What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4814920 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,196.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4814920?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4814920?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Leaks, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4814920?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10460968-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4814920 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,196.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4814920?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4814920?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Leaks, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4814920?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10460968-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4814920 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The Tenant has applied for breach of Healthy Home Standards, compensation and refund of the bond. Refund of the bond

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.

Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. Breach of Healthy Home Standards

Aleksandar Pejovic and Rebecca Louise Thorburn claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Aleksandar Pejovic and Rebecca Louise Thorburn considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard. There was multiple and ongoing leaking at the property which the Tenants believed were breaches.

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.

The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

In this case, the Tenant has not provided evidence of an updated Healthy Homes Report to prove there was a breach in this standard. There were leaks at the property which was confirmed by the Landlord but this does not mean that the Landlord was in breach in this Healthy Home standard. The Landlord had a Healthy Homes report commissioned in 2019 but it is the Tenant to provide evidence now to prove the home was in breach. This is because they are the Applicant in these proceedings and the onus lies on the Tenant to prove their claim.

The claim is dismissed. Compensation

The Tenants claim compensation of $3800.00 which is a cumulative amount of rent reduction due to the leaks they experienced through the walls and the pipes bursting. The Tenants were not clear with the exact times these events occurred but stated they occurred after they moved in, a year after they moved in and then a year before they moved out. They submitted there was repeated flooding and mould growth resulting in personal items being ruined by water damage in the three rooms downstairs. Their daughter, who occupied a bedroom downstairs had to move upstairs due to flooding under her bed. The daughter also suffered respiratory issues due to the persistent mould growing however no medical evidence was provided to substantiate the connection. The Tenants provided photographs of damp carpet in a few of the bedrooms, holes in the walls and broken skirting.

The Landlord had acknowledged there were leaks and submitted they had reduced the rent by $1600.00 from 8 November 2023 to 7 January 2024 in agreement with the Tenants. The issue had now been resolved so no further compensation was required and the Tenant had a choice to move upstairs if they found the conditions challenging.

In considering the evidence, the Tenants have not provided sufficient evidence to support their claim. They provided photographs showing the carpet being wet and skirting damage however nothing to substantiate these were caused by the leaks such as email correspondence between the parties, a building inspector assessment or some independent expert to qualify that the damage was caused by the ongoing leaks. There was also nothing to prove the time period in which the leaks occurred because the Tenant gave vague timeframes and the photographs were not time stamped. The Tribunal cannot quantify the extent of compensation if there is nothing proving when it first started and ended. There was no photographs of the flooding or burst pipes, only holes in the wall. There was nothing from a Plumber to substantiate this damage either.

The Landlord acknowledged water leaks for a brief period however the Tenants did not provide any evidence to show this period should have been extended. There was also no medical evidence to show the daughter suffered from medical issues related directly to the mould and dampness of this property.

The claim is dismissed due to the lack of sufficient evidence.

As the Landlord has been substantially successful in their defence of this claim, the Landlord is granted name suppression. The Tenant did not seek name suppression.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The Tenant has applied for breach of Healthy Home Standards, compensation and refund of the bond. Refund of the bond

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

The claim is dismissed. Compensation

The claim is dismissed due to the lack of sufficient evidence.

As the Landlord has been substantially successful in their defence of this claim, the Landlord is granted name suppression. The Tenant did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4814920 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4814920 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions