What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4625330 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4625330?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4625330?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4625330?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10142298-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4625330 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4625330?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4625330?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4625330?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10142298-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4625330 — Mould & damp

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The remainder of the tenant’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 28 th February 2024.
After the hearing, the landlord was given an opportunity to provide further information regarding previous gutter cleaning.
Having received the information, I give my decision as follows. Claims
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Previously, the tenant had wanted the Tribunal to order an extensive building report to be completed on the state of the premises. However, as the tenancy has ended on 25 th February 2024, I decline to make any such order.
The tenant sought compensation for excess amount of power used to have the heat pump on and dehumidifier on constantly to dry out the rooms as the washer and dryer ran continuously to wash the mould off the curtains and drapers. In addition, the tenant was seeking reimbursement of the “wastewater bill” that was high due to the dehumidifier being used daily. This all comes down to whether the premises was reasonably maintained or not.
Further, the tenant claimed that the landlord failed to ensure tenancy agreement included certain information specified in section 13A(1) of the RTA and specifically that the landlord failed to provide Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) information.
Lastly, the tenant had sought for refund of the bond. This was not opposed by the landlord and the bond is refunded in full to the tenant accordingly. Background
The tenant had been residing at the at the premises for 12 years with her grandmother.
The current owner purchased this premises on 5 th September 2019. Therefore, any previous issues cannot be attributed to the current owner.
On 12 th October 2019, the tenant took over the tenancy solely.
On 3 rd February 2021, the ceiling insulation and the HHS was completed. The premises was HHS compliant at the time.
On 23 rd March 2022, the gutters were cleaned by the landlord.
On 23 rd May 2023, the tenant raised issues with the landlord regarding mould and condensation for the first time.
Three days later, on 26 th May 2023, the property manager visited the site.
On 11 th June 2023, the tenant issued a 14-day notice to the landlord informing that there was a significant amount mould forming on the walls, ceiling and windowsills in both bedrooms. The tenant also said that the floorboard may be rotting from underneath and sought for the mould to be cleaned. The tenant requested for the landlord to assess the premises for repairs that may be required, payment of reparation for cleaning the mould and carrying out repairs as soon as possible.
On 18 th June 2023, a plumbing and drainage specialist came and had the gutters cleaned.
On 17 th July 2023, the same plumbing and drainage specialist came and replaced one pallet of the soffit and did a full external house wash.
On 4 th August 2023, the tenant lodged this current application with the Tribunal.
On 20 th November 2023, a hearing was convened but the matter was referred to mediation.
On 27 th November 2023, the tenant commissioned a leak detection test. The detection found the second bedroom to be riddled with mould in the corner and along both walls which are facing the outer walls. The shower wall had a leak and there was mould on the bathroom ceiling. The roof was in a terrible condition and in desperate need of repair. There was brown watermark which was a clear indication that the roof was leaking. There were few cracks in the weatherboard.
The recommendations were to get a professional painter to repair and paint the roof, to get a registered builder to remove the mould affected walls, to maintain the outside of the build to fix the roof, mould issue and weather boards and to fix the shower extractor fan.
On 5 th December 2023, a telephone mediation was held but was unsuccessful in resolving the issue.
On 14 th December 2023, the tenant engaged in a licence building practitioner who did a report on the state of the premises. The report was to determine how and why water has entered the dwelling and to assess mould issues.
The report noted that the roof had some rust and some roof sheets needed to be looked at to be replaced if need be.
There was also water staining to formerly replaced section of soffit. This was from water tracking from the roof and possibly due to blocked PVC guttering. The water tracked down the outside wall to bedroom 1 resulting in mould appearing on the face of painted gib-board.
In bedroom 1, due to the same roof and gutter issues, mould appeared on north and west elevation walls to the house. Flooring had been affected by water ingress and started to subside and collapse. There was presence of mould.
In the bathroom, the ceiling fan cluster was not extracting air and needed to be fixed. The sealed shower unit had failed, and water had consequentially damaged the wall linings and skirting directly in front of the shower. The moisture reading of the wall was 98 percent.
The floor area in front of the shower had water damage with a moisture reading of 96 percent.
In conclusion, the report found that the property was in serious need of maintenance with exterior painting and roof repairs being required.
On 29 th December 2023 the landlord served a 90-days’ notice to terminate the tenancy.
On 25 th February 2024 the tenancy was terminated. Should there be compensation or exemplary damages awarded
Having seen the inspection reports provided, I do not find that the shortcomings of the property was easily identifiable by visual inspections.
The tenant had kept the premises tidy and well maintained.
The premises was HHS compliant as of 3 rd February 2021 so the issue is solely whether the landlord had reasonably maintained the premises since then until the end of the tenancy.
There was one gutter cleaning done in March 2022 and again in June 2023.
When the tenant raised issues regarding the mould and condensation, the landlord visited the premises three days later and engaged in a professional to have the gutters cleaned and soffit replaced.
Not long after the more detailed reports became available from the leak detection and the registered builder, the tenant was served with a 90-days’ notice.
Although I accept that the reports state that the premises needed attention, I do not find that the landlord would have known about the true state of the premises until the tenant had informed the landlord about its condition.
Although the landlord did not engage in any immediate work after the report from 14 th December 2023, the tenant was given a notice instead for termination. It is understandable in the circumstances that no major was undertaken before the termination in the circumstances.
I do not find that there was an intentional failure to maintain the premises in the circumstances. I find that the landlord had acted reasonably once the landlord was notified. Missing information on the tenancy agreement
The tenant claimed that there was missing information in the tenancy agreement, especially the information regarding HHS.
However, as this tenancy predated HHS, the tenancy agreement did not need HHS information.
Despite this, the HHS was done at the premises. I see no reason to award any costs or exemplary damages. Reimbursement of costs incurred for reports
At the hearing, it was unclear whether the tenant had been reimbursed for the cost for the leak detection or the builder’s report.
If the landlord had not reimbursed the tenant for the costs, the landlord must do so. Costs for stress and embarrassment
The tenant sought for emotional harm and stress caused. There is no basis to grant the amount. This is dismissed.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The remainder of the tenant’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 28 th February 2024.
After the hearing, the landlord was given an opportunity to provide further information regarding previous gutter cleaning.
Having received the information, I give my decision as follows. Claims
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Previously, the tenant had wanted the Tribunal to order an extensive building report to be completed on the state of the premises. However, as the tenancy has ended on 25 th February 2024, I decline to make any such order.
The tenant sought compensation for excess amount of power used to have the heat pump on and dehumidifier on constantly to dry out the rooms as the washer and dryer ran continuously to wash the mould off the curtains and drapers. In addition, the tenant was seeking reimbursement of the “wastewater bill” that was high due to the dehumidifier being used daily. This all comes down to whether the premises was reasonably maintained or not.
Further, the tenant claimed that the landlord failed to ensure tenancy agreement included certain information specified in section 13A(1) of the RTA and specifically that the landlord failed to provide Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) information.
Lastly, the tenant had sought for refund of the bond. This was not opposed by the landlord and the bond is refunded in full to the tenant accordingly. Background
The tenant had been residing at the at the premises for 12 years with her grandmother.
The current owner purchased this premises on 5 th September 2019. Therefore, any previous issues cannot be attributed to the current owner.
On 12 th October 2019, the tenant took over the tenancy solely.
On 3 rd February 2021, the ceiling insulation and the HHS was completed. The premises was HHS compliant at the time.
On 23 rd March 2022, the gutters were cleaned by the landlord.
On 23 rd May 2023, the tenant raised issues with the landlord regarding mould and condensation for the first time.
Three days later, on 26 th May 2023, the property manager visited the site.
On 11 th June 2023, the tenant issued a 14-day notice to the landlord informing that there was a significant amount mould forming on the walls, ceiling and windowsills in both bedrooms. The tenant also said that the floorboard may be rotting from underneath and sought for the mould to be cleaned. The tenant requested for the landlord to assess the premises for repairs that may be required, payment of reparation for cleaning the mould and carrying out repairs as soon as possible.
On 18 th June 2023, a plumbing and drainage specialist came and had the gutters cleaned.
On 17 th July 2023, the same plumbing and drainage specialist came and replaced one pallet of the soffit and did a full external house wash.
On 4 th August 2023, the tenant lodged this current application with the Tribunal.
On 20 th November 2023, a hearing was convened but the matter was referred to mediation.
On 27 th November 2023, the tenant commissioned a leak detection test. The detection found the second bedroom to be riddled with mould in the corner and along both walls which are facing the outer walls. The shower wall had a leak and there was mould on the bathroom ceiling. The roof was in a terrible condition and in desperate need of repair. There was brown watermark which was a clear indication that the roof was leaking. There were few cracks in the weatherboard.
The recommendations were to get a professional painter to repair and paint the roof, to get a registered builder to remove the mould affected walls, to maintain the outside of the build to fix the roof, mould issue and weather boards and to fix the shower extractor fan.
On 5 th December 2023, a telephone mediation was held but was unsuccessful in resolving the issue.
On 14 th December 2023, the tenant engaged in a licence building practitioner who did a report on the state of the premises. The report was to determine how and why water has entered the dwelling and to assess mould issues.
The report noted that the roof had some rust and some roof sheets needed to be looked at to be replaced if need be.
There was also water staining to formerly replaced section of soffit. This was from water tracking from the roof and possibly due to blocked PVC guttering. The water tracked down the outside wall to bedroom 1 resulting in mould appearing on the face of painted gib-board.
In bedroom 1, due to the same roof and gutter issues, mould appeared on north and west elevation walls to the house. Flooring had been affected by water ingress and started to subside and collapse. There was presence of mould.
In the bathroom, the ceiling fan cluster was not extracting air and needed to be fixed. The sealed shower unit had failed, and water had consequentially damaged the wall linings and skirting directly in front of the shower. The moisture reading of the wall was 98 percent.
The floor area in front of the shower had water damage with a moisture reading of 96 percent.
In conclusion, the report found that the property was in serious need of maintenance with exterior painting and roof repairs being required.
On 29 th December 2023 the landlord served a 90-days’ notice to terminate the tenancy.
On 25 th February 2024 the tenancy was terminated. Should there be compensation or exemplary damages awarded
Having seen the inspection reports provided, I do not find that the shortcomings of the property was easily identifiable by visual inspections.
The tenant had kept the premises tidy and well maintained.
The premises was HHS compliant as of 3 rd February 2021 so the issue is solely whether the landlord had reasonably maintained the premises since then until the end of the tenancy.
There was one gutter cleaning done in March 2022 and again in June 2023.
When the tenant raised issues regarding the mould and condensation, the landlord visited the premises three days later and engaged in a professional to have the gutters cleaned and soffit replaced.
Not long after the more detailed reports became available from the leak detection and the registered builder, the tenant was served with a 90-days’ notice.
Although I accept that the reports state that the premises needed attention, I do not find that the landlord would have known about the true state of the premises until the tenant had informed the landlord about its condition.
Although the landlord did not engage in any immediate work after the report from 14 th December 2023, the tenant was given a notice instead for termination. It is understandable in the circumstances that no major was undertaken before the termination in the circumstances.
I do not find that there was an intentional failure to maintain the premises in the circumstances. I find that the landlord had acted reasonably once the landlord was notified. Missing information on the tenancy agreement
The tenant claimed that there was missing information in the tenancy agreement, especially the information regarding HHS.
However, as this tenancy predated HHS, the tenancy agreement did not need HHS information.
Despite this, the HHS was done at the premises. I see no reason to award any costs or exemplary damages. Reimbursement of costs incurred for reports
At the hearing, it was unclear whether the tenant had been reimbursed for the cost for the leak detection or the builder’s report.
If the landlord had not reimbursed the tenant for the costs, the landlord must do so. Costs for stress and embarrassment
The tenant sought for emotional harm and stress caused. There is no basis to grant the amount. This is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4625330 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4625330 — 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