced a report at the hearing showing moisture readings in the walls and skirting boards very high range (87.1 and 119.3 when the acceptable range is between 18 and 20). I accept that this report was prepared by a family member but note the photos showing the readings in various locations.
On 7 May 2023 the landlord met with the tenants at the property. The tenants explained that the floors throughout the house had wet areas and they would need to move out so that it could be properly fixed. The landlord then explained that, given the extent of the problem, they realised it was no longer fit to live in. The landlord sent a letter to the tenant the following day stating as follows: “After the storm early this year the house must have got rain in the Ceiling and is causing moisture right through the house. Since you informed us about the problem we have realised that the house is not fit to live in any longer As we agreed this morning that you would like to move out so we giving you two weeks to move out and also we giving you two weeks rent free from this date”
The tenants said that they moved out immediately and stayed with family due to their concern about the impact of the mould on their health, but they spent the next week getting their possessions to dispose of them and cleaning the property.
In addition to the evidence above the tenants produced letter from a neighbour explaining that there had been flooding at the property just prior to the start of the tenancy, and a copies of their daughter’s patient medial record dated 19 May 2023 noting “two months of cough”, “chronic cough” and “[m]ould infestation in rental property. Mould on cot mattress, cot and cot frames etc”.
At the hearing the landlord explained that the property had been renovated prior to the tenants moving in and that the only thing that was not new was the carpet. They agreed that the property had been flooded by the previous tenants but said that they had dried out the property. The landlord produced a report showing that a large number of dehumidifiers and airmovers had been installed at the property for 2- 5 days prior to the start of this tenancy.
The landlord did not accept that the property was damp. They said that the property itself was not mouldy and that it was only the tenants’ possessions that had become covered with mould. The landlord queried whether the tenants had properly aired their rooms. The landlord also produced a letter from the third tenant stating that they had not experienced issues at the tenancy and had enjoyed living there.
I have considered all of the evidence carefully. I find that the property was not maintained in a proper state of repair. The moisture readings taken are irrefutable evidence of the dampness present in the home. The photos produced by the tenants show very extensive mould which I do not consider could occur unless the conditions were particularly damp, and a number of photos show mould and damp under the carpet and also under the house and in the insulation.
It is noteworthy that the tenants’ two rooms were side by side on the south side of the house. The tenants accepted that the other tenant had not had issues in her room. The other tenant remains a tenant of the landlord (although at a different property).
Ultimately the tenancy was terminated by the landlord at short notice due to serious issues with moisture at the property.

Are the tenants entitled to compensation?

The tenants sought compensation for loss of amenity, for taking time off work while their daughter was sick, for the cost of moving in a hurry, and for the cost of disposing and replacing their possessions which had to be thrown away due to extensive mould.
It is not always easy to quantify compensation payable. In this case the tenant had purchased replacement items second hand wherever they could and did not have invoice for replacement items, and it was not possible to accurately quantify the cost of moving or the time taken off work.
I consider that the best way to quantify the tenants’ loss is to award compensation of $2,000 over the duration of the tenancy, a reduction of approximately $60.00 per week. In coming to this amount I have considered the tenants’ overall portion of the rent, the fact that they used two of the bedrooms and did not get those rooms in the condition that they should a have been provided and maintained, and the fact that they could not safely store their possessions there and have had to replace them.
The tenants did provide invoices for disposing of their damaged items at a nearby refuse station in the amount of $117.60 and I order that amount in addition.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

By failing to property maintain the property the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The fact that the tenant made the landlord aware of the dampness issue on numerous occasions without any action being taken leads me to the inescapable conclusion that the landlord has failed to act intentionally. This is not a case of mere oversight.
The effect on the tenants has been considerable. They had to move at short notice and have concerns for their own health and the health of their daughter. They have had to throw many of their possessions away.
Tenants are in a vulnerable position when it comes to maintenance as they are reliant on landlords taking action to remedy issues. It is in the public interest for landlords to act responsibly and swiftly when advised of maintenance issues by tenants. This is particularly so when the maintenance issue (in this case mould) is a known health risk.
I consider that exemplary damages of $2,000 are appropriate. That amount is slightly less than one third of the maximum award available. In reaching that amount I have taken into account the fact that the landlords responsibly accepted that the fixed term tenancy could not continue due to the extent of the moisture issues and did not charge rent from that date while the tenants removed their possessions. Name suppression and filing fee
The tenants are the successful party and so are entitled to an order for name suppression pursuant to Section 95A RTA. I make an order accordingly.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4588349 — State of repair at 9B Penton Road, Stanmore Bay, Whangaparaoa 0932

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4588349 — State of repair at 9B Penton Road, Stanmore Bay, Whangaparaoa 0932

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Were the premises provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair?

Are the tenants entitled to compensation?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Were the premises provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair?

Are the tenants entitled to compensation?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions