What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4683049 about?

This case concerned a mould & damp dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 4683049?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4683049?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4683049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10062345-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4683049 about?

This case concerned a mould & damp dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 4683049?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4683049?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4683049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10062345-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4683049 — Mould & damp

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tenant applied for breach of Healthy Home Standards, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenancy commenced on 28 November 2022 and ended on 6 September 2023. An ingoing inspection report was conducted on 29 November 2022 and signed by both parties. On 3 April 2023, [The property manager/s] took over management of the property.
This was a one bedroom on the ground floor of a block of four units. The Tenant lived there with his daughter who was under five years old during the Tenancy.
The Tenant submitted he was a licensed building practitioner/architect since 2019 and had worked with the Design Manager from [housing company] for a living. There was no evidence filed of his qualifications however he referred the Tribunal to a website to substantiate his professional qualifications.
The Tribunal did not undertake this search as it is for the parties to provide the evidence and not the Tribunal to conduct research on behalf of parties.
The Tenant submitted that at the end of the tenancy he left the property quietly even though there were issues with the tenancy as to why he had to move out. Because he was subsequently harassed and humiliated over carpet stains and oven cleaning at the end of the tenancy by the Landlord and he believed the Landlord held his bond, he suffered a great deal. Because of this suffering, he brought these claims to the Tribunal.
As the Tenant is the Applicant in this matter, the onus or burden of proof is on the Tenant to prove their claim beyond the balance of probabilities. This means it is the Tenant’s job to persuade the Tribunal that their version of events is more likely than not to be true. It is also their job to bring forth evidence that will support their claim. Breach of Healthy Home Standards
The Tenant claimed the property was in breach of Healthy Home standards (“HHS”) because of the following: a) There was a lack of ventilation and natural light in the room. The window was too small and was hindered by an exterior security grill which made it difficult to open. The window latches were also old so the window would not stay open for long. Because of these defects, the Tenant told his daughter not to open the window. b) The lounge window was not easy to open because the upper pin was stuck and the fixed lower pin was loose on the window. The Tenant reported this to the Landlord during the period of November 2022 to May 2023 and it was only fixed in May 2023. c) There was no extractor fan.
The Landlord submitted that the property was compliant with HHS and a Healthy Homes Assessment dated 29 June 2023 was conducted. This indicated that the property was compliant with all five standards and the property was exempt to a fan vent to the outdoors. This report was provided to the Tribunal.
The Landlord submitted they were never notified by the Tenant of the window issues. At the initial inspection, the Tenant did not raise this issue either. The lounge window was repaired before the tenant moved in.
The Landlord submitted that there was no extractor fan because the property was exempt. They were told by their electrician that an extractor fan could not be installed at the back of the unit because the only spot was on a shared wall with the other units. They were provided with a report by an electrician to substantiate this. There was a rangehood installed prior to 1 July 2019 to assist with the ventilation.
The Tenant submitted that it was not compliant because in his professional opinion, it was practicably possible to install a fan at the side or back of the property. He designed houses for a living and submitted this should be done. The law
The Residential Tenancies HHS provides a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage. Analysis
The Landlord has provided a HHS Assessment which states that the property is exempt from an extractor fan. They also relied on the evidence from their electrician to not have one installed. In terms of the windows, the Tenant never notified them of the bedroom or lounge window being faulty however they have since fixed this. They submitted a copy of the entry inspection report which indicated there was no issues raised with the windows or fan by the Tenant.
The Tenant submits it is their professional opinion as an Architect and building practitioner, that it is feasible to install an extraction fan. There was nothing provided however from the Tenant which supports his qualifications and expertise. The Tenant also did not provide any evidence of the requests he made to the Landlord to repair the windows in the lounge and bedroom such as email correspondence.
In considering the evidence, I find that it is more likely than not that the property is compliant with HHS from the evidence provided by the Landlord. The Tenant did not provide evidence of notifications that the windows were faulty or anything to substantiate his expertise.
The claim is dismissed. Claim for compensation
The Tenant has claimed $3000.00 because of the lack of maintenance of the back yard. There was an open pipe/drain which emitted a pungent odour in the backyard and that odour permeated into the property and onto his laundry. There was overgrown grass and because of the constant rain, this made the smell worse. The Tenant could not hang their clothing on the clothes- line at the back because the smell was so strong and it would linger on their washing. They could not keep the ranch-slider open to ventilate the property so he had to lock his daughter in the bedroom while he was cooking. His daughter was constantly sick from the property conditions and he provided evidence of her medical records. He submitted she visited the Doctors every month from January 2023 to May 2023. She had a persistent vomiting problem, lost weight and a throat infection which all began when they moved into the unit.
The Tenant submitted that he had asked the Landlord to clean the backyard from the start of the tenancy however they replied, they needed to consult with the owners of the other four units first. The Tenant submitted she owned 50% of the units so the Owner was entitled to proceed with having the back yard cleaned. The back yard was therefore not cleaned until many months later. The Tenant provided photographs of the drain in the backyard from 20 June 2023 where he submitted there was no maintenance done.
The Landlord claimed that the Owner who originally dealt with the Tenant before [The property manager/s] were appointed, did not recall the Tenant reporting any issues with the back of the property. There was also nothing in the entry inspection report to indicate there was a problem with the backyard. When the Landlord was notified of the issue, she had to speak to the Body Corporate regarding cleaning of the backyard as this was a communal area. This caused some delay.
On 6 July 2023, the Landlord arranged for gardening services to clean the backyard. The Landlord recalls the Tenant advising her that he had to move because he needed a bigger house for his daughter and not because of the issues with the property. During the whole tenancy there was no complaint about the lack of ventilation or extraction fan even when she conducted an inspection. The only time she had text messages from the Tenant for repairs was around August 2023 and this was to do with the oven.
The Tenants response to this was that he text messaged those issues because they were emergencies. When questioned by the Tribunal why the backyard issues were not an emergency (given his daughters health), the Tenant explained he could live with that. The difficulty with this explanation is the Tenant deposed how serious his daughter’s health issues were that were caused by Landlords failure to clean the backyard.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and in a reasonable state of repair.
In considering the evidence, I find that it is more likely than not that the back yard was maintained to a reasonable standard because there was nothing in writing from the Tenant to confirm he notified the Landlord of the issue at the start of the tenancy. The Tenant stated that the issue with his daughter’s health was so serious however he only raised this towards the end of the tenancy. The medical records also show no link between the condition of the property and the daughters medical issues. There was no evidence of laundry receipts for clothing that had to be dried at the laundromat because of the backyard issues either.
For these reasons, the Tenant’s claim is dismissed. Claim for refund of the bond
The tenant has applied for refund of their bond following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing the landlord made a claim against the bond. However, the landlord did not file an application with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B RTA provides: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
The requirement for the landlord to file a counterclaim is mandatory. Therefore, because the landlord has not done so, the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. This does not prevent the landlord from filing a claim against the tenant at a later date. It just means that, if the landlord’s claim is successful, there is no bond to put towards any monetary award made.
As the Tenant has not been substantially successful in their claim, the Tenant shall pay their own filing fee and name suppression is granted to the Landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4683049 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4683049 — Mould & damp

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