What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4671109 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $590.50 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4671109?

Bathroom Fan Test: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $218.50 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4671109?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4671109?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9793640-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4671109 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $590.50 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4671109?

Bathroom Fan Test: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $218.50 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4671109?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4671109?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9793640-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 1087 Heaphy Terrace, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4671109 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4671109 — net $590.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$207.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$218.50	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$50.00	Lawns and Garden work
Bathroom fan test	$115.00	Bathroom fan test
Net award	$590.50
Bond	$2,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$590.50

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $590.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $590.50 [The tenant/s]: $1,529.50

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative] attended the hearing on 20 December 2023 for the landlord and [The tenant’s representative] for the tenants.
Both parties have made applications to the Tribunal. The only issues in dispute are whether the tenants should be required to pay the costs of mould testing at the premises ($2,357.50) and an electrician’s call-out fee to test the operation of the bathroom fan ($115.00).
I record that the tenants agree to meet the cost of carpet cleaning, minor cleaning of a few missed areas, and lawn mowing and weed spraying. In my view, the lawns were left reasonably tidy. I award $50.00 to weed the front garden. Background
The tenancy started on 28 October 2022 for an initial fixed term until 27 October 2023. The tenancy had ended by consent by the date of the hearing. The landlord’s claim
The landlord’s claim for compensation is made on the basis that:- a. The tenants raised a concern at a routine inspection in late May 2023 about mould and condensation in the house. They sent an email and photographs to the agent on 7 June 2023 showing mould growing on shoes and a shoe rack in two wardrobes and on a couch in the lounge, and water collecting in DampRid bags the tenants had placed in the house. b. The tenants said that they thought that the bathroom fan was not working properly and asked that it be checked. c. The landlord arranged to have the house mould tested and the bathroom fan to be checked by an electrician. d. The mould testing report concluded that:- i. two air samples and one tape sample showed elevated levels of mould inside the house compared to outside the house, ii. no external leaks were found, iii. the mould in the air “appears to be internally generated from cooking, the use of the bathroom, lack of ventilation and drying clothes inside”. e. The electrician’s invoice says “fan in good working order, all ducting in tact and running as it should be. Advised tenants to keep running fan for longer after showers”.
Clause 13 of the tenancy agreement says: 13 Callout Charge – The Tenant agrees to pay any reasonable callout charge if: The Tenant does not adhere to prior arrangement for entry. Where no fault is found. The repairs are due to damage or negligence by the tenant. Where the tenant requires the landlords agent to instruct a contractor to attend the tenancy premises to conduct some work and if the agent does instruct a contractor to attend the tenancy premises and the contractor cannot gain entry because of the tenants default or does gain entry but cannot find any fault or does complete work which can be attributed to the tenants negligence, then the reasonable cost of the contractor may be charged to the tenant. The tenants’ claim
The tenants brought an application first as the landlord had asked them to pay the invoices and they disagreed. They want the Tribunal to assist.
The tenants’ view is:- a. They were being responsible by raising their concerns about condensation and mould. b. They made it clear to the landlord that they did not consent to the mould testing being done because of the high estimated cost. c. The landlord did not take any other steps or suggest options to try to resolve the condensation and mould issues before arranging for the mould testing. d. They were taking reasonable steps to ventilate the house and using the heat-pump and dehumidifier settings. e. They cleaned mould and wiped condensation off windows regularly. They did not want mould and damp issues and say belongings were damaged because of this. f. The house gets little sun, and the outside washing line is nearly always in the shade. g. They did sometimes dry washing inside but limited this. h. They say that the mould testing technician visited while they were out and did not ask them any questions about their living. i. They disagree with the findings of the electrician regarding the bathroom fan and say that he did not inspect the ducting or turn the shower on to test the fan’s ability to extract moisture or to see that it drips water when in use. j. After the landlord installed stays on the windows, they were burgled after leaving the windows open while not at home. Decision
After considering the evidence, my decisions are:- a. That the tenants are not liable for the cost of the mould testing. My reasons are:- i. The tenants did not ask the landlord to have the testing done and, in fact, made it clear that they did not consent to the cost being incurred. ii. It is not reasonable for the landlord to incur a significant cost ($2,357.30) without the consent of the tenants and without first investigating other causes or remedies for the issue. The landlord did provide a written guide about mould and condensation as part of the ‘Welcome pack’ of documents at the start of the tenancy but did not actively explore other solutions before engaging the mould testing company. For example, asking the tenants not to dry clothes inside, installing stays on windows, providing or suggesting that a dehumidifier be used, installing a shower dome, assessing the benefits of a DVS system. iii. In my view, it is not whether the mould report’s conclusions are correct that determines this claim. They may be. The issue is that it is not a reasonable cost to pass on to the tenants without first exploring other less costly and potentially more useful options to resolving the issue. Clause 13 emphasises that any cost must be reasonable. b. That the tenants are liable for the cost of the bathroom fan testing. My reasons are:- i. The tenants did ask 1 if it was possible to have the bathroom fan checked to assess if it was working as it should. ii. The cost claimed is reasonable. iii. The landlord provided documents to show that the capacity of the bathroom fan is more than 29 litres per second so does comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. iv. The written statement from the electrician concludes that there is no fault with the bathroom fan. I telephoned but was not able to speak to the electrician during the hearing to ask him about the testing he did. v. Clause 13 states that a reasonable cost is recoverable if the tenant asks for the contractor callout and no fault is found. On the face of it, it is reasonable to rely on the electrician’s statement. 1 In their email dated 15 June 2023. Filing fee, bond and suppression
The parties have both been partially successful so the filing fees will remain as paid.
The bond is refunded in accordance with the orders made.
Both parties have been partially successful, and both have applied for suppression of names, which is granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4671109 — net $590.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$207.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$218.50	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$50.00	Lawns and Garden work
Bathroom fan test	$115.00	Bathroom fan test
Net award	$590.50
Bond	$2,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$590.50

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $590.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $590.50 [The tenant/s]: $1,529.50

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative] attended the hearing on 20 December 2023 for the landlord and [The tenant’s representative] for the tenants.
Both parties have made applications to the Tribunal. The only issues in dispute are whether the tenants should be required to pay the costs of mould testing at the premises ($2,357.50) and an electrician’s call-out fee to test the operation of the bathroom fan ($115.00).
I record that the tenants agree to meet the cost of carpet cleaning, minor cleaning of a few missed areas, and lawn mowing and weed spraying. In my view, the lawns were left reasonably tidy. I award $50.00 to weed the front garden. Background
The tenancy started on 28 October 2022 for an initial fixed term until 27 October 2023. The tenancy had ended by consent by the date of the hearing. The landlord’s claim
The landlord’s claim for compensation is made on the basis that:- a. The tenants raised a concern at a routine inspection in late May 2023 about mould and condensation in the house. They sent an email and photographs to the agent on 7 June 2023 showing mould growing on shoes and a shoe rack in two wardrobes and on a couch in the lounge, and water collecting in DampRid bags the tenants had placed in the house. b. The tenants said that they thought that the bathroom fan was not working properly and asked that it be checked. c. The landlord arranged to have the house mould tested and the bathroom fan to be checked by an electrician. d. The mould testing report concluded that:- i. two air samples and one tape sample showed elevated levels of mould inside the house compared to outside the house, ii. no external leaks were found, iii. the mould in the air “appears to be internally generated from cooking, the use of the bathroom, lack of ventilation and drying clothes inside”. e. The electrician’s invoice says “fan in good working order, all ducting in tact and running as it should be. Advised tenants to keep running fan for longer after showers”.
Clause 13 of the tenancy agreement says: 13 Callout Charge – The Tenant agrees to pay any reasonable callout charge if: The Tenant does not adhere to prior arrangement for entry. Where no fault is found. The repairs are due to damage or negligence by the tenant. Where the tenant requires the landlords agent to instruct a contractor to attend the tenancy premises to conduct some work and if the agent does instruct a contractor to attend the tenancy premises and the contractor cannot gain entry because of the tenants default or does gain entry but cannot find any fault or does complete work which can be attributed to the tenants negligence, then the reasonable cost of the contractor may be charged to the tenant. The tenants’ claim
The tenants brought an application first as the landlord had asked them to pay the invoices and they disagreed. They want the Tribunal to assist.
The tenants’ view is:- a. They were being responsible by raising their concerns about condensation and mould. b. They made it clear to the landlord that they did not consent to the mould testing being done because of the high estimated cost. c. The landlord did not take any other steps or suggest options to try to resolve the condensation and mould issues before arranging for the mould testing. d. They were taking reasonable steps to ventilate the house and using the heat-pump and dehumidifier settings. e. They cleaned mould and wiped condensation off windows regularly. They did not want mould and damp issues and say belongings were damaged because of this. f. The house gets little sun, and the outside washing line is nearly always in the shade. g. They did sometimes dry washing inside but limited this. h. They say that the mould testing technician visited while they were out and did not ask them any questions about their living. i. They disagree with the findings of the electrician regarding the bathroom fan and say that he did not inspect the ducting or turn the shower on to test the fan’s ability to extract moisture or to see that it drips water when in use. j. After the landlord installed stays on the windows, they were burgled after leaving the windows open while not at home. Decision
After considering the evidence, my decisions are:- a. That the tenants are not liable for the cost of the mould testing. My reasons are:- i. The tenants did not ask the landlord to have the testing done and, in fact, made it clear that they did not consent to the cost being incurred. ii. It is not reasonable for the landlord to incur a significant cost ($2,357.30) without the consent of the tenants and without first investigating other causes or remedies for the issue. The landlord did provide a written guide about mould and condensation as part of the ‘Welcome pack’ of documents at the start of the tenancy but did not actively explore other solutions before engaging the mould testing company. For example, asking the tenants not to dry clothes inside, installing stays on windows, providing or suggesting that a dehumidifier be used, installing a shower dome, assessing the benefits of a DVS system. iii. In my view, it is not whether the mould report’s conclusions are correct that determines this claim. They may be. The issue is that it is not a reasonable cost to pass on to the tenants without first exploring other less costly and potentially more useful options to resolving the issue. Clause 13 emphasises that any cost must be reasonable. b. That the tenants are liable for the cost of the bathroom fan testing. My reasons are:- i. The tenants did ask 1 if it was possible to have the bathroom fan checked to assess if it was working as it should. ii. The cost claimed is reasonable. iii. The landlord provided documents to show that the capacity of the bathroom fan is more than 29 litres per second so does comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. iv. The written statement from the electrician concludes that there is no fault with the bathroom fan. I telephoned but was not able to speak to the electrician during the hearing to ask him about the testing he did. v. Clause 13 states that a reasonable cost is recoverable if the tenant asks for the contractor callout and no fault is found. On the face of it, it is reasonable to rely on the electrician’s statement. 1 In their email dated 15 June 2023. Filing fee, bond and suppression
The parties have both been partially successful so the filing fees will remain as paid.
The bond is refunded in accordance with the orders made.
Both parties have been partially successful, and both have applied for suppression of names, which is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4671109 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 4, 1087 Heaphy Terrace, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4671109 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 4, 1087 Heaphy Terrace, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions