What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4623429 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4623429?

Compensation: 3 Weeks' Rent Refund: $1,560.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: reimbursement of power…: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4623429?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4623429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9434993-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4623429 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4623429?

Compensation: 3 Weeks' Rent Refund: $1,560.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: reimbursement of power…: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4623429?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4623429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9434993-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

20A Lohia Street, Khandallah, Wellington 6035 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4623429 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4623429 — net $2,130.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: 3 weeks' rent refund	$1,560.00	3 weeks' rent refund
Compensation: general damages for loss of amenities, including loss of clothing and bedding	$500.00	general damages for loss of amenities, including loss of clothing and bedding
Compensation: reimbursement of power charges to dehumidify the premises	$50.00	reimbursement of power charges to dehumidify the premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,130.44
Bond	$1,560.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,130.44

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Virginia Ruth Ralfe must pay [The tenant/s] $2,130.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy ended on 23 June 2023 after the discovery of mould at the premises. The landlord accepts the tenant’s notice to be released from the fixed term tenancy at the time due to the effects of the mould that the tenants were suffering.
The tenant has applied for compensation for the landlord’s failure to provide the premises in a habitable state. The tenant claims the full refund of the rent from the start of the tenancy in March 2023 to 23 June 2023, along with compensation such as lost earnings, alternative accommodation costs, loss of bedding, medical costs and storage charges.
The tenant also seeks exemplary damages for late lodgment of the bond and for failure to provide a full copy of the tenancy agreement to the tenant after it had been signed.
During the hearing, the landlord withdraws her counterclaim for power charges and removal of tenant’s items.
I now address the tenant’s claims as follows.
The tenant says that he was suffering from respiratory and allergy illnesses and having given a notice to the landlord about the discovery of harmful effects of mould, the tenant moved out on 16 June 2023.
There is no dispute as to the presence of mould and harmful effects that mould can cause on occupiers of residential premises. The reports by Tech Clean Limited’s Kyle Scott and Paul Lewer HAZMAT Consultant confirm the presence of harmful mould build-up to several areas in the premises.
The issues before the Tribunal are whether the landlord is in breach of their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) and what is the appropriate remedy for the tenant.
Under section 45 RTA a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
The Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 provide that every house “shall be free from dampness”. There are penalties under the Health Act 1956 for permitting or causing “nuisances”. Section 28 provides that a nuisance is deemed to be created in a number of circumstances, including where any premises are “...so situated, or are in such a state, as to be offensive or likely to be injurious to health”.
In terms of maintenance, a landlord’s obligation is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. What is a reasonable time, depends on the gravity of the problem and the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate and put right the problem (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Limited (District Court Wellington, CIV 2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010)).
A landlord is not in breach of their maintenance obligation if they do not remedy a latent or hidden defect (Barfoot & Thompson v Casey (District Court Auckland, CIV 2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007)). This means that a landlord’s maintenance obligation is limited to observable or notified defects, and a tenant has an independent obligation to notify the landlord of damage or the need for repairs (section 45(1)(d)).
To the tenant, the property was damp, mouldy and unpleasant to live in. The tenant’s evidence and medical records indicate that he suffered an allergic reaction and mental distress from the mould. To the tenant, the unit was effectively uninhabitable.
I agree that given the reports from the two experts’ Scott and Lewer, I am satisfied that the premises in the unremedied state, should not be occupied.
The cause of the mould was later ascertained to be a stormwater pipe leak which was not noticeable until further investigation by the experts and a plumber.
I consider that the landlord has properly engaged a plumber to repair the displaced joints of the old clay stormwater pipe by replacing them with PVC in early July 2023.
The landlord’s evidence from previous tenants indicate that the premises had not been suffering from issues to do with dampness in the past. Indeed, even the healthy homes inspection report dated 20 February 2023 by Raymond Trangmar of Total Home Inspection Services had not identified any issues relating to mould that was subsequently reported by the tenant in early June 2023.
