What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4612752 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 4612752?

Compensation: for bathroom extractor…: $260.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4612752?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4612752?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9337109-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4612752 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 4612752?

Compensation: for bathroom extractor…: $260.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4612752?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4612752?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9337109-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4612752 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4612752 — net $280.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: for bathroom extractor fan for 13 weeks at	$260.00	for bathroom extractor fan for 13 weeks at
Net award	$280.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$280.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4612752 — net $280.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: for bathroom extractor fan for 13 weeks at	$260.00	for bathroom extractor fan for 13 weeks at
Net award	$280.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$280.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
BY CONSENT – The tenancy will end on Thursday 21 September 2023 and Taylor Property Plus (2006) Limited is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at that time.
Taylor Property Plus (2006) Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $280.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tribunal was assisted by an interpreter.
This tenancy started in April this year. The tenancy agreement is for a fixed term. At the hearing the parties agreed the tenancy will end in 28 days time. This means I did not need to consider the tenant’s claim to end the fixed term tenancy, nor the claim about the ceiling. The tenant also claimed compensation because a window leaked and because the extractor fan in the bathroom did not work properly. A replacement fan was installed in July. The tenant said the house was mouldy and she was very concerned for her health. She wants the Tribunal to decide if there have been any breaches of the Heathy Homes Standards. The questions I have to decide are: • Did the window leak? • Was the bathroom mouldy? • Should the tenant get compensation because there was no bathroom fan?

Did the window leak?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. See 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant submitted the window in the lounge has leaked since the first week of the tenancy. She provided me with photos showing the leak and copies of messages with the landlord about the leak. She said this has never been fixed. The landlord submitted they had a plumbing company attend to the leak on 19 April, and that final repairs were done on 27 April. I have been provided with a copy of the invoice. The landlord submitted that any water on and around the window frame since 27 April was condensation.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. Her photos of the drips and the windows do not clearly show if the water is condensation or from leaks. I am not persuaded by her evidence and this claim is dismissed. The related claim for compensation is dismissed. I find there was no breach of the Healthy Homes water ingress standard either.

Was the bathroom mouldy?

The tenant submitted the bathroom, and in particular the underside of the vanity was mouldy. I accept the tenant was very concerned about this because she has provided me with two notes from her doctor. The landlord said there is no mould in the bathroom, and the marks shown in the tenant’s photos are old water marks from long before this tenancy. Again, this is the tenant’s claim to prove. Her photos are not clear enough for me to tell if there is mould in the bathroom. This claim is dismissed.

Should the tenant get compensation because there was no bathroom fan?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). She considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard, which requires that bathrooms have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity. This is because the bathroom extractor fan was not working properly.
The bathroom had an extractor fan. I have not been provided with any evidence the fan did not meet the minimum requirements under the HHS. I find there was no breach of the HHS and this part of the claim is dismissed.
There is still an obligation under section 45 RTA. It is agreed evidence the fan was not working properly for most of the tenancy. The electrician described it as “working but ineffective”. The tenant reported the fault on 24 April and a new fan was eventually installed on 26 July. The tenant said it was very hard without the fan, because there was an excess of humidity and moisture and using the dehumidifier did not help. The landlord submitted there was a delay because a new fan had to be ordered, a delay because of supply issues, and a delay because the tenant did not agree to the first installation date.
I find the tenant only delayed the process by a few days, and it took 13 weeks for the fan to be installed. I find there was a loss of amenity for the tenant because she was paying for an extractor fan and it did not work. I accept that not having a fan in a small living space in the colder months was stressful and inconvenient. I allow compensation in the amount of $20 a week. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because the tenant is the most successful party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4612752 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4612752 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the window leak?

Was the bathroom mouldy?

Should the tenant get compensation because there was no bathroom fan?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the window leak?

Was the bathroom mouldy?

Should the tenant get compensation because there was no bathroom fan?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions