What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4617852 about?

The tribunal order states: The applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4617852?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4617852?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4617852?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9731214-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4617852 about?

The tribunal order states: The applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4617852?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4617852?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4617852?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9731214-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4617852 — Mould & damp

Order

The applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant’s partner attended as a support person. [property manager] appeared on behalf of the landlord. Both parties had filed claims.
The tenancy began on 17 March 2023 and is ongoing. The tenancy is of the rear portion of an older home with driveway access up the side of the property.
The tenant claimed that the landlord had: a. failed to maintain the driveway, leading to damage to her partner’s car. She sought the cost of repairs in the amount of $1,229.70 and a rent reduction of $30.00 per week as she said that she was unable to use the driveway and should not have to pay for it; and b. breached the Healthy Homes Standards as there was a gap in the lounge window causing a draught. She sought either a rent reduction between May and September 2023 (when the issue was repaired) or a contribution to her increased power costs during this time.
The landlord claimed that the tenant had: a. damaged the fibre supply box by hitting with a car; b. interfered with the neighbour’s peace by parking on a yellow line, blocking the accessway for the neighbour; and c. exceeded the number of tenants who can reside at the property by having her partner living there.
Each party is required to establish their claim to the civil law standard of proof, that is, on the balance of probabilities. For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence but the parties should be assured that I have carefully considered all of the evidence when making my decision. Landlord’s claim
At the hearing [property manager] explained that the first two issues referred to in paragraph 4 above had been resolved, and that those claims could be withdrawn.
[property manager] further explained that the tenant’s partner appears to be living at the tenancy and that if he is living there then he should be named as a tenant.
The tenant produced evidence (a utility invoice) proving that her partner does not in fact live at the tenancy. She said that she and her partner were considering moving in together and that she had made enquiries with the landlord but had not heard back from them.
At the hearing [property manager] explained that if the tenant’s partner wishes to move in on a permanent basis then the tenant is very welcome to make an online application.
No orders are required. I simply note that the parties will move forward with this issue informally. Tenant’s claim Healthy Homes Standards – Draught stopping
The Healthy Homes draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The tenant produced photos showing that there was a gap at the bottom of the sash window in the lounge. This is an older style wooden window. The tenant said that upon moving in she noticed that there was a draught coming from this area and found the gap on investigating. She said that it made it difficult to heat the area.
The landlord said that the tenancy had in fact passed a Healthy Homes Standards inspection in March 2021 and produced a report from “Warm Fuzzies” recording that no obvious gaps or holes were found. They said however that when the tenant contacted them about the issue they arranged a contractor who attended on 19 August 2023 and made a new moulding for the window and installed an extra foam strip. The landlord produced a copy of the invoice from D Carr Contracting in the amount of $218.50.
I am satisfied that this issue has been resolved. The tenant notified the landlord in May 2023, and so there was a period of three months between the issue being notified and repaired, however in my view this is just within a reasonable time frame (this being an older window for a which a new moulding was required) and no compensation is necessary. Driveway
Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant claims that the driveway is not in a reasonable state of repair as it has a steep and sharp angle at the entrance way before levelling out, which make it very difficult to negotiate. She said that her partner’s car bumper has been damaged (while she was using the driveway) and needs to be repaired. The tenant said further that various contractors have also been unable to use the driveway. She said that she does not have a car but uses her partner’s car and now has to park on the street and there is limited parking.
The landlord said that they have been managing the tenancy for ten years and that there has never been any issue with the driveway. They say that contractors use it regularly. The landlord produced photos of the driveway, including photos showing a car parked there (the tenant said this was a friend’s car who had gone overseas), and said that while it was steep at the entrance it was not unusual given the older character of the area. They said further that at the start of the tenancy the tenant told them that she did not have a car.
The landlord has had the driveway inspected and provided quotes from that inspection in their evidence and emails to the tenant. These confirm that they were advised by the contractor that the entire profile of the driveway would need to be changed to make it less steep which would involve lowering all drainage services and be in the vicinity of $13,000 for excavation and asphalt together with approximately $12,000 for lowering services to the property.
I have reviewed the photos and other evidence. I accept that the driveway has a difficult entrance and that can make it difficult to negotiate, particularly when it is wet. Some cars might be able to better negotiate the driveway than others. However in my view this is simply the nature of this older inner city area and a matter for a tenant to consider when deciding whether this is an appropriate tenancy given her circumstances.
I do not consider that it is reasonable to expect the landlord to lower the profile of the driveway or to award compensation. It may well be useful for the landlord to investigate whether it is possible to resurface the steep part of the driveway so that it is easier to use.
I note that there is parking at the front of the property and I encourage the parties to consider whether it might be possible to negotiate with the front tenant so that the tenant is able to park in front of the property.
This is an ongoing tenancy. Apart from the driveway difficulties all other issues have been resolved. I encourage the parties to see if they can resolve this issue informally.
Given the outcome I have not refunded the filing fees. In addition, as most issues had been resolved prior to the hearing, I have exercised my jurisdiction pursuant to Section 95A RTA to suppress the parties’ names and identifying details. I do not consider that there is any public interest in identifying the parties in this decision.