The tenant’s complaint of the healthy homes inspection report not been forwarded to them by the landlord (or her agent) at the start of the tenancy does not detract from the material conclusions of the report that the premises were not defective, not damp nor unhealthy as at February 2023.
In other words, even if the premises were already suffering from a stormwater pipe leak giving rise to excessive moisture in the premises since February 2023, even a professional healthy homes inspector was not able to detect it at that time. The only relevant issue picked up by the inspector was to do with a downpipe which has a crack at the bottom requiring maintenance.
The inspector recorded that externally, there were “no signs of ponding” and there was “good fall away from property noted”. The gutters and downpipes were also noted to be “sufficient” to “effectively remove water from roof”.
Consequently, the landlord cannot be faulted for not picking up on a latent or hidden defect in the broken/disjointed old stormwater pipe which likely caused the outbreak of mould observed by the tenants in early June 2023.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the first significant notification of mould to the landlord (through the property manager Paula Stott) was on 3 June 2023.
The dealings between the landlord and tenant had always been cordial and prior to the 3 June, the landlord had duly attended to the tenant’s other concerns about the property; they were minor.
Following Barfoot & Thompson v Casey, the landlord’s maintenance obligation is limited to observable or notified defects. The tenant’s notification of mould corresponds with their independent obligation to notify the landlord of damage and the need for repairs to the premises.
For the above reasons, I find that the landlord is not in breach of their maintenance obligations under section 45 RTA.
This leads us to the issue of what is the appropriate remedy for the tenant.
The landlord has earlier offered the tenant 3 weeks’ rent to be refunded from the date they advised the landlord of the problem (3 June). This neatly translates to 3 weeks from 3 to 23 June 2023 which the rent has been paid up to.
I consider it just in the circumstances for the tenant to be compensated with those 3 weeks’ rent to be refunded by the landlord.
I also award general damages of $500.00 for the stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenant. This sum includes loss of amenities, including loss of bedding and the tenant’s items.
I consider it fair to order the reimbursement of $50.00 towards the tenant’s extra power charges incurred to dehumidify the premises.
In making the above awards in favour of the tenant, I have not attributed wilful breach of their obligations on part of the landlord, whether as the principal or the property manager as agent of the landlord.
Ultimately, it is my view that the landlord (including the property manager) had acted promptly and responsibly when responding to the concerns/issues raised by the tenant every step of the way.
That said I have still awarded some measure of damages as set out in the order above because I consider that substantial merits and justice of the case call for a reprieve in rent for the suffering and inconvenience that the tenant endured in this case. This is to recognise the payment of rent for an imperfect accommodation.
The remaining claims by the tenant are unsuccessful.
The tenant claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord only lodged the bond after 98 days; I find 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).
I accept the landlord’s explanation that the late lodgment of the bond was not committed intentionally. The landlord only realised that she failed to lodge the bond after discussion with her property manager after the tenant had already vacated.
In her 19 June email to the tenant, the landlord advised that they will be getting their bond back in full and duly asked for their bank account details. Despite 3 requests, the landlord received no response.
Considering that the landlord had not committed the unlawful act under section 19 intentionally, I decline to award any exemplary damages against the landlord. I am satisfied that the tenant’s interest has not been jeopardised; the landlord has always intended to return the full bond to them. The bond is presently with the bond centre and can be returned to the tenant in full, forthwith. There is no public interest to be served in penalising the landlord for an inadvertence.
The same goes with the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages to do with only having been provided only 2 pages of the full tenancy agreement. The prejudice to the tenant was minimal as the full tenancy agreement had been emailed to the tenants in early March.
As it stands, nothing about the above awards to do with the crucial mould issue turn on whether a full and signed tenancy agreement had been forwarded to the tenant.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4623429 — net $2,130.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: 3 weeks' rent refund	$1,560.00	3 weeks' rent refund
Compensation: general damages for loss of amenities, including loss of clothing and bedding	$500.00	general damages for loss of amenities, including loss of clothing and bedding
Compensation: reimbursement of power charges to dehumidify the premises	$50.00	reimbursement of power charges to dehumidify the premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,130.44
Bond	$1,560.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,130.44

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Virginia Ruth Ralfe must pay [The tenant/s] $2,130.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy ended on 23 June 2023 after the discovery of mould at the premises. The landlord accepts the tenant’s notice to be released from the fixed term tenancy at the time due to the effects of the mould that the tenants were suffering.
The tenant has applied for compensation for the landlord’s failure to provide the premises in a habitable state. The tenant claims the full refund of the rent from the start of the tenancy in March 2023 to 23 June 2023, along with compensation such as lost earnings, alternative accommodation costs, loss of bedding, medical costs and storage charges.
The tenant also seeks exemplary damages for late lodgment of the bond and for failure to provide a full copy of the tenancy agreement to the tenant after it had been signed.
During the hearing, the landlord withdraws her counterclaim for power charges and removal of tenant’s items.
I now address the tenant’s claims as follows.
The tenant says that he was suffering from respiratory and allergy illnesses and having given a notice to the landlord about the discovery of harmful effects of mould, the tenant moved out on 16 June 2023.
There is no dispute as to the presence of mould and harmful effects that mould can cause on occupiers of residential premises. The reports by Tech Clean Limited’s Kyle Scott and Paul Lewer HAZMAT Consultant confirm the presence of harmful mould build-up to several areas in the premises.
The issues before the Tribunal are whether the landlord is in breach of their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) and what is the appropriate remedy for the tenant.
Under section 45 RTA a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
The Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 provide that every house “shall be free from dampness”. There are penalties under the Health Act 1956 for permitting or causing “nuisances”. Section 28 provides that a nuisance is deemed to be created in a number of circumstances, including where any premises are “...so situated, or are in such a state, as to be offensive or likely to be injurious to health”.
In terms of maintenance, a landlord’s obligation is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. What is a reasonable time, depends on the gravity of the problem and the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate and put right the problem (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Limited (District Court Wellington, CIV 2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010)).
A landlord is not in breach of their maintenance obligation if they do not remedy a latent or hidden defect (Barfoot & Thompson v Casey (District Court Auckland, CIV 2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007)). This means that a landlord’s maintenance obligation is limited to observable or notified defects, and a tenant has an independent obligation to notify the landlord of damage or the need for repairs (section 45(1)(d)).
To the tenant, the property was damp, mouldy and unpleasant to live in. The tenant’s evidence and medical records indicate that he suffered an allergic reaction and mental distress from the mould. To the tenant, the unit was effectively uninhabitable.
I agree that given the reports from the two experts’ Scott and Lewer, I am satisfied that the premises in the unremedied state, should not be occupied.
The cause of the mould was later ascertained to be a stormwater pipe leak which was not noticeable until further investigation by the experts and a plumber.
I consider that the landlord has properly engaged a plumber to repair the displaced joints of the old clay stormwater pipe by replacing them with PVC in early July 2023.
The landlord’s evidence from previous tenants indicate that the premises had not been suffering from issues to do with dampness in the past. Indeed, even the healthy homes inspection report dated 20 February 2023 by Raymond Trangmar of Total Home Inspection Services had not identified any issues relating to mould that was subsequently reported by the tenant in early June 2023.
The tenant’s complaint of the healthy homes inspection report not been forwarded to them by the landlord (or her agent) at the start of the tenancy does not detract from the material conclusions of the report that the premises were not defective, not damp nor unhealthy as at February 2023.
In other words, even if the premises were already suffering from a stormwater pipe leak giving rise to excessive moisture in the premises since February 2023, even a professional healthy homes inspector was not able to detect it at that time. The only relevant issue picked up by the inspector was to do with a downpipe which has a crack at the bottom requiring maintenance.
The inspector recorded that externally, there were “no signs of ponding” and there was “good fall away from property noted”. The gutters and downpipes were also noted to be “sufficient” to “effectively remove water from roof”.
Consequently, the landlord cannot be faulted for not picking up on a latent or hidden defect in the broken/disjointed old stormwater pipe which likely caused the outbreak of mould observed by the tenants in early June 2023.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the first significant notification of mould to the landlord (through the property manager Paula Stott) was on 3 June 2023.
The dealings between the landlord and tenant had always been cordial and prior to the 3 June, the landlord had duly attended to the tenant’s other concerns about the property; they were minor.
Following Barfoot & Thompson v Casey, the landlord’s maintenance obligation is limited to observable or notified defects. The tenant’s notification of mould corresponds with their independent obligation to notify the landlord of damage and the need for repairs to the premises.
For the above reasons, I find that the landlord is not in breach of their maintenance obligations under section 45 RTA.
This leads us to the issue of what is the appropriate remedy for the tenant.
The landlord has earlier offered the tenant 3 weeks’ rent to be refunded from the date they advised the landlord of the problem (3 June). This neatly translates to 3 weeks from 3 to 23 June 2023 which the rent has been paid up to.
I consider it just in the circumstances for the tenant to be compensated with those 3 weeks’ rent to be refunded by the landlord.
I also award general damages of $500.00 for the stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenant. This sum includes loss of amenities, including loss of bedding and the tenant’s items.
I consider it fair to order the reimbursement of $50.00 towards the tenant’s extra power charges incurred to dehumidify the premises.
In making the above awards in favour of the tenant, I have not attributed wilful breach of their obligations on part of the landlord, whether as the principal or the property manager as agent of the landlord.
Ultimately, it is my view that the landlord (including the property manager) had acted promptly and responsibly when responding to the concerns/issues raised by the tenant every step of the way.
That said I have still awarded some measure of damages as set out in the order above because I consider that substantial merits and justice of the case call for a reprieve in rent for the suffering and inconvenience that the tenant endured in this case. This is to recognise the payment of rent for an imperfect accommodation.
The remaining claims by the tenant are unsuccessful.
The tenant claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord only lodged the bond after 98 days; I find 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).
I accept the landlord’s explanation that the late lodgment of the bond was not committed intentionally. The landlord only realised that she failed to lodge the bond after discussion with her property manager after the tenant had already vacated.
In her 19 June email to the tenant, the landlord advised that they will be getting their bond back in full and duly asked for their bank account details. Despite 3 requests, the landlord received no response.
Considering that the landlord had not committed the unlawful act under section 19 intentionally, I decline to award any exemplary damages against the landlord. I am satisfied that the tenant’s interest has not been jeopardised; the landlord has always intended to return the full bond to them. The bond is presently with the bond centre and can be returned to the tenant in full, forthwith. There is no public interest to be served in penalising the landlord for an inadvertence.
The same goes with the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages to do with only having been provided only 2 pages of the full tenancy agreement. The prejudice to the tenant was minimal as the full tenancy agreement had been emailed to the tenants in early March.
As it stands, nothing about the above awards to do with the crucial mould issue turn on whether a full and signed tenancy agreement had been forwarded to the tenant.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4623429 — Property damage at 20A Lohia Street, Khandallah, Wellington 6035

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4623429 — Property damage at 20A Lohia Street, Khandallah, Wellington 6035

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions