What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4778257 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay Booney Booney $100.00 immediately, as calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4778257?

Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4778257?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4778257?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10356212-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4778257 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay Booney Booney $100.00 immediately, as calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4778257?

Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4778257?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4778257?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10356212-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4778257 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4778257 — net $100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$900.00		Rent arrears
Compensation		$1,000.00	Compensation
Total award	$900.00	$1,000.00
Net award		$100.00
Bond		$1,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$100.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4778257 — net $100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$900.00		Rent arrears
Compensation		$1,000.00	Compensation
Total award	$900.00	$1,000.00
Net award		$100.00
Bond		$1,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$100.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay Booney Booney $100.00 immediately, as calculated below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Booney Booney immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Anderson, with the Tribunal’s consent, represented the tenant. The landlord’s application
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount of rent owing. The tenancy ended by a consent order on 23 April 2024. The rent arrears comprise the first two weeks’ rent.
Mr Anderson said the tenant said he did not pay rent for the first 2 weeks because she considered the premises to be uninhabitable as some repairs were required and the toilet required affixing to the floor.
The tenant’s documentary evidence comprises photos and a report from Mr Anderson in his capacity as a builder and property manager.
I explained to him (and he accepted) that he could not be both a witness and a representative. He elected to remain the tenant’s representative. I have not taken his report of his observations into account.
The tenant asked for the tenancy to start two weeks after the agreed start date. The landlord did not agree to that. The tenant went on holiday for those two weeks.
In the absence of an agreement, the tenancy started on the date specified in the tenancy agreement and the tenant’s liability for rent began then.
The evidence does not establish that the premises were uninhabitable for the first two weeks of the tenancy. Some minor repairs were required. That does not relieve the tenant of her responsibility to pay rent.
The tenant is therefore liable for rent arrears of $900.00. The tenant’s application
The tenant has applied for compensation of $6,750.00 for her loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the presence of mould. She sought to increase that to equate to almost all the rent she paid.
Rent can only abate when the premises are destroyed or are so seriously damaged, in whole or in part, so as to become uninhabitable. Even then, a full rebate of rent is seldom, if ever, applied. That was confirmed in the case law that developed after the Christchurch earthquakes when some cases on premises that were wholly or partly destroyed came before the Tribunal and the District Court.
So, the tenant’s claim for compensation equal to most or all of the rent she paid, is unrealistic.
The photos produced in evidence show premises that were generally tidy and maintained, though aged. Mr Anderson accepted that the landlord (or her daughter, a property manager) quite promptly addressed the repair issues the tenant raised.
The premises are compliant with the Health Homes Standards (HHS) as evidenced by a report produced in evidence by the landlord. The HHS do not specifically test for mould. The ventilation, heating, and moisture standards aim to prevent mould and to make premises drier and healthier.
The tenant raised the mould issue with the landlord early in the tenancy. It seems to have particularly affected the windows.
The landlord denied there as mould. She believed that the discoloured windowsills were due to staining from condensation. That is probably correct.
However, the tenant’s concerns could have been better addressed.
Mould is a complex issue and one that affects many New Zealand homes.
The tenant produced a mould analysis report in evidence. The landlord queried the reliability of the report though she accepted that Mr Anderson probably took the mould samples from the house.
The report shows the presence of two kinds of mould in one bedroom and the bathroom, three kinds of mould in another bedroom and the shower, and four kinds of mould in the exterior/soffit areas.
Except for cladosporium, the identified mould levels are recorded at level 1 which is described as very low covering less than 5% of the representative field of view.
The cladosporium samples were identified at level 3 which is described as moderate, the fungal material between 25% and 75% of a representative field of view.
So, the report confirmed the tenant’s suspicion that there was mould in the premises, mostly at very low levels, but some at a moderate level.
Cladosporium is described in the report as allergenic with rare cases of cutaneous and pulmonary infections in immunocompromised individuals.
I find that the landlord should have addressed the tenant’s concerns when first raised by having a mould assessment done, even though she thought that an expensive process.
The tenant’s complaint about mould was confirmed by the testing she had done.
I accept that the tenant suffered a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy as a result.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must take into account the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
This tenancy lasted a short time, about four and a half months. The level of mould contamination was generally low, but with cladosporium at a moderate level. It was an issue that the landlord should have addressed early in the tenancy. The tenant was right to be concerned about it as she has a young child.
The landlord agreed to release the tenant from the fixed term tenancy without penalty. It is appropriate that the Tribunal take that into account.
I award the tenant compensation of $1,000.00 for her loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the confirmed presence of mould in the premises, an issue that was not remedied. Result
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears of $900.00 is proved. The landlord will pay the tenant compensation of $1,000.00 for her loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the presence of mould that was not rectified. Deducting the rent arrears from the award of compensation, the landlord will pay the tenant $100.00.
The bond will be paid to the tenant.
As both applications have succeeded in part, I make no order reimbursing the filing fees each party paid. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression
The landlord sought, and is entitled to, name suppression as her application is successful – see section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not seek an order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4778257 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4778257 — Rent arrears

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