What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4614309?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4614309?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4614309?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4614309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9618368-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4614309?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4614309?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4614309?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4614309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9618368-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

27C Conference Street, Christchurch Central, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4614309 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms McGregor and Ms McLean represented the landlord.

Mr Thomas had a tenancy of the premises commencing on 22 March 2023. The tenancy ended on 16 June 2023 and Mr Thomas applied for compensation and/or exemplary damages for breach of his right to quiet enjoyment and harassment, breach of the healthy homes standards, failure to repair the heat pump, and failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition. Is Mr Thomas entitled to exemplary damages or compensation for quiet enjoyment/harassment

The right to quiet enjoyment is found in section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). Section 38(1) provides that a tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or the landlord’s agent. In addition, a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises: section 38(2) of the Act.

Where the breach of the tenants’ right in section 38(2) is sufficiently severe that it amounts to harassment it is deemed to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $3,000 can be awarded: sections 38(3) and 109(4) of the Act. Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person": MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

Mr Thomas claims that the property managers bullied and intimidated him by conducting property inspections 2 ½ months apart and by them requiring him to keep the property at an unreasonable level of cleanliness and tidiness. In particular he claims that his rights in section 38 of the Act were breached by the landlords issuing him with ’14-day notices’ to remedy cleanliness and tidiness issues.

The claim for compensation and exemplary damages for conducting property inspections every 2 ½ months is dismissed. A landlord is entitled to enter the premises to complete property inspections provided they are not more frequent than once in any period of 4 weeks (unless it is to reinspect to ensure the tenant has completed any work the landlord has required the tenant to do): section 48(2) of the Act.

Ms McGregor claims that the property was not reasonably clean and tidy at the time of some of the inspections and on three occasions (4 August 2022, 27 February 2023 and 9 May 2023) they issued a 14-day notice to Mr Thomas requiring him to either clean the premises or tidy the gardens. Ms McGregor said that they issued the notices because they believed that this was necessary to entitle them to reinspect to ensure the work had been completed.

A tenant is required to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy: section 40(1)(c) of the Act. The obligation is not to keep the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness or tidiness, nor does it mean that it is to be to the same standard required of a tenant at the end of the tenancy. In my view the question is whether the standard of cleanliness is of such a nature or extent that it may cause damage to or otherwise compromise the premises.

The notice issued on 4 August 2022 listed five areas that the landlord considered required cleaning: the oven, the floors, downstairs toilet, the bathrooms, and mould on windows and door sills. The second notice dated 27 February 2023 required Mr Thomas to tidy the gardens, and the notice issued on 9 May 2023 again required the gardens to be tidied and required the kitchen and upstairs bathroom to be cleaned.

I accept that the oven (as shown in photographs) was not reasonably clean and required additional cleaning to avoid any damage to the oven. I also accept that there is potential for damage to the paintwork on the window and door sills if mould is not regularly cleaned. It is clear (from the photographs) that the gardens required weeding at the time of the inspections and were unreasonably untidy. I therefore find that Mr Thomas was in breach of his obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy on the three occasions that he received the notices. While it may have been preferrable for the landlord to have simply emailed Mr Thomas with their concerns with a timeframe to remedy (a 14-day notice is not required to enable the landlord to reinspect the premises to see if the work has been completed), the landlord is entitled to issue a formal notice if the tenant is in breach of obligations under the Act.

The claim for compensation and/or exemplary damages for breach of section 38 of the Act is therefore dismissed. Did the landlord breach the healthy homes standards or any other obligation in the

Act?

The premises are heated by a heat pump in the living room in the downstairs area of the premises. However, Mr Thomas claims that the upstairs areas of the premises were cold. He claims that the landlord ought to have considered installing double glazing, insulation in the walls, and install a heater in the upstairs area. He claims that by not doing so the landlord is in breach of the healthy homes standards.

A healthy homes inspection of the premises was completed by Betta Property Compliance on 16 March 2021. The report records that the premises comply with the healthy homes standards, including the size of heating required for the living room. This means that the landlord has complied with its obligations under the Act. A landlord is not required to complete improvements to bring it to a standard above the minimum required under the standards or the Act.

Mr Thomas also claims that the French doors in one of the bedrooms do not meet the ventilation requirements in the standards because the doors could not be left open in a fixed position and there are no other opening windows in that room. However, the healthy homes report records that all rooms, including the bedroom in question, comply with the ventilation requirements in the standards and Mr Thomas did not provide any other expert evidence to support that it did not.

Mr Thomas also claims that the heat pump at the premises was faulty causing it to blow cold air. In August 2022 he asked the landlord to have the heat pump looked at because it “doesn’t seem to do much to heat the house”. Mr Thomas said that he was told that it could be inspected but if no fault was found he would have to pay the cost of the inspection. While I accept that Mr Thomas was unhappy with the response he received to his request to have the heat pump checked, the requirement to pay if no fault is found is not a breach of any obligation in the Act and is, in my view, a reasonable requirement.

In November 2022, the heat pump was serviced in November 2022 and Mr Thomas claims that the technician told his father (who was staying at the premises at the time) that it was found to be faulty and was blowing cold air instead of warm. He said that the fault was minor and remedied by the technician at the time.

Ms McGregor said that she was unaware of any fault being found until the hearing. She said that the technician did not tell the landlord of any fault and she provided a copy of the invoice for the service from the technician. It states “carried out comprehensive service of 1 x Mitsubishi high wall heat pump. Checked for satisfactory operation”. There is no mention of any fault or ‘unsatisfactory’ operation. I am therefore not satisfied that Mr Thomas has established that there was a fault with the heat pump or that it required repairs.

Mr Thomas’ claim for compensation and or exemplary damages under this head is also dismissed. Is Mr Thomas entitled to compensation for not providing the premises in a reasonably clean condition?

A landlord must provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition: section 45(1)(a) of the Act

There was no dispute that Mr Thomas found a condom under a rubbish bin at the premises at the commencement of the tenancy. Mr Thomas notified the property manager who apologised for the oversight. Mr Thomas also claims that the inside of the kitchen rubbish bin was not clean.

I do not consider that the minor oversights with the pre tenancy cleaning are sufficient to establish that the premises overall were not provided in a reasonably clean condition.

Mr Thomas’ application for compensation for not providing the premises in a reasonably clean condition is therefore dismissed. Suppression

Mr Thomas applied for a suppression order.

Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).

However, Mr Thomas has been wholly unsuccessful in his claim. His application for name suppression is therefore not granted.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms McGregor and Ms McLean represented the landlord.

The claim for compensation and/or exemplary damages for breach of section 38 of the Act is therefore dismissed. Did the landlord breach the healthy homes standards or any other obligation in the

Act?

Mr Thomas’ claim for compensation and or exemplary damages under this head is also dismissed. Is Mr Thomas entitled to compensation for not providing the premises in a reasonably clean condition?

A landlord must provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition: section 45(1)(a) of the Act

I do not consider that the minor oversights with the pre tenancy cleaning are sufficient to establish that the premises overall were not provided in a reasonably clean condition.

Mr Thomas’ application for compensation for not providing the premises in a reasonably clean condition is therefore dismissed. Suppression

Mr Thomas applied for a suppression order.

However, Mr Thomas has been wholly unsuccessful in his claim. His application for name suppression is therefore not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4614309 — Mould & damp at 27C Conference Street, Christchurch Central, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4614309 — Mould & damp at 27C Conference Street, Christchurch Central, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Act?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Act?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions