What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4740209?

The tribunal order states: Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities must pay Simone Maree Templeton

How much money was awarded in case 4740209?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4740209?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4740209?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10273174-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4740209?

The tribunal order states: Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities must pay Simone Maree Templeton

How much money was awarded in case 4740209?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4740209?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4740209?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10273174-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Ashwood Street, Parklands, Christchurch 8083 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4740209 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Reay represented the landlord.

The tenant, Ms Templeton, applied for work orders, compensation and exemplary damages. She claims that the premises suffer from ‘rising damp’, causing the house to be cold and damp, and she wants the landlord to seal the concrete floor and treat the premises for mould. She also sought an order requiring the carpets in the premises to be replaced however the carpets were replaced in December 2023 and therefore a work order is no longer required for the carpets. Ms Templeton’s claim for compensation and/or exemplary damages arises out of three separate floods that occurred during 2023. Has Ms Templeton established her claim for compensation and/or exemplary damages?

Ms Templeton claims that the landlord is in breach of section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) with respect to three flood events that occurred on 28 July 2023, 26 October 2023, and 4 November 2023.

Section 45(1)(b) provides that the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Once the landlord becomes aware of the need for repairs, the obligation in section 45(1)(b) requires those repairs to be attended to in a timely manner. A failure to comply with section 45(1)(b) may entitle the tenant to compensation. Failure to comply is also declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be payable: section 45(1A) of the Act.

The 28 July event occurred when a plumber was replacing the sink in the kitchen. It seems that the plumber broke a pipe while completing the installation and water flooded the kitchen, dining room, laundry, and hall. The landlord immediately had a plumber fix the pipe and employed contractors to dry the house using a fan/blower and a dehumidifier over a period of four days.

Then, on 26 October, the hot water cylinder had a leak causing an area of the hall carpet to be, as Ms Templeton put it, “damp and squishy”. Ms Templeton phoned the landlord the next day and a was employed to fix the leak.

The most damaging event occurred on 4 November when a pipe in the hot water cylinder burst causing water to flood through most of the house. Ms Templeton contacted the landlord and the pipe was repaired/replaced and a ‘clean-up crew’ was employed. Ms Templeton said that the crew vacuumed the water and they set up drying fans/blowers and dehumidifiers. It was the landlords’ evidence that seven blowers and six dehumidifiers were used over a period of six days.

I fully accept that the flood events, and in particular the 4 November event, was very distressing and disruptive for Ms Templeton and her daughter. I also accept that she lost possessions due to water damage for which she had no insurance cover. However, I am not satisfied that Ms Templeton has established that the landlord was in breach of any obligation under the Act or the tenancy agreement with respect to the events. As accepted by Ms Templeton these were a series of unfortunate incidents, and there was no dispute that the landlord acted promptly to have the necessary repairs completed when required. This means that Ms Templeton has not established her claim for compensation or exemplary damages for breach of section 45(1)(b) of the Act.

However, despite my finding that the landlord is not in breach of section 45(1)(b) of the Act, I consider it reasonable that the landlord compensate Ms Templeton for the cost to run the vacuum machine, fans and dehumidifiers which were a necessary part of the obligation to repair.

Ms Templeton accepted a $30.00 grocery voucher from the landlord as compensation for the July event and Ms Reay provided a calculation based on Ms Templeton’s power consumption in November 2022 compared to November 2023 and offered the sum of $100.00 based on that comparison ($86.86 rounded up to $100.00). I consider this reasonable in the circumstances and order the landlord to pay this sum as compensation for the additional power consumption as a result of the use of the drying and extraction machines.

Is Ms Templeton entitled to the work orders sought?

To be entitled to the orders sought, Ms Templeton must establish that the landlord is in breach of the obligation in section 45(1)(b) of the Act (to repair and maintain the premises). To put it in other words, she must establish that there is some defect with the premises that requires remediating.

As mentioned, Ms Templeton claims that the house suffers from rising damp which is making the house cold and damp and has caused mould to build on and/or behind the walls. She provided photographs and videos in support. Ms Templeton claims that the evidence supports her claim that there are soft areas in the wall linings, wallpaper peeling/bubbling, a crack in the living room ceiling all caused by water ingress. The photographs of carpets after they were lifted in December 2023 show extensive staining on the back of them and areas of the concrete floor also show staining/darker coloured areas. Ms Templeton claims that this also establishes that there is moisture rising from the concrete floor.

I am not satisfied that Ms Templeton has provided sufficient evidence to support her claim that there is a problem with moisture or mould in the premises. Contractors employed by the landlord could not find any of the claimed soft areas in the wall linings and the wallpaper issues and ceiling crack are likely simply due to its age. Ms Reay said that the carpets were aged and worn and were replaced in December 2023 as part of the scheduled maintenance for the property. The walls and ceilings were also plastered and painted soon after, also as part of the scheduled maintenance program. Thus, the staining on the carpets and concrete could have occurred over time due to drinks and the like being spilt. Moreover, given the flood events in 2023 there is likely to be extensive water staining as a result.

However, the most compelling evidence that supports the landlord’s claim that the property does not have a rising damp or moisture ingress issue is the results of moisture testing completed on 12 December 2023 and again on 22 December 2023 (after the carpet had been removed). The report of the 12 December testing records that moisture readings were taken from several areas around the house and all readings were at acceptable levels.

The report of the testing completed on 22 December record that there were no stress cracks in the concrete floor and no damp marks were seen. There was no signs of water ingress or mould. Ms Templeton had said that the carpet gets damp after she waters the lawn and she had been watering the lawn for the three days before the tests were taken. The results of testing of the living room floor were between 0.4 and 0.5 which are within acceptable levels. There were higher levels in Ms Templeton’s bedroom close to the window but at 1.0 and 1.4, they were still considered to be within acceptable levels.

Ms Templeton provided video evidence that supports that one of the readings taken in her bedroom by the window was in fact 2.7. However, there is insufficient evidence to support that this is still not within an acceptable level. Moreover, there is no evidence to support that it is due to ‘rising damp’ through the concrete floor. The writer of the moisture testing report records that the higher levels in the bedroom by the window are likely due to moisture wicking from the windowsills.

This means that Ms Templeton has not established her claim that there is a problem with rising damp or moisture ingress, or a problem with mould in the premises that requires remediating. Her claim for a work order is therefore dismissed.

Ms Templeton has been mostly unsuccessful with her claim, and I do not consider this an appropriate case to award her payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Reay represented the landlord.

Is Ms Templeton entitled to the work orders sought?

Ms Templeton has been mostly unsuccessful with her claim, and I do not consider this an appropriate case to award her payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4740209 — Mould & damp at 11 Ashwood Street, Parklands, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4740209 — Mould & damp at 11 Ashwood Street, Parklands, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is Ms Templeton entitled to the work orders sought?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is Ms Templeton entitled to the work orders sought?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions