What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4657971 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4657971?

Compensation: $4,960.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4657971?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4657971?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10305714-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4657971 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4657971?

Compensation: $4,960.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4657971?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4657971?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10305714-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4657971 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4657971 — net $4,980.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for failing to maintain	$4,960.00	Compensation for failing to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,980.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,980.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal order suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details, including the property address.
Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $4,980.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
The tenant filed a claim in the Tribunal on 16 August 2023 due to concerns about draughts, damp and mould.
Following orders made by this Tribunal on 20 September 2023, 7 December 2023 and 27 February 2024 the landlord obtained a builder’s report which has confirmed that the tenancy requires maintenance work in order to be free from mould and dampness.
Work orders in accordance with the builder’s recommendations were made on 12 April 2024 and I was advised at the hearing today that the work is now proceeding and will be completed this month.
The tenant’s claim for compensation was adjourned at the last hearing to allow the tenant time to make further submissions and for the landlord to respond. The tenant’s claim
The tenancy began on 7 October 2020. The tenant lives at the property with his partner and three children, the youngest having been born during the tenancy. This is a social housing tenancy and the rent was initially $100 per week and is now $120 per week.
The tenant said that during the first winter (in 2021) he and his family discovered that the property was damp and had a serious mould problem. He said that the landlord did inspections every three months and each time he would raise issues with the relevant tenancy manager but nothing ever happened. He said that the tenancy manager changed several times and that he did not think that his concerns were being heard or were taken seriously. He said he was frustrated to later find that his concerns had not always been recorded. A meeting was eventually held to discuss his concerns.
The tenant said that he was concerned for his family living in a mouldy home. He said he was constantly cleaning the mould, to such an extent that he worried about the effects of the cleaning products on his family’s health. He said that a lot of time was spent cleaning, that their power bills were higher than they should have been as they tried to control the dampness in the home, and that he and his children’s health has suffered. He also said that he had spent considerable time and energy trying to get some action from the landlord and was forced to go to the Tribunal to get work orders before anything was done.
The landlord finally obtained a builder’s report from Oakmont homes dated 12 March 2024 into the cause of the damp and mould.
The report concludes that there is an unacceptable level of damp and mould at the property caused by: a. There being several square metres of uninsulated ceiling space across the living space of the home due to downlights (such downlights being of an older style such that insulation cannot be placed over the top and “heat chimneys” are created”); b. The bulkhead being uninsulated; and c. Further areas where the insulation does not meet the perimeter of the home. The landlord’s response
The landlord accepted that there had been an unacceptable delay in investigating the tenant’s concerns and accepted that some compensation would be awarded but disputed the amount claimed by the tenant. Discussion and findings
The Tribunal has already determined that the landlord is in breach of their obligations to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair (see section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
The landlord has taken an unacceptable amount of time to investigate the tenant’s concerns and to organise repairs. I was advised that the owner of the property initially did not wish to investigate or to do repairs, which presented some problems for the landlord, but ultimately that is an issue between the landlord and the owner and is not an issue for the tenant.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that it was unpleasant living in a damp and mouldy home. The mould shown in the photos is extensive. I also accept that the tenant did as much as they could to control the mould and spent a lot of time cleaning. I note that the builder who assessed the property recorded in his report dated 12 March 2024 as follows: “We found the tenant of four years keeps the home very clean, tidy and well ventilated” ... “We noted evidence of cleaning over a long period, especially around the downlights”.
The tenant did provide some invoices for power which appear to be on the high side but these are difficult to assess as the issues experienced seem to have been experienced right throughout the tenancy but particularly in winter, so it is difficult to make a comparison. I accept that it is more difficult and more expensive to heat a damp home and that running a dehumidifier will increase power bills.
The tenant also provided some medical information for himself and his children which show that they suffer from asthma. While the medical information does not confirm a causal link between tenancy and any respiratory problems it is well known that damp and mouldy conditions can exacerbate underlying health conditions.
It is unacceptable that it has taken the nearly three years for the tenant’s concerns addressed to be addressed. The tenant has been forced to file a claim and work orders had to be made before the landlord would properly investigate and begin work.
In determining an appropriate award of compensation I have considered all of the above factors. I acknowledge that the rent for this property is very low, but that does not excuse the landlord their obligations. The landlord property should have been adequately maintained.
In considering an appropriate rent reduction for the loss of amenity I have considered the size of the premises and the areas affected. As the issues first appeared in winter 2021 I have calculated compensation from 1 July 2021 to the date of the hearing (148 weeks). I consider compensation of $20 per week for each week of the tenancy to be appropriate ($2,960).
I also consider that the tenant is entitled to some additional compensation for increased electricity for heating and running a dehumidifier, the inconvenience of constantly cleaning to remove mould, and for the ongoing stress of dealing with the situation over nearly three years, particularly while caring for young children. Standing back and considering the length of the tenancy and the impact of all of these factors I consider an additional award of $2,000 to be appropriate.
The tenant has been the substantially successful party and so is entitled to the reimbursement of the filing fee, and an order for name suppression pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4657971 — net $4,980.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for failing to maintain	$4,960.00	Compensation for failing to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,980.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,980.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal order suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details, including the property address.
Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $4,980.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
The tenant filed a claim in the Tribunal on 16 August 2023 due to concerns about draughts, damp and mould.
Following orders made by this Tribunal on 20 September 2023, 7 December 2023 and 27 February 2024 the landlord obtained a builder’s report which has confirmed that the tenancy requires maintenance work in order to be free from mould and dampness.
Work orders in accordance with the builder’s recommendations were made on 12 April 2024 and I was advised at the hearing today that the work is now proceeding and will be completed this month.
The tenant’s claim for compensation was adjourned at the last hearing to allow the tenant time to make further submissions and for the landlord to respond. The tenant’s claim
The tenancy began on 7 October 2020. The tenant lives at the property with his partner and three children, the youngest having been born during the tenancy. This is a social housing tenancy and the rent was initially $100 per week and is now $120 per week.
The tenant said that during the first winter (in 2021) he and his family discovered that the property was damp and had a serious mould problem. He said that the landlord did inspections every three months and each time he would raise issues with the relevant tenancy manager but nothing ever happened. He said that the tenancy manager changed several times and that he did not think that his concerns were being heard or were taken seriously. He said he was frustrated to later find that his concerns had not always been recorded. A meeting was eventually held to discuss his concerns.
The tenant said that he was concerned for his family living in a mouldy home. He said he was constantly cleaning the mould, to such an extent that he worried about the effects of the cleaning products on his family’s health. He said that a lot of time was spent cleaning, that their power bills were higher than they should have been as they tried to control the dampness in the home, and that he and his children’s health has suffered. He also said that he had spent considerable time and energy trying to get some action from the landlord and was forced to go to the Tribunal to get work orders before anything was done.
The landlord finally obtained a builder’s report from Oakmont homes dated 12 March 2024 into the cause of the damp and mould.
The report concludes that there is an unacceptable level of damp and mould at the property caused by: a. There being several square metres of uninsulated ceiling space across the living space of the home due to downlights (such downlights being of an older style such that insulation cannot be placed over the top and “heat chimneys” are created”); b. The bulkhead being uninsulated; and c. Further areas where the insulation does not meet the perimeter of the home. The landlord’s response
The landlord accepted that there had been an unacceptable delay in investigating the tenant’s concerns and accepted that some compensation would be awarded but disputed the amount claimed by the tenant. Discussion and findings
The Tribunal has already determined that the landlord is in breach of their obligations to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair (see section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
The landlord has taken an unacceptable amount of time to investigate the tenant’s concerns and to organise repairs. I was advised that the owner of the property initially did not wish to investigate or to do repairs, which presented some problems for the landlord, but ultimately that is an issue between the landlord and the owner and is not an issue for the tenant.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that it was unpleasant living in a damp and mouldy home. The mould shown in the photos is extensive. I also accept that the tenant did as much as they could to control the mould and spent a lot of time cleaning. I note that the builder who assessed the property recorded in his report dated 12 March 2024 as follows: “We found the tenant of four years keeps the home very clean, tidy and well ventilated” ... “We noted evidence of cleaning over a long period, especially around the downlights”.
The tenant did provide some invoices for power which appear to be on the high side but these are difficult to assess as the issues experienced seem to have been experienced right throughout the tenancy but particularly in winter, so it is difficult to make a comparison. I accept that it is more difficult and more expensive to heat a damp home and that running a dehumidifier will increase power bills.
The tenant also provided some medical information for himself and his children which show that they suffer from asthma. While the medical information does not confirm a causal link between tenancy and any respiratory problems it is well known that damp and mouldy conditions can exacerbate underlying health conditions.
It is unacceptable that it has taken the nearly three years for the tenant’s concerns addressed to be addressed. The tenant has been forced to file a claim and work orders had to be made before the landlord would properly investigate and begin work.
In determining an appropriate award of compensation I have considered all of the above factors. I acknowledge that the rent for this property is very low, but that does not excuse the landlord their obligations. The landlord property should have been adequately maintained.
In considering an appropriate rent reduction for the loss of amenity I have considered the size of the premises and the areas affected. As the issues first appeared in winter 2021 I have calculated compensation from 1 July 2021 to the date of the hearing (148 weeks). I consider compensation of $20 per week for each week of the tenancy to be appropriate ($2,960).
I also consider that the tenant is entitled to some additional compensation for increased electricity for heating and running a dehumidifier, the inconvenience of constantly cleaning to remove mould, and for the ongoing stress of dealing with the situation over nearly three years, particularly while caring for young children. Standing back and considering the length of the tenancy and the impact of all of these factors I consider an additional award of $2,000 to be appropriate.
The tenant has been the substantially successful party and so is entitled to the reimbursement of the filing fee, and an order for name suppression pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4657971 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4657971 — Tenancy dispute

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