What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4614190?

The tribunal order states: Miriam Norris and Amos John Norris to pay Fmra 2003 Limited T/A

How much money was awarded in case 4614190?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4614190?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4614190?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9482321-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4614190?

The tribunal order states: Miriam Norris and Amos John Norris to pay Fmra 2003 Limited T/A

How much money was awarded in case 4614190?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4614190?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4614190?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9482321-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

31A Heretaunga Square, Silverstream, Upper Hutt 5019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4614190 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4614190 — net $150.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet and oven damage after depreciation	$650.00		Carpet and oven damage after depreciation
Compensation - not investigating mould		$500.00	Compensation - not investigating mould
Total award	$650.00	$500.00
Net award	$150.00
Bond	$2,300.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$150.00

Order

Miriam Norris and Amos John Norris to pay Fmra 2003 Limited T/A Managemyproperty $150.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,300.00 (5266468-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Fmra 2003 Limited T/A Managemyproperty: $150.00 Miriam Norris and Amos John Norris: $2,150.00

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for compensation and refund of their bond. They have claimed for damage to personal items due to mould and dampness. They have also claimed a refund of three months’ rent paid based on their claim that the premises did not meet Healthy Homes Standards.
The landlord has claimed the excess for two items. The first is damage to the carpet. The second is damage to the oven. A. THE TENANTS’ APPLICATION Was the damage to the tenant’s property caused by the landlord’s failure regarding the premises?
The tenants have claimed that mould and dampness at the property caused damage to their property. This includes damage to a new mattress, a car seat and pram. The new mattress was damaged by mould after being on the floor in the main bedroom. The damage to the car seat and pram was during the time when they were stored in the garage. Mattress
For the tenants to be successful regarding the claim that the mattress damage was caused by the landlord, they must prove that the cause was related to the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises. The damage to the mattress happened while the tenants slept on it when the mattress was directly on the floor. The area of damage on the mattress is a round stain about 750mm in width in the middle of the mattress. The damage to the mattress is mirrored by the damage on the carpet below it. There is no other area of carpet in the room or the rest of the house that is similarly damaged, including the carpet and mattress in another bedroom where the mattress was put directly on the carpet.
The tenants have submitted that there must have been a leak in the vapour barrier under the concrete slab that happened to be under their mattress. There is insufficient evidence provided by the tenants to prove that theory. In the absence of that proof that there was moisture coming through the floor, the only other explanation is that the tenants caused moisture to be in the mattress or on the floor before or during the time the mattress was on the floor. The balance of probability is that the tenants caused the damage to their mattress. Their claim for damage to the mattress must therefore be dismissed. Car seat and pram
The tenants have claimed damage to the car seat and pram that was mouldy from being stored in the garage.
Landlords are not required to make garages free from moisture. It is not possible for landlords to prevent moisture in garages because cars, that are wet from rain, are parked in garages. The garage door is closed and moisture forms. It was the tenants’ risk to put valuable items in the garage. The claim for damage to the pram and car seat are dismissed. Refund of rent due to a breach of Healthy Homes Standards and mould.
The tenants have claimed a refund of three months rent due to mould and a failure to meet Healthy Homes Standards.
The tenants began their tenancy in mid-May, 2020. They have claimed that there was a problem with mould even before moving in. They hired cleaners to remove it. The landlord painted the ceiling with a mould inhibitor at one point. The tenants stated that the mould persisted despite ventilating the property. They stated that the mould problem caused ‘significant damage to their health’.
The difficulty with claims about mould is usually determining the cause. Mould can happen due to construction problems allowing moisture into the premises. It can also be caused by the way occupants use the premises or a combination of both. It is the tenants’ claim that the premises caused the mould and therefore it is their burden to prove that the premises was the cause of the mould.
There is a difficulty when a claim is brought to the Tribunal three years after the tenants say that they experienced a problem and the application is made three days before the tenancy is to end. The timing of the claim does not add weight to the claim that mould was presenting ongoing significant health difficulties for the tenants and that they believed their health problems were due to the state of the premises. Claims about premises causing health issues for a family usually end up in the Tribunal long before a tenancy ends.
The claim is also linked to the allegation that the premises breached Healthy Homes Standards. However the report presented by the landlord showed that in the areas of moisture ingress and ventilation extraction the premises was compliant. The tenants did not provide a report showing that the premises failed Healthy Homes Standards. They did provide a report from a Building Compliance Officer from Upper Hutt City Council who visited the property in the weeks before the tenancy ended.
The officer found a leaking toby outside and stated that the southwest corner of the dwelling was extremely wet. He also noted that weep holes in the brick work had been filled, which compromises the cavity. He referred to ‘an extreme level of evidence also showing mould was present in the garage and other rooms in the home’. However the officer did not perform any moisture testing at the property to support his theory that there was a connection between what was happening outside the premises and inside the premises. He was shown the ‘wet patch’ on the carpet in the bedroom. He made no reference to a mattress that had been over the wet patch. He stated that the stain on the carpet was a puddle under the carpet but it is unclear how he determined that. There is no reference to him lifting the carpet to see if there was a puddle under the carpet caused by moisture through the concrete floor. It is unclear how he linked the leak in the toby to a puddle under the carpet when there was no evidence of a puddle under the carpet. Unfortunately his report does not assist in the determination of the cause of mould in the premises. His conclusions are speculative rather than scientific.
From the evidence provided it is not possible for me to conclude that mould in the premises was caused by a problem with the state of the premises or by a failure of Healthy Homes Standards. The claim for a refund of rent must therefore dismissed.
I have however ordered $500.00 compensation to the tenants for the landlord’s failure to adequately respond to the tenant’s concern about mould. It is clear from the evidence that at some time the property manager was told about the tenants’ concern about the mould. There is no evidence to determine exactly when that was. The evidence supporting the tenants’ claim that they told the landlord of their concern is an email about 4 weeks before the tenancy ended. It is dated 31 May 2023. It is from Miriam to Rachel and states, “Also this property is infested with mould and we have cleaned and complained about it a few times to Amy, the mould keeps increasing and it did affect my health and the kids too”. It can be concluded that the tenants asked the landlord to investigate a problem but the landlord did not follow up. This email does not prove that the premises was the cause of the mould. It does show that the landlord did not follow up on a concern the tenants had about living in the property. It is important for landlords to follow up on a potential maintenance issue and that did not happen. I have therefore ordered compensation of $500.00. B. THE LANDLORD’S APPLICATION

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord has claimed the insurance excess paid for replacement carpet in the bedroom where the tenants put their mattress.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The damage to the carpet happened during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Similarly, the oven was damaged during the tenancy. The tenants have not proved that they did not carelessly cause the damage. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for damage for both items is successful.
The amount ordered for damage is not the full insurance excess for each item. I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the carpet and oven at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. I have ordered $650.00 being the loss for both items. Filing Fee
Because both parties have been partly successful with their claims, orders for the filing fee are not made. .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4614190 — net $150.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet and oven damage after depreciation	$650.00		Carpet and oven damage after depreciation
Compensation - not investigating mould		$500.00	Compensation - not investigating mould
Total award	$650.00	$500.00
Net award	$150.00
Bond	$2,300.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$150.00

Order

Miriam Norris and Amos John Norris to pay Fmra 2003 Limited T/A Managemyproperty $150.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,300.00 (5266468-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Fmra 2003 Limited T/A Managemyproperty: $150.00 Miriam Norris and Amos John Norris: $2,150.00

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for compensation and refund of their bond. They have claimed for damage to personal items due to mould and dampness. They have also claimed a refund of three months’ rent paid based on their claim that the premises did not meet Healthy Homes Standards.
The landlord has claimed the excess for two items. The first is damage to the carpet. The second is damage to the oven. A. THE TENANTS’ APPLICATION Was the damage to the tenant’s property caused by the landlord’s failure regarding the premises?
The tenants have claimed that mould and dampness at the property caused damage to their property. This includes damage to a new mattress, a car seat and pram. The new mattress was damaged by mould after being on the floor in the main bedroom. The damage to the car seat and pram was during the time when they were stored in the garage. Mattress
For the tenants to be successful regarding the claim that the mattress damage was caused by the landlord, they must prove that the cause was related to the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises. The damage to the mattress happened while the tenants slept on it when the mattress was directly on the floor. The area of damage on the mattress is a round stain about 750mm in width in the middle of the mattress. The damage to the mattress is mirrored by the damage on the carpet below it. There is no other area of carpet in the room or the rest of the house that is similarly damaged, including the carpet and mattress in another bedroom where the mattress was put directly on the carpet.
The tenants have submitted that there must have been a leak in the vapour barrier under the concrete slab that happened to be under their mattress. There is insufficient evidence provided by the tenants to prove that theory. In the absence of that proof that there was moisture coming through the floor, the only other explanation is that the tenants caused moisture to be in the mattress or on the floor before or during the time the mattress was on the floor. The balance of probability is that the tenants caused the damage to their mattress. Their claim for damage to the mattress must therefore be dismissed. Car seat and pram
The tenants have claimed damage to the car seat and pram that was mouldy from being stored in the garage.
Landlords are not required to make garages free from moisture. It is not possible for landlords to prevent moisture in garages because cars, that are wet from rain, are parked in garages. The garage door is closed and moisture forms. It was the tenants’ risk to put valuable items in the garage. The claim for damage to the pram and car seat are dismissed. Refund of rent due to a breach of Healthy Homes Standards and mould.
The tenants have claimed a refund of three months rent due to mould and a failure to meet Healthy Homes Standards.
The tenants began their tenancy in mid-May, 2020. They have claimed that there was a problem with mould even before moving in. They hired cleaners to remove it. The landlord painted the ceiling with a mould inhibitor at one point. The tenants stated that the mould persisted despite ventilating the property. They stated that the mould problem caused ‘significant damage to their health’.
The difficulty with claims about mould is usually determining the cause. Mould can happen due to construction problems allowing moisture into the premises. It can also be caused by the way occupants use the premises or a combination of both. It is the tenants’ claim that the premises caused the mould and therefore it is their burden to prove that the premises was the cause of the mould.
There is a difficulty when a claim is brought to the Tribunal three years after the tenants say that they experienced a problem and the application is made three days before the tenancy is to end. The timing of the claim does not add weight to the claim that mould was presenting ongoing significant health difficulties for the tenants and that they believed their health problems were due to the state of the premises. Claims about premises causing health issues for a family usually end up in the Tribunal long before a tenancy ends.
The claim is also linked to the allegation that the premises breached Healthy Homes Standards. However the report presented by the landlord showed that in the areas of moisture ingress and ventilation extraction the premises was compliant. The tenants did not provide a report showing that the premises failed Healthy Homes Standards. They did provide a report from a Building Compliance Officer from Upper Hutt City Council who visited the property in the weeks before the tenancy ended.
The officer found a leaking toby outside and stated that the southwest corner of the dwelling was extremely wet. He also noted that weep holes in the brick work had been filled, which compromises the cavity. He referred to ‘an extreme level of evidence also showing mould was present in the garage and other rooms in the home’. However the officer did not perform any moisture testing at the property to support his theory that there was a connection between what was happening outside the premises and inside the premises. He was shown the ‘wet patch’ on the carpet in the bedroom. He made no reference to a mattress that had been over the wet patch. He stated that the stain on the carpet was a puddle under the carpet but it is unclear how he determined that. There is no reference to him lifting the carpet to see if there was a puddle under the carpet caused by moisture through the concrete floor. It is unclear how he linked the leak in the toby to a puddle under the carpet when there was no evidence of a puddle under the carpet. Unfortunately his report does not assist in the determination of the cause of mould in the premises. His conclusions are speculative rather than scientific.
From the evidence provided it is not possible for me to conclude that mould in the premises was caused by a problem with the state of the premises or by a failure of Healthy Homes Standards. The claim for a refund of rent must therefore dismissed.
I have however ordered $500.00 compensation to the tenants for the landlord’s failure to adequately respond to the tenant’s concern about mould. It is clear from the evidence that at some time the property manager was told about the tenants’ concern about the mould. There is no evidence to determine exactly when that was. The evidence supporting the tenants’ claim that they told the landlord of their concern is an email about 4 weeks before the tenancy ended. It is dated 31 May 2023. It is from Miriam to Rachel and states, “Also this property is infested with mould and we have cleaned and complained about it a few times to Amy, the mould keeps increasing and it did affect my health and the kids too”. It can be concluded that the tenants asked the landlord to investigate a problem but the landlord did not follow up. This email does not prove that the premises was the cause of the mould. It does show that the landlord did not follow up on a concern the tenants had about living in the property. It is important for landlords to follow up on a potential maintenance issue and that did not happen. I have therefore ordered compensation of $500.00. B. THE LANDLORD’S APPLICATION

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord has claimed the insurance excess paid for replacement carpet in the bedroom where the tenants put their mattress.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The damage to the carpet happened during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Similarly, the oven was damaged during the tenancy. The tenants have not proved that they did not carelessly cause the damage. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for damage for both items is successful.
The amount ordered for damage is not the full insurance excess for each item. I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the carpet and oven at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. I have ordered $650.00 being the loss for both items. Filing Fee
Because both parties have been partly successful with their claims, orders for the filing fee are not made. .

Tenancy Tribunal case 4614190 — Property damage at 31A Heretaunga Square, Silverstream, Upper Hutt 5019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4614190 — Property damage at 31A Heretaunga Square, Silverstream, Upper Hutt 5019

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions