What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4641969 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4641969?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4641969?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4641969?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10388416-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4641969 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4641969?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4641969?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4641969?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10388416-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4641969 — Mould & damp

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted by teleconference. [The landlord’s representative/s] attended on behalf of the landlord.
An earlier hearing was held in person at the District Court and adjourned part- heard, with a timetable for the exchange of further evidence and final submissions.
The landlord provided further evidence. The tenant experienced problems submitting her evidence and requested additional time, which was granted. The tenant emailed additional photographic evidence. A further hearing by teleconference was held to give both parties the opportunity to provide their final comments. The tenant’s application
As noted in the earlier order, this tenancy began on 22 October 2015. The tenant has filed an application noting a number of issues relating to the premises. Most of these issues arise from the actions of her neighbour. This neighbour is not a tenant of the landlord, [The landlord/s].
The issues raised by the tenant include malicious damage, particularly to the insulation under the house. She states this occurred about one to two months after the landlord installed the insulation. The underfloor insulation was installed around March/April 2023. The tenant also claims there was damage to cabling, the roof cavity and guttering. She states there is moisture in the ceiling, and throughout the building. She also claims there has been contamination, with chemicals being sprayed into the property by the neighbour. She states that her belongings have been damaged. She says she has also been assaulted twice by the neighbour.
At the first hearing, the tenant produced photographic evidence of the alleged damage. In her oral evidence the tenant spoke about the problems she has observed at the premises, and her desire to be transferred to another premises. She states the building is wet, the grounds were wet, there was resin coming from the guttering, and her belongings have been contaminated. This was the result of the neighbour’s actions, not the actions of the landlord. She had approached the Police, who advised her to go back to the landlord.
At the second hearing the tenant stated that water was leaking everywhere, damaging the floors and walls. there were contaminants under the house and through the house. The washing machine and other appliances were contaminated. A building inspector told her she should not be living there. She believed people were going under the house. She asked why the landlord had taken her off the transfer list. She did not accept the information recorded in the landlord’s maintenance logs. She observed that the Healthy Homes report produced by the landlord was completed in March 2023, but these events occurred after this date. The landlord’s reply
In reply, the landlord has explained that all complaints were attended to, and a maintenance log was produced, showing the work undertaken. There were numerous callouts. The landlord detailed examples of work carried out in response to the issues raised by the tenant. Insulation was completed in March 2023, with insulation being installed in the roof and underfloor area. The claim the tenant had been poisoned by neighbours had not been established.
The landlord produced documentary evidence, including detailed maintenance logs. A Healthy Homes report was also produced. The legal framework
In this jurisdiction the applicant is required to establish their claim to the civil law standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means that the tenant (the applicant in this case) must establish, with evidence, that her claim is “more likely than not.” For the Tribunal to find in her favour, the tenant must be able to show that the landlord has been in breach of a legal obligation.
In this case, the tenant seeks a work order, compensation, immediate transfer from the current premises and exemplary damages.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA), the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements. Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) of the RTA.
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the RTA or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.
There is no jurisdiction for the Tribunal to order the landlord to provide the tenant with alternative accommodation. Therefore, even if the tenant is successful in establishing her claim, the Tribunal cannot require her landlord, [The landlord/s], to transfer her to another property.
There are also limits on the extent to which the landlord can be required to deal with other tenants for whom they are not responsible, or occupants of neighbouring properties.
Exemplary damages are penalties and can only be awarded for an unlawful act, as set out in various sections of the RTA, and as listed in Schedule 1A of the Act. Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA.

Has the landlord failed to repair or maintain the premises?

As noted above, the landlord’s obligations are set out under section 45 of the RTA. This includes the requirement that the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. 1 The landlord is also required to comply with the healthy homes standards, and any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety. 1 Section 45(1)(b)
The extent of the landlord’s obligation to repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 2 The Court noted that there was no absolute liability/responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. 3 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time. The Court stated: ... the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be. 4
I have considered the evidence and submissions of both parties. I acknowledge the tenant’s sincerely held belief that there are multiple problems and issues with her premises. I note her photographic and oral evidence, and her email detailing her problems. However, in view of the landlord’s evidence in response, which I found to be persuasive, the tenant has been unable to establish her claim, on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord’s maintenance logs show that the landlord attended, on multiple occasions, in response to the issues raised by the tenant. There were callouts when she contacted the landlord claiming that someone had removed the cables and wiring, that the neighbour was tampering with pipes and spraying contaminants, and that there were plumbing and dampness issues. The landlord has documented the callouts, the investigations undertaken, and any steps taken to address the issue.
The landlord’s maintenance log records that on 14 and 16 October 2022 the tenant advised of liquid coming through the light fitting. Tradespeople attended on 16 and 18 October 2022 and found, after checking the ceiling cavity, there were no issues. The tenant made further calls about the ceiling leak on 24 October 2022, which was addressed on the same day. A lock was also changed, at the tenant’s request. The tenant made further calls reporting the ceiling was leaking on 7 November 2022, and again, it was found there were “no issues and no leaks.”
The tenant’s concerns regarding the smoke alarm were also addressed in a timely way. On 24 October 2022 the tenant had reported that 5 smoke alarms in the premises were not working, which was attended to on the same day, resulting in two alarms being replaced. 2 CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007 3 Section 40(1)(d) 4 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085
The tenant reported an electrical fault on 5 December 2022, and this was addressed on the same day, with the tradesperson reporting there were no electrical issues. There was a further note that the tenant had covered the smoke alarm with a plastic bag.
The tenant reported on 7 December 2022 that poisonous toxins were being injected through the pipes. A tradesperson attended after hours on the same day, reporting that it was investigated, no leaks were found, and all areas were dry. A similar report by the tenant on 21 July 2023 was investigated and it was found there were no issues.
The tenant made further calls to the landlord concerning leaks either under the house, coming through the floorboards, or from the ceiling, on 12 December 2022, 26 January 2023, 13 April 2023, which the landlord attended to. No leaks were found under the house on 12 December 2022, and 26 January 2023. There was an issue found with the roof on 13 April 2023, which was repaired.
On 26 July 2023 the tenant reported that the carpets throughout the house were wet and requested that the source of the leak be investigated and remedied. The log records that “trades attended 26/07 @ 7.00pm to check for leaks under and inside the property. All dry and no leaks found.” Reports of a hot water cylinder leaking outside the property were also investigated, on multiple occasions.
The tenant’s concerns regarding the wiring, power sockets and smoke alarms were checked. Most callouts resulted in no issues or problems being found. When a need for repair was identified, this was undertaken promptly.
Accordingly, while it is unfortunate that the tenant considers there are numerous issues with the property, I find that she has been unable to establish, with sufficient evidence, that the landlord has failed in its obligation to repair or maintain the premises. Accordingly, there is no work order to follow and consequently, no compensation for the tenant.
As the tenant has not established her claim, and the evidence does not establish the landlord has been in breach of its obligations under section 45 of the RTA, there is no award of exemplary damages.

Has there been a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenant has reported her concerns about the actions of a neighbour, and her belief that this neighbour is accessing her property, tampering with the pipes, ceiling, underfloor insulation, floorboards, damaging the premises and pouring toxins into the property.
In terms of the tenant’s concerns, section 38(2) of the RTA states that the landlord cannot interfere with the reasonable, reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. Based on the available evidence, the tenant has not established that the landlord has been in breach of this responsibility. Furthermore, as the neighbour is not a tenant of the landlord, there is no further obligation on the landlord in terms of the neighbour’s alleged behaviour. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.

Has the landlord been providing a contaminated premises?

The tenant claims the premises is contaminated, and requests that she be transferred to another property.
There is an obligation on the landlord to ensure the premises are not contaminated. Where testing has shown that the premises is contaminated with methamphetamine, or any other prescribed contaminant, then the landlord cannot provide or continue to provide the premises until it has been decontaminated. See sections 45(1AA) and (1AAB) of the RTA.
In this case, the landlord has provided evidence that two staff members employed by the landlord attended the premises on 4 May 2023, to discuss the tenant’s concern that unknown persons were accessing her home and injecting a fluid/solution she identified as “microsolution.” The tenant had stated this solution had a strong odour. At the time of the visit, the landlord reported there was no strong odour. The landlord noted the carpet was dry and they could not identify any moisture, liquid, or solution.
Accordingly, while I acknowledge the tenant’s anxiety about this issue, apart from her own belief that the premises is contaminated with toxic substances, there is no objective evidence to support the claim. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Insulation
The tenant claims the landlord has breached its obligations in terms of the insulation. The landlord is required under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
In this case the landlord’s Healthy Homes inspection report shows the premises has ceiling and underfloor insulation. The report concludes that the insulation meets the standard required under the Regulations. The notes following the onsite meeting on 4 May 2023 record that the ceiling cavity and underfloor insulation were checked by a tradesperson, and no issues were identified.
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Filing fee
As the tenant has been unsuccessful, there is no reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
While noting that the tenant is the unsuccessful party, it is considered that, due to the individual circumstances in this case, the tenant’s interests outweigh the public interest in the tenant being identified.
Therefore, name suppression is ordered for both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4641969 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4641969 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to repair or maintain the premises?

Has there been a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Has the landlord been providing a contaminated premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to repair or maintain the premises?

Has there been a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Has the landlord been providing a contaminated premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions