What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4647250 about?

This case concerned a 14-day notice dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 4647250?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4647250?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4647250?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9802363-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4647250 about?

This case concerned a 14-day notice dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 4647250?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4647250?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4647250?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9802363-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4647250 — 14-day notice

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tenant attended with her daughter, Ms Mahe who was given consent to represent the Tenant at the hearing as it appeared Ms Mahe had a comprehensive understanding of the issues raised during the tenancy. This was not opposed by the Landlord.
The Tenant applied for work orders, compensation and breach of Healthy Home standards.
The Landlord submitted this house was built in the 1960’s. Prior to the tenancy commencing in 2014, the house had undergone a full renovation.
The applicant must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities; i.e., more probable than not. This means it is the Applicant Tenant’s job to prove their claim and provide all of the evidence to persuade the Tribunal that their version of events is more likely than not to have occurred. The Applicant can do this with the assistance of supporting evidence from witnesses or written documents such as email evidence or oral evidence to prove their claim. Work Orders
Since the Tenant filed this application with the Tribunal in August 2023, the Landlord had attended to some of the repairs. For this reason, the following work orders are no longer required: a) Repair of the laundry tap; b) Removal of the tree in the backyard.
The Tenant submitted the following work orders were still sought: a) Painting of walls; b) Wall socket required in the second bedroom; c) Carpet in the sleepout; d) Leakage in the sleepout; e) Mould due to lack of insulation Painting of walls
The Tenant claimed some walls required painting to remove the residual mould stains. The professional cleaners sent by the Landlord in September 2023 to remove the mould did not remove them. The Tenant provided multiple photographs of the property which showed extensive mould on the walls and ceilings. The photographs were not date or time stamped so it was uncertain when they were taken and which walls required repainting.
The Landlord claimed they sent professionals into the property to clean and remove the mould on or about September 2023. A work report was provided by the Landlord to substantiate this was done.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant failed to provide date/time stamped photographs to prove that there was residual mould left on the walls which required painting. They had provided multiple photographs to prove there was mould present but nothing to show that the cleaners actually failed to remove it because the photographs were not labelled or stamped.
For these reasons, the Tenants claim is dismissed. Wall socket
The Tenant sought to have an electrical socket installed in the second bedroom as there was none and the Tenant’s son who occupied the room had to run an extension cord from an adjacent bedroom. The Tenant advised the Landlord in August 2023 of this issue and was still awaiting a response.
The Landlord confirmed at the hearing that they would install one if there was not one already there. Carpet in the rumpus room
The Tenant sought to have underlay installed in the rumpus room which it originally had when the tenancy commenced. This was removed after the room was flooded in 2020 and never replaced. The Tenant submitted an underlay would make the rumpus warmer which would prevent mould. The Tenant stated the Owner verbally advised them in 2015 that this room could be used as a sleep-out and this was why the Tenant’s daughter moved in. It was the warmest part of the house before the leaks occurred. There was no proof in writing that the Owner stated this to the Tenant.
The Landlord did not agree to install underlay as this room was a utility room and not intended to be lived in. The Landlord provided the original advertisement for the property which stated this was a rumpus room.
In considering the evidence, I find the Tenant has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the installation of underlay is required for the rumpus room to be in a reasonable condition. The room is not intended to be occupied by Tenants and is compliant with Healthy Home Standards.
For these reasons, the claim is dismissed. Leakage
The Tenant sought to have the leak’s in the rumpus room repaired and also claimed $10,000.00 for damage to their personal belongings in the rumpus room as a result of the leakage. The Tenant submitted they initially notified the Landlord of the leak in 2020 when there was an episode of heavy rainfall which caused the rumpus room to be flooded. At that time the Tenant’s daughter and her child lived in the rumpus room. They moved out after the flood. The Tenant submitted they only ever told the Landlord verbally about the leaks. Notifications were never in writing. They recalled telling a particular Property Manager about the leaks however that individual subsequently left the real estate company.
The Tenant submitted the Landlord attended to the repair of the rumpus room in 2020 and fixed the ingress issues. No further action was taken since then and the leaks were ongoing. The rumpus room leaked repeatedly in February 2023, April 2023 and June 2023. In April 2023, the Tenant submitted the carpet was drenched and the water came up halfway to her knee. They had to remove everything from the rumpus and try to drain the carpet. They advised the Landlord but no action was taken.
When the Tenant notified the Landlord in June 2023, the Landlord responded she would look into it but again no action was taken. The Tenant specifically recalls notifying a particular Property Manager and advising her repeatedly about the wet carpet however that Property Manager had resigned from the company in July 2022. The Tenant then stored some of their personal belongings which included Tongan fine-mats, clothing and furniture. These were ruined by further leaks of the property and photographs were provided of the damaged items. The mats and furniture were disposed of in a skip bin which the Tenant hired and provided an invoice to claim reimbursement for the cost.
Photographs were provided of the excess water outside the rumpus room which was ankle deep and spilling into the rumpus room entrance. There were photographs of the rumpus prior to the leakage which was fully carpeted and showed it had been set up as a rumpus room for the Tenants child and her family. There were also photographs after the carpet had been removed which was after the floods. There was excessive mould growing on the walls and ceilings.
The Landlord submitted a work order was unnecessary as the leaks had been remedied. When they were notified by the Tenant initially about the leaks, they sent a tradesperson to investigate and it was discovered, there were water ingress issues in the rumpus room. These were repaired by the Owner in February 2023 which included down pipe configuration. The Landlord claimed they were notified in April 2023 of the leaks however the issue could not be attended because it was winter and they had to wait for the rain to stop. On 15 June 2023, the Landlord commenced a Healthy Homes Assessment and the report was filed indicating the property was compliant. There were no issues with the guttering or downpipes in the roof. On 19 October 2023, the Landlord sent a Tradesperson to investigate roof leaks and an invoice was provided to substantiate this.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant has not provided sufficient proof that there was an ongoing issue with the leakage in the sleepout and the Landlord has attended to this repair as evidenced by the invoice provided. Had the Tenant provided evidence from an independent trades person who discovered the leak, failed to bring it to the Landlords attention, and then the Landlord neglected to repair it, the Tenant would have grounds for compensation.
In this instance, the Tenants evidence was also inadequate in proving there was a leakage issue. There were photographs of the fine mats in a pile on the ground which showed some black stain marks from a distance, however it was difficult to assess from the photographs the extent of the damage. There were also no initial photographs of the fine-mats before the leaks, to show they were in good condition. There were no photographs of damage to the furniture or receipts indicating the initial value the Tenants spent on the furniture. There was no evidence that the Tenant had repeatedly notified the Landlord of the leakage events and I accept that the person the Tenant did say they told resigned in July 2022. There were no time stamps on the photographs provided by the Tenant to confirm when the rumpus became flooded.
The Landlord however provided evidence that the house was compliant with Healthy Home Standards and they still sent a Tradesperson to ensure any leaks in the roof were fixed in October 2023.
It is the Tenants job as the Applicant to bring the evidence to the proceedings and prove their claim. They have not in this case and the claim is dismissed. Breach of Healthy Home standards
The Tenant has claimed the Landlord is in breach of Healthy Home standards because of the ongoing issues with mould, the property was always cold, there was no heater or insulation of the wall and the leakage in the rumpus room. The tenant provided photographs of the mould which was extensive on the walls and ceilings.
The Landlord provided a copy of a Healthy Home standards assessment conducted in June 2023 and dated September 2023. This showed the property was compliant.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant has not provided evidence such as a Healthy Homes Assessment to prove that the property is in breach. Furthermore, as the Tenancy commenced before 1 July 2021, the Landlord does not have to comply with Healthy Home Standards until 2025. The Landlord has also provided a Healthy Homes Assessment confirming that the home is compliant. Despite this, the Tenant’s evidence of photographs of extensive mould does not prove the home was not compliant. The Tenant could have caused this mould by the way they lived.
For these reasons, the claim is dismissed. Compensation for lack of use of the rumpus room
The Tenant claimed $15,600.00 because they were unable to use the rumpus room after the flooding since June 2020. They used it as storage after the first leakage but they could not use it as a sleep-out. They also claimed a reduction of rent from $580.00 to $480.00 per week until this was resolved. They did not have receipts for the clothing they lost.
The Landlord submitted again the rumpus was not intended to be used or consented to be used as a sleepout. The property advertised this room as a rumpus room from the outset and the owner never recalled telling the Tenants they could do so.
In considering the evidence, I find there was no lack of use of the rumpus room. There was no persuasive evidence from the Tenant that the rumpus room was consented to be used as a sleepout. The Tenant also gave evidence that they used the rumpus as a storage room so there was no lack of use.
The claim is dismissed. Compensation for cleaning
The Tenant claimed $61,900.00 for all of the cleaning of mould they had to undertake every two weeks since the tenancy began. Whilst there was evidence the mould existed from the photographs provided, because they were not time stamped it was uncertain as to whether these photographs were taken at one time or progressively during the tenancy. There was no evidence that the Tenant cleaned every two weeks and there was no adequate evidence to prove that the mould was caused by the landlords failure to repair the house. it could have been mould caused by the Tenant failing to ventilate.
The Landlord submitted the mould was likely to have been caused by the Tenants failure to ventilate and a letter from their professional cleaner who attended the house was provided. This verified when they attended the property to clean, the windows were closed. The Landlord provided a few 14 day notices sent to the Tenant during the tenancy repeatedly requesting they clean the mould.
In considering the evidence, the issue of mould was never proved by the Tenant to be an issue caused by the Landlords failure to repair. For this reason, the Tenant should have cleaned the mould. It was an older house built in the 1960’s and the Healthy Homes Assessment did not raise any issues which would cause the mould. Had the Tenant provided evidence that the Landlord failed to repair something which then caused the mould, then the Landlord would be liable to repair the cause and remove the mould.
For these reasons, the claim is dismissed. Claim for medical compensation
The Tenant claimed $20,000.00 for medical compensation due to her son acquiring rheumatic fever which was diagnosed in September 2023 and missing his university exams. The Tenant claimed her son’s doctor advised the condition was caused over time by the conditions of the house and lack of a heat pump. The Tenant submitted a medical certificate confirming her sons condition and when this was diagnosed. There was nothing in the certificate however that the confirmed from the Doctor that cause of the fever was due to the mouldy, damp and cold conditions at the property and the lack of a heat pump. For this reason the claim is dismissed.
As the Landlord has been wholly successful, name suppression is granted to the Landlord. The Tenant has not been successful, so name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4647250 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4647250 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions