What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4732417 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4732417?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4732417?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4732417?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10116125-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4732417 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4732417?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4732417?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4732417?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10116125-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 1, 13 Haast Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4732417 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Ms Sanina and Ms Gonzales attended on behalf of the landlord.

Both the landlord and tenant provided significant amounts of information and evidence both orally at the hearing and by way of documents provided to the Tribunal.

I have read, reviewed, and considered all the information made available to me. It has not been necessary to refer to all of it in what follows. Background

The tenancy began on 10 February 2023.

The property is of an architectural type which includes concrete block walls (including internally), raked ceilings and skylights.

The relationship between the parties has been characterised by a certain degree of mistrust and miscommunication.

This has resulted in issues, which should have been resolved, becoming much more complicated and difficult to remedy.

Very soon after the tenancy began, the tenant reported a shower leak, and issues with the washing machine and kitchen sink.

These issues were addressed but the shower leak returned and had to be fixed several times before the issue was eventually resolved.

At a property inspection on 27 June 2023, the manager noticed mould growth in the bathroom and on window frames and asked the tenant to clean it.

A fourteen-day notice was issued by the landlord in relation to these matters on 30 June 2023.

The tenant had noticed minor mould signs in the smaller bedroom on the curtain and wall just after she moved in. The landlord said that the minor mould residue on the curtains had been treated previously and was not active. It was difficult to say whether the photos provided by the tenant of the concrete block wall showed mould. The tenant had made no reference to mould in the bathroom or on window frames.

The tenant also gave evidence that Tenancy Services told her that if mould continued to be an issue after it had been cleaned off, it was up to the landlord to remedy it. Failure to maintain and failure to comply with Healthy Homes standards

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45, a landlord must, amongst other things; provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; comply with the healthy homes standards; and comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety, under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 under section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

Ms Eden issued a fourteen-day notice on 7 July 2023 outlining several alleged failures on the part of the landlord relating to mould, draughts, and dampness, and asking for the issues to be remedied.

In response, the landlord asked Matthew Lewis, qualified builder, to inspect the property on 18 July 2023.

Jim Cullinane, a window and door repair specialist also attended on the same day to inspect for draughts.

An email from Mr Cullinane confirms that there were no gaps in the doors that required remediation. There were some gaps in the window seal in a bedroom and these were remedied.

Ms Eden gave evidence that she could feel draughts around doors and windows but the expert information before me confirms that any gaps are within appropriate tolerances.

Mr Lewis provided a written report and gave evidence in person before the Tribunal.

His inspection included moisture readings and the property was almost entirely dry. The testing equipment does not pick up condensation (damp air) so the readings accurately show that the property itself is not damp.

Areas where dampness was present related to the previous shower leak and Mr Lewis recommended that the skirtings be replaced as the MDF would be unlikely to dry out fully once wet (this has been done).

The MDF under the kitchen sink showed signs of previous water damage and was painted to help with any residual smell (Mr Lewis could not detect a smell but the tenant could).

Mr Lewis confirmed that the cedar frame of the skylights had likely become damp due to condensation or old leaks and had blacked as cedar does when in contact with moisture.

Mr Lewis considered that the original Healthy Homes report prepared by Snug Insulation Limited in October 2020 (and provided as evidence to the Tribunal), was “correct and accurate”.

Mr Lewis confirmed that the shower leak required multiple attempts to fix but had no information to confirm the tenant’s comment that the most recent repair had failed.

Mr Lewis had been attending this property for many years and through several tenants and knew of no issues with mould or moisture before this tenancy.

The landlord confirmed this by providing property inspection reports from three separate prior tenancies where there were no such issues reported.

Mr Lewis made recommendations to enable the tenant to better reduce condensation.

The essence of Mr Lewis’ report was to confirm that the property meets healthy homes standards and that no further work was required by the landlord.

Ms Eden issued another 14-day notice on 19 October 2023, with much the same concerns raised. The landlord referred her to Mr Lewis’s report and said there was nothing further the landlord was required to do in respect of these issues.

The landlord provided copies of 12 invoices (dated from 21 February 2023 to 9 February 2024) to show the work done on the property during this tenancy.

There is no evidence that suggests to me the landlord has failed to maintain the property or that the landlord is in breach of the Healthy Homes requirements. On the contrary, the landlord went to great lengths and expense to confirm that the property is compliant with Healthy Homes standards and to help Ms Eden reduce condensation.

The tenant also raised issues in relation to silverfish, possible roof leaks and other matters. I considered all of these and find that none of these matters give rise to a breach of the Act on the landlord’s behalf.

While there was evidence provided by both parties that the other was responsible for the mould and condensation issues, I find the evidence provided by the landlord and their witness to be persuasive and I accept it.

There was also evidence provide by both parties in relation to delays in work being completed. Ms Eden wished to be present in her home when tradespeople and others visited but her working hours occasionally made this difficult.

There were occasional delays in getting repairs completed to an appropriate standard, but these were not excessive and were due, in part at least, to the tenant’s own requirements.

Given that there is no failure to maintain or failure to comply with Healthy Homes requirements, there are no breaches in relation to these matters and no compensation or exemplary damages can or should be awarded to the tenant. Delay in lodging bond

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.

On 8 June 2023 Tenancy Services sent a letter to Ms Eden confirming that the bond was received on 28 March 2023. The bond records available to the Tribunal show the bond was lodged on 31 March 2023.

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received under section 19(1) of the Act. This meant the bond should have been paid to the Bond Centre by 15 March 2023.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 under section 19(2) and Schedule 1A of the Act.

The landlord provided evidence by way of banking records to show that the bond for this property was lodged on 14 February 2023.

The landlord could not explain why the Bond Centre had a different receipt date but confirmed that payment had been made by them to the Bond Centre on 14 February 2023.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest under section 109(3) of the Act.

The landlord’s banking records show that if the bond was received later than the required timeframe, there was no intention on its part to lodge the bond outside of the required timeframe. Therefore, no exemplary damages can or should be awarded to the tenant. End of fixed term tenancy and proposed rent increase

The landlord wrote to the tenant on 30 November 2023 asking if she intended to remain in the property on a periodic tenancy following the end of her fixed term in early February 2024 and advising that, if so, the new rent would be $350.00.

The letter also contained a paragraph which stated, “[I]n the event that you have not signed a new tenancy by the above-mentioned deadline, you must vacate the property on 11/02/2024”.

Usually, on receipt of this standard letter, a tenant would contact Braziers to let them know what the tenant’s plans were, if they wished to stay on, and if they were able to pay the new rental amount.

However, Ms Eden saw this letter as an eviction notice. Rather than contact the landlord, Ms Eden says she contacted Tenancy Services who confirmed that her fixed term tenancy would automatically revert to a periodic tenancy at the end of the term and that the landlord was not able to end her tenancy. She says she was told that she did not have to respond to the letter and that it did not meet the requirements for a rent increase notice.

Ms Eden did not respond to this email or to the following voicemails, emails or texts sent by the landlord.

On 23 January 2024 the landlord wrote again saying they had not received any response from Ms Eden to their many attempts to contact her and nor had they received notice that the tenancy was to end so it would automatically roll over to a periodic tenancy at the end of the fixed term with the new rental being $350 per week as notified earlier. The tenant, again, did not respond.

Ms Eden contacted tenancy Services when she received each of the letters sent by the landlord in relation to her continuing in the property at the end of the fixed term to see if the letters properly constituted rent increase notices under the Act. She says she was told they did not.

In a strictly legal sense, this is correct. However, I consider that it is both unusual and unhelpful for a tenant to refuse to contact a landlord on an issue as important as whether they intend to remain in a property at the end of a fixed term.

Ms Eden knew she wanted to stay in the property and knew that the landlord was expecting the rent to increase. Her refusal to engage put the landlord in a difficult position.

When the increased rent was taken out of Ms Eden’s bank account on the first week of the periodic tenancy, she issued a fourteen-day notice to remedy.

The landlord cancelled the direct credit and refunded the $15.00 that was being disputed. The landlord provided Ms Eden with instructions as to how to pay the rent manually until the matter was resolved.

Ms Eden confirmed at the hearing that she was able to pay the new rent and wishes to remain in the property.

There is no application before me for rent arrears and I make no orders in this regard. I expect that the landlord will wish to issue a rent increase notice that complies with the requirements of the Act if they have not already done so. Name suppression

The tenant requested name suppression but as she has not been successful, no name suppression is ordered.

Reasons