Order

The applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant’s partner attended as a support person. [property manager] appeared on behalf of the landlord. Both parties had filed claims.
The tenancy began on 17 March 2023 and is ongoing. The tenancy is of the rear portion of an older home with driveway access up the side of the property.
The tenant claimed that the landlord had: a. failed to maintain the driveway, leading to damage to her partner’s car. She sought the cost of repairs in the amount of $1,229.70 and a rent reduction of $30.00 per week as she said that she was unable to use the driveway and should not have to pay for it; and b. breached the Healthy Homes Standards as there was a gap in the lounge window causing a draught. She sought either a rent reduction between May and September 2023 (when the issue was repaired) or a contribution to her increased power costs during this time.
The landlord claimed that the tenant had: a. damaged the fibre supply box by hitting with a car; b. interfered with the neighbour’s peace by parking on a yellow line, blocking the accessway for the neighbour; and c. exceeded the number of tenants who can reside at the property by having her partner living there.
Each party is required to establish their claim to the civil law standard of proof, that is, on the balance of probabilities. For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence but the parties should be assured that I have carefully considered all of the evidence when making my decision. Landlord’s claim
At the hearing [property manager] explained that the first two issues referred to in paragraph 4 above had been resolved, and that those claims could be withdrawn.
[property manager] further explained that the tenant’s partner appears to be living at the tenancy and that if he is living there then he should be named as a tenant.
The tenant produced evidence (a utility invoice) proving that her partner does not in fact live at the tenancy. She said that she and her partner were considering moving in together and that she had made enquiries with the landlord but had not heard back from them.
At the hearing [property manager] explained that if the tenant’s partner wishes to move in on a permanent basis then the tenant is very welcome to make an online application.
No orders are required. I simply note that the parties will move forward with this issue informally. Tenant’s claim Healthy Homes Standards – Draught stopping
The Healthy Homes draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The tenant produced photos showing that there was a gap at the bottom of the sash window in the lounge. This is an older style wooden window. The tenant said that upon moving in she noticed that there was a draught coming from this area and found the gap on investigating. She said that it made it difficult to heat the area.
The landlord said that the tenancy had in fact passed a Healthy Homes Standards inspection in March 2021 and produced a report from “Warm Fuzzies” recording that no obvious gaps or holes were found. They said however that when the tenant contacted them about the issue they arranged a contractor who attended on 19 August 2023 and made a new moulding for the window and installed an extra foam strip. The landlord produced a copy of the invoice from D Carr Contracting in the amount of $218.50.
I am satisfied that this issue has been resolved. The tenant notified the landlord in May 2023, and so there was a period of three months between the issue being notified and repaired, however in my view this is just within a reasonable time frame (this being an older window for a which a new moulding was required) and no compensation is necessary. Driveway
Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant claims that the driveway is not in a reasonable state of repair as it has a steep and sharp angle at the entrance way before levelling out, which make it very difficult to negotiate. She said that her partner’s car bumper has been damaged (while she was using the driveway) and needs to be repaired. The tenant said further that various contractors have also been unable to use the driveway. She said that she does not have a car but uses her partner’s car and now has to park on the street and there is limited parking.
The landlord said that they have been managing the tenancy for ten years and that there has never been any issue with the driveway. They say that contractors use it regularly. The landlord produced photos of the driveway, including photos showing a car parked there (the tenant said this was a friend’s car who had gone overseas), and said that while it was steep at the entrance it was not unusual given the older character of the area. They said further that at the start of the tenancy the tenant told them that she did not have a car.
The landlord has had the driveway inspected and provided quotes from that inspection in their evidence and emails to the tenant. These confirm that they were advised by the contractor that the entire profile of the driveway would need to be changed to make it less steep which would involve lowering all drainage services and be in the vicinity of $13,000 for excavation and asphalt together with approximately $12,000 for lowering services to the property.
I have reviewed the photos and other evidence. I accept that the driveway has a difficult entrance and that can make it difficult to negotiate, particularly when it is wet. Some cars might be able to better negotiate the driveway than others. However in my view this is simply the nature of this older inner city area and a matter for a tenant to consider when deciding whether this is an appropriate tenancy given her circumstances.
I do not consider that it is reasonable to expect the landlord to lower the profile of the driveway or to award compensation. It may well be useful for the landlord to investigate whether it is possible to resurface the steep part of the driveway so that it is easier to use.
I note that there is parking at the front of the property and I encourage the parties to consider whether it might be possible to negotiate with the front tenant so that the tenant is able to park in front of the property.
This is an ongoing tenancy. Apart from the driveway difficulties all other issues have been resolved. I encourage the parties to see if they can resolve this issue informally.
Given the outcome I have not refunded the filing fees. In addition, as most issues had been resolved prior to the hearing, I have exercised my jurisdiction pursuant to Section 95A RTA to suppress the parties’ names and identifying details. I do not consider that there is any public interest in identifying the parties in this decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4617852 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4617852 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions