Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4625169 — Mould & damp
Decided 11 Sept 2023 · Published 11 Sept 2023 · Application 4625169
- Mould & damp
- State of repair
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- The tenant’s name and identifying details, including the premises’ address must not be published.
- Liew-Cheng Teh must immediately pay the tenant $856.15, calculated as shown in the table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation for loss of amenity in deck$835.71 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$856.15
Reasons
- The tenant attended the hearing in person. 1
- Jennie Jones, Senior Property Manager, attended for the landlord.
- The tenant seeks compensation for loss of amenity in the premises due to an exterior deck being demolished and not rebuilt for about a year.
- The tenant explains the situation in her application as follows: My deck was removed in August 2022. It hasn't been reinstated. I am unable to use the area at the rear. It is very dangerous. It is the only area that gets any sun. I cant get to my clothesline. I have asked repeatedly for it to be rebuilt. I knew the deck was to be replaced when I took over the property. It was promised to be completed by July of 2022. I feel the lack of deck is extremely unfair as I am paying the full rent for use of this area.
- Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
- There is no dispute that the tenant’s deck was unusable between 16 August 2022 and 10 August 2023. It was not in a reasonable state of repair as required by the Act.
- Ms Jones emphasises how modest the rent for this premises is. The premises includes a generously sized walled garden for outdoor use also. It had previously been rented out at $400.00 per week, but the landlord rented it to the tenant for only $325.00 because the deck needed replacing. There were unintended delays in getting the deck rebuilt. The period included the tail end of the Covid pandemic, and two Auckland flooding events. The adjoining unit’s deck which is much larger had to be rebuilt at the same time. The contractors encountered problems which added to the delay.
- The tenant says the deck area (which has a north-western aspect) was the only part of the premises that got much sun during the day. For her, it was the main area that she could go outside to relax and enjoy the outdoors, which she found vitally therapeutic. Her psychotherapist writes that the tenant, “has been affected by dampness in her dwelling and the lack of access to sun since the deck has been removed”. 1 I heard this matter on 24 August 2023 at the Auckland District Court. The decision was originally issued on 4 September 2023. However, that decision incorrectly named the landlord as RPA 2000 Ltd (based on the tenant’s application). Jennie Jones emailed the Tribunal after it had issued its original decision and an amended decision on 11 September 2023 that Liew-Cheng Teh is the owner and also the landlord and RPA is the landlord’s agent. That is confirmed in the tenancy agreement. This reissued order is substantially the same as the original order except for the landlord’s name and the property manager’s name which is corrected also.
- The deck is small, but it provided the tenant with important amenity. Taking account of the tenant’s submissions and evidence and Ms Jones, I set the tenant’s loss of amenity at 5 per cent of the weekly rent.
- That amounts to $835.71.
- Because the tenant has been largely successful in her claim, the Tribunal orders the landlord to pay the tenant’s filing fee.
- The tenant asks for non-publication. The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- The tenant has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. Publication is not in the public interest or justified by the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- Non-publication is ordered.