What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4842258 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4842258?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4842258?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4842258?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11277736-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4842258 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4842258?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4842258?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4842258?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11277736-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4842258 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4842258 — net $1,400.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Damage to internal doors	$2,500.00	Damage to internal doors
Damage to carport shed cladding	$200.00	Damage to carport shed cladding
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,400.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,400.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4842258 — net $1,400.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Damage to internal doors	$2,500.00	Damage to internal doors
Damage to carport shed cladding	$200.00	Damage to carport shed cladding
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,400.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,400.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and the Tenants’ name and identifying details along with the names of any witnesses.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,400.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The remainder of the landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The tenants claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Background to the hearing of the claims

There is a history to these claims which is set out in my order of 11 April 2024. In summary, the landlord filed an application in 2020 1 for damage to two internal doors and damage to the lawn. The claim and the tenants’ cross application 2 were referred to mediation. A mediated order resulted recording, in relation to the damaged doors, an agreement that the tenants were to replace two doors (the hallway door and the master bedroom door) which were to be installed to a workmanlike standard before 26 January 2022.
The tenants replaced one door with a thinner door made of a different coloured wood and patched two holes in the master bedroom door. Therefore the tenant did not install replacement doors as agreed under the mediated order.
The landlord then filed this claim seeking to terminate the tenancy as the tenants had caused damage to the premises (5 doors had been damaged, including the 2 doors covered in the mediated agreement) and for compensation for the damaged doors.
The first hearing of the landlord’s claim 3 was to consider whether the tenancy would be terminated, but in doing so considered the damage to the doors. My decision was to dismiss the application for termination. The hearing was adjourned to hear the remainder of the landlord’s claim and the tenant’s cross application which was filed the day before the hearing and had not been received by the landlord.
A further application from the landlord for a possession order was received on the basis they had terminated the tenancy by giving a 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy as they were intending to sell or alternatively to carry out extensive renovations. I found the termination notice was valid and on 26 June 2024 granted immediate possession to the landlord.
The landlord amended their claim to include further claims and to increase the amount claimed for the damaged doors.
Meanwhile the applications that are the subject of this order were scheduled to be heard several times between but were adjourned due to sickness, to enable the possession order application to be heard and as the landlord was not available. The matter was finally heard on 6 November 2024, with both the landlords and the tenants in attendance.
The claims being considered and determined are: 1 2 3 Held on 9 April 2 a) The landlord’s claim compensation for damage to: • interior doors, • the front door and • to the cladding of the shed associated with the carport.
Their claim was rent arrears is withdrawn. b) The tenants’ claim compensation for: •Mould as a result of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) relating to moisture ingress, draught stopping and insulation being breached and the premises not being maintained to a reasonable standard •The premises not being maintained in a reasonable state as - the carpet was worn -the landlord took too long to repair the heat pump and the roof leak; •Breach of privacy and quiet enjoyment.
Both parties seek reimbursement of the filing fee. At the end of the hearing the bond remained at the Bond Centre, and I advised the parties I would consider the refund of the bond as part of the determination of the claims.
In considering the claims, the standard of proof or the level of evidence required is ‘on the balance of probabilities’. In other words, the party bringing the claim (the applicant) must establish with evidence that their claim is “more likely than not” what has occurred.
I note that a significant amount of evidence/documents was filed, particularly by the landlord. I have considered all evidence in considering the claims, regardless that I may not have referred to every document considered in my decision. Background to the tenancy
The tenancy is a periodic tenancy which commenced on 18 December 2019. The premises was built in the late 1970s and has an open plan kitchen dining with a separate lounge and three bedrooms. The bathroom and toilet are separate. Rent at the end of the tenancy was $480 a week.
The landlord put the house on the market after taking possession and the property was sold before the hearing held on 6 November 2024. The landlord’s claim

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to five internal doors:
The landlord seeks compensation of $5,945.50 inc gst for damage to 5 internal mahogany veneer doors 4 , including the 2 doors that were the subject of the mediated order. Following an inspection of the premises, [the landlord’s builder], builder described the condition of the doors in June 2024 as follows: a) Master Bedroom Door has a vinyl wrap applied to one side of the door b) Bathroom Door has vinyl wrap applied to both sides of the door 4 The doors during the hearings have been referred to as both mahogany and rimu veneer doors. The builder, [The landlord’s builder] has referred to the doors being replaced by sapele doors; sapele is a timber that is often referred to as African Mahogany. c) Toilet Door has vinyl wrap applied to one side of the door. The other side of the door has a visible crack/split. d) Hall/dining Door is a different colour wood (lighter) and a different thickness (thinner) than the other doors. e) Laundry Door has adhesive hooks applied to the inside of laundry side of the door to cover holes.
[The landlord’s builder] described the vinyl wrap to the doors as being a different colour to the existing doors. The landlord says the texture of the wrapped doors is quite different to the wood veneer on the existing doors.
The tenants’ view is that the wrapped doors are professional and look different because they are new and look ‘flasher’ than the existing doors. The tenants contend the existing doors are aged, have wear and tear and are of various colours as some doors have faded more than others.
It is not disputed that the wrap has been applied to cover damage caused by the tenants.
Much has been said about the doors and their condition during the Tribunal hearings by the parties. At the end of the day I need to consider objectively whether the tenants have intentionally or carelessly damaged the doors and breached their obligation under s 40(2)(a) of the RTA. I also have to consider the effect of the tenants’ breach of the mediated order.
I find the tenants have intentionally caused damage to the doors that they have had vinyl wrapped. In making this finding I do not consider that the tenants’ decision to vinyl wrap the doors provides an acceptable remedy to rectify the damaged doors. Vinyl wrap is a different material to wood and I accept from the evidence that it has a different colour and finish to the original doors.
I find the door that was replaced by the tenants, which was hung as the hall/dining door at the end of the tenancy, was thinner and made of a different wood to the rest of the veneer doors and did not match. I find the replacement door is not an acceptable remedy and has resulted in the tenants causing intentional damage to the premises.
In relation to the laundry door, the tenants had put a hole in the door when they moved their washing machine. They filled the hole. I find this was careless damage. The remaining hooks on the back of the door were removed and adhesive plastic hooks were placed over the holes.
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has breached the tenancy agreement or any provisions contained in the RTA, and where the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. It is a well-accepted principle when awarding damages that, so far as money can do it, the injured party shall be put in the same position as they would have been in but for the breach.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court, noting the decision of the Tribunal in Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No.2) Auckland TT 2378/92, confirmed that the Tribunal must take into account the following factors: a) The nature of the breach; b) The duration of the breach; and c) The effect of the breach on the party.
In considering the compensation to be awarded I have considered all of the evidence and submissions presented by the parties, including: • Four internal doors look quite different to the rest of the doors. The [real estate agent]’s comments 5 that: “the effect of the damaged and mismatched doors is a tricky one until we find our buyer” and that “the value of replacing the damaged doors, to match the undamaged doors would come into this, usually this kind of buyer would talk in rounded figures $10 thousand or $20 thousand increments, I would imagine they would reduce their offer by $10 thousand to replace the damaged doors with doors that match the existing ones.” • Evidence has not been presented that establishes the price paid by the purchasers included a reduction based on the condition of the doors. However 4 out of 6 attendees at open homes made written comments regarding concerns over the condition of the doors. Concerns about the condition of other chattels and parts of the house were also raised in the comments from open home attendees, including that 5 out of 6 noted the carpet needs replacing. Regardless, I am persuaded it is likely a reduced price was paid as any purchaser would at least carry out repairs on the damaged doors but more likely replace all of the doors. • [The landlord’s builder] quoted $1,189.10 per door ($5,945.50 for 5 doors) to replace the doors with new sapele veneer doors; sapele or African Mahogany doors were quoted as they are a similar product to the original doors. This is in keeping with the estimate from [The joiner] for $5,567.91 for 5 mahogany veneer doors. • The tenants breached the mediated order dated 27 January 2022 by not replacing the doors as agreed. Under the order I find similar or ‘like for like’ doors were to be installed. This has been an on-going issue for the landlord. • The original doors are at least 45 years old. The pre-tenancy inspection report recorded damage to two doors at the start of the tenancy, being one hole that had been filled in a wardrobe door and a dent in a door. The 5 Who listed and sold the property remaining doors were undamaged, in that there were no obvious dents or holes in them. • The laundry door was damaged when the washing machine was being moved into the laundry. The landlord raised the damage to the dining and master bedroom doors after their inspection in August 2020. By the January 2022 inspection the bathroom door was damaged, and the landlord’s noted the toilet door was damaged in doing their inspection in December 2022. The mediation order recorded an agreement that the tenants would replace the hallway and master bedroom doors by 26 January 2022 which did not take place. The tenants continued to use the doors 6 in such a way that doors kept getting damaged. It is reasonable to expect that after the first damamge the tenants would take the care needed so that other doors were not damaged. • New doors would put the landlord into a better position than they were in before the damage was done, particularly given two doors were already damaged. I consider the landlord’s hollow core wood interior doors would be close to the end of, if they have not already surpassed, their reasonable economic life span in a tenanted property.
The above factors set out the nature of the breach. The duration of the breach in this instance has resulted in a drawn out process but as stated above it is the condition of the doors at the end of the tenancy that needs to be considered. The effect of the breach on the landlord is that the house has mismatched doors that have likely meant a lesser price was received for the property than had they been matching. However I am not convinced by the real estate agent’s comments that means the value of the premises is reduced by $10,000.00.
In considering all the above factors and taking better and depreciation into account, along with the breach of the mediated order, I find an award of $2,500.00 is reasonable compensation. The effect of the breach of the mediated order is that the landlord is entitled to compensation on the basis that the agreement/order has been breached and entitled to be put back into the position they would have been in had the tenant replaced the two doors in January 2022. I find the cost is likely to have been less than [the landlord’s builder]’s quote dated June 2024 and [the joiner’s] estimate dated March 2024, and find the global amount awarded for the 5 doors is reasonable given that factor. Damage to the front door
The landlord says that the inside hardboard surface of the front door was damaged by the tenants. The landlord repaired the surface by gluing the rip in the hardboard and nailing the hardboard to the door frame on the inside. After the tenancy ended the landlord replaced the front door. The amount claimed 6 My comment includes the use of the doors by the tenants’ children. ($1,397.25 7 ) is based on the quote given by [the landlord’s builder] for a new front door.
The tenants said the bottom of the wood on the door was swelling and sticking to the sill in the corner under the handle. [The tenant/s] thought nails in the bottom of the frame were catching on the swollen wood. He said the hardboard was loose and flapping which is why it ripped. The tenants said the door was old and that the landlord had previously had to nail and glue the outside of the door as well.
I find the damage to the front door was intentional damage as the tenants knew the door was sticking when they were opened and closed the door but continued to use it without advising the landlord of the damage. I am satisfied that repair to the outside of the front door has not caused or contributed to the ripped hardboard on the inside surface of the front, but does show the age and overall condition of the door.
The landlord repaired the inside of the door during the tenancy. The door was not replaced during the tenancy. That means the landlord considered the repaired door was to the standard required for the landlord to meet their obligation to maintain the property to a reasonable standard 8 . If that is not the case then the landlord has breached their obligation to do so. I find the door was likely to be past its economic life span in a rental property, and given the landlord’s repair to the door find the tenant’s are not liable for any cost relating to the door damage. Damage to the carport storage shed cladding
The photographs presented by the landlord establish seven areas of damage that occurred during the tenancy to the hardiplank cladding of the storage area associated with the carport. The landlord renewed the cladding to the storage area around 33 years ago. The landlord seeks $960.25, which is the sum [the landlord’s builder] quoted to repair some of the cladding. Since his quote further damage has been done to the cladding and to the plastic capping/guard.
The tenants say the cladding and capping are old and frail, and damage easily. They also said the carport floods which is why the bottom of the cladding is mouldy and frail.
From the damage I am satisfied the tenants have carelessly damaged the cladding. I accept the materials are old and prone to damage, however the tenants should have been aware of that given the length of time they lived at the property and should have treated the cladding with more due care than the damage indicates. Instead the damage continued, with the bulk of the damage occurring later in the tenancy. The tenants did not notify the landlord of any 7 Increased in the amendment made on 12 June 2024. 8 If that is not the case then the landlord has breached their obligation to do so under s 45(1)(b), RTA. damage to the storage area, but left the landlord to find the damage when they inspected the property.
The landlord repaired one area of damage, and in doing so did not replace a full sheet of cladding but repaired only the broken area under a rail, which was quite low to the ground. The landlord say they have received a lesser sale price for the property given the damage. I am persuaded that it is likely a lower price was received that if the cladding was not damaged, however there is no evidence presented to support what the reduced price was.
Considering the age of the cladding, the repairs undertaken, the likelihood of a lower purchase price given the condition of the damaged cladding and betterment associated with the cost of replacing the cladding with new materials I find that $200.00 is reasonable compensation for this breach.
The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed as breach of section 40(2)(a) is not deemed to be an unlawful act and exemplary damages are therefore not available for breach of this provision of the RTA. The tenants’ claim

Did the landlord breach the tenants right to privacy and quiet enjoyment?

Under section 38(1) of the RTA a tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or their agent/s. Section 38(2) provides that a landlord is not to cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of a tenant.
The tenants say the landlord breached their right to quiet enjoyment for the following reasons: a) The landlord stood across the road and took photographs of the house on several occasions, and after the female moved out to live in [street name], the landlord was seen sitting in their vehicle on the road close to where she was living; b) The landlord’s vehicle was parked down the road from their house for an hour before they were due to inspect the property on several occasions; c) Repairs to the chimney and the chip heater should have been fixed in less time than occurred which resulted in the landlord being at the house for longer than needed. d) The landlord took longer to complete maintenance than it should have taken and then would advise of a house inspection. e) The landlord swore at the tenants after a dead patch appeared on the lawn and accused us of having a dog. The landlord then told a property manager in [town] that the male tenant is violent and aggressive. The tenants say this has resulted in them not being able to get a house for rent together in [town] and are living apart, as the agent that was told has one of the biggest rental portfolios in [town]. f)During covid, when lock down rules were in place, the landlord was found in the back yard area without giving notice that he would be coming to the property.
The tenants say that as a result of the above actions they felt they were constantly being watched and “picked on” by the landlord and their privacy was breached.
Having considered the landlord’s response to the above allegations I am not convinced that the landlord has breached the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment and privacy as I am satisfied that: a) the landlord admitted he once took a photograph from across the street as there were a number of cars parked on the front lawn which was in breach of the mediated order. The tenants have not provided any evidence (such as specific dates when this occurred) supporting their contention that this occurred more than once. In relation to the [street name] incident the landlord said they had no idea that the female tenant was living in [street name] and that they had coincidentally parked there as the male landlord had been to the dentist which is nearby; b) the landlord agrees they were parked down the road before an inspection as they arrived early. The landlord says that was for five minutes. The tenants have no supporting or corroborative evidence showing this occurred more than once or that the landlord was sitting there for the time alleged. c) the chip heater repair was involved and was carried out over a number of days so that the landlord was not at the premises before the tenants’ children went to, or came home from, school. I am satisfied the landlord was being respectful in when the repair was done. The chimney leak repair needed further work as a leak continued. I do not find it uncommon that a leak is not fixed during the first repair and needs to be checked after the repair to ensure the leak has stopped. I am satisfied the landlord gave appropriate notice for each entry to repair and check the repairs. d) The landlord carried out inspections every three months and was entitled to do so. When a landlord issues a 14 day notice it is usual and reasonable that the landlord follows up with an inspection after the 14 days to ensure the remedy has been done. e) The landlord said he did not raise his voice during the incident the tenant is referring to but that the tenant verbally abused him. The landlord said they had evidence of a dog being at the property and had raised that with the tenant. f)The landlord talked to the property manager who asked for a reference for the female tenant as she was moving out dure to relationship problems with the male tenant. The property manager, gave evidence that the landlord told her there was an incident where the male tenant became “quite aggressive” and as a result he was not allowed to be home for property inspections. g) The landlord had a fence painted by a contractor and wanted to check the work had been carried out satisfactorily. The RTA allows a landlord to come onto the outside of a property without giving notice. Regardless the landlord says they gave notice to enter to the tenants via email and were not in breach of any covid restrictions at the time.
In relation to the incident at the property between the male landlord and the male tenant, there are two differing views on who became verbally abusive and aggressive. No independent evidence has been presented and I have no reason to prefer either the tenant’s or the landlord’s evidence about this incident. Accordingly as it is for the tenant as the applicant to prove their claim I find the claim is not sufficiently proven. However I am not satisfied from the property manager’s evidence that the comment made to her is the reason the male tenant has been unable to secure a rental property. Was the premises mouldy as the landlord failed to meet their obligations in respect of the HHS or not maintaining the premises?
The tenants maintain that the two bedrooms on the rear end of the premises were mouldy and that they had to clean mould off the walls in those rooms every few weeks. They say the mould was hard to see because of the style of the wallpaper. As a result they say they slept in the lounge and so did their daughter, whose bedroom was the other room at the end of the house.
They also say there was mould on the back of the curtains and on the bathroom ceiling as the extractor fan was not working well and did not “suck up” the steam as it should. They said they opened the windows when they were showering.
The tenants had a HHS inspection report completed in in May 2024. The report shows the premises failed HHS for ceiling insulation, draught stopping and a ground moisture barrier. The ceiling insulation failed as there were gaps in the insulation. The report does not define where the gaps are 9 . The draught stopping failed due to “external doors”, however the report does not specific what remedial action is needed. The report records that the premises has a suspended floor which means a moisture barrier is required and has not been installed. 9 The report provides photographs but does not specify the rooms the gaps are above.
The landlord said the tenants never told them there were mould issues in the premises and they never saw evidence of mould during inspections. The first they knew the tenants had a mould issue was when they received the tenant’s Tribunal application. They believe any mould in the property was as a result of the tenants’ actions in not adequately ventilating the premises and provided the following evidence and submissions in support of that: •[The landlord’s cleaner], gave the property a deep clean in December 2019 immediately after the previous tenancy ended and prior to this tenancy commencing. He stated “the house did not have any black spot, fungus, mould or algae on curtains or windows or walls through the house, as it appears the house had been well ventilated and looked after” •They have tenanted the premises for around 33 years and have never had any previous tenants raise a mould problem, even when there was no heat pump, or extractor fans in the kitchen or bathroom. There are wall heaters in both bedrooms the tenant says mould was present in. •The landlord presented an insulation certificate of compliance dated 24 October 2018 which confirms the ceiling insulation has been installed to the standard required. The certificate was done before the bathroom and laundry was refurbished. The landlord says the builder may have moved some insulation in the ceiling and created gaps and failed to move it back. The landlord was unaware there were any gaps in the ceiling insulation and that it did not comply. •During inspections the landlords noticed the property was not well ventilated and cited seeing windows, curtains and doors that were closed during the day and evidence that the tenants were drying clothes on racks inside. The landlord supplied extracts from a number of websites 10 supporting the need to ventilate the house, open the curtains and not dry washing inside to prevent mould. •The tenants told the landlord the bathroom extractor fan was noisy, which was disturbing their children’s sleep. Instead of using the fan, they were opening the bathroom door and had removed the batteries from the smoke alarms to prevent the alarm sounding when the steam exited the bathroom. Law:
In relation to HHS requirements, a landlord has an obligation to comply with HHS under section 45(1)(bb) RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. Compliance dates for the HHS under these regulations vary depending on the tenancy. In this instance as the tenancy commenced before 1 July 2021 the premises must comply with 10 Including Tenancy Services, Consumer NZ and Gen Less HHS by 1 July 2025 11 . Therefore the tenancy premises did not have to meet the HHS set out in the 2019 HHS regulations during this tenancy. That means the premises does not need to comply with the draught stopping standards or have a ground moisture barrier until 1 July 2025.
The landlord is required to comply with the insulation standards under the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 from 1 July 2019. The requirements in the 2016 Regulations are superseded by the requirements in the 2019 HHS Regulations at the time the premises needs to comply with the HHS, which in this instance is 1 July 2025.
Section 45(1)(b) of the RTA requires a landlord to provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and condition the premises. Analysis:
The Tribunal on a number of occasions, along with the District Court, has recognised that mould and condensation are difficult issues and that it is often not easy to point to a single cause or allocate responsibility to one party only when mould is present.
In Warwick Todd Ltd 12 it was held that a tenant can be responsible for mould problems if they fail to air and heat premises sufficiently, and a landlord can be responsible if they do not provide sufficient means to air and heat the premises or if the premises are damp. Further the Tribunal said a tenant must tell the landlord where there is a mould problem so the necessary action can be taken and a landlord is required to provide premises that are not prone to mould.
More recently in Repia v Walsh Trust 13 the District Court recognised that the presence of mould in a property can be caused by the state of the premises or a lack of ventilation. The fact that some mould was in the house is not enough to show that it was not in a reasonable state of repair.
Here it is clear from the HHS obtained by the tenants that the ceiling insulation in the premises is no longer complaint as it has gaps. The tenants say the assessor said the gaps were in the ceiling above the master bedroom and the other bedroom at the back end of the house. These are the rooms the tenants say were continually mouldy and required cleaning every few weeks. Again I note the assessor’s report does not specify where the gaps are.
The landlord’s evidence raises doubt in my mind whether the tenants have aired, ventilated and heated the premises as they should, and whether their actions have contributed significantly to the presence of mould. I am persuaded that the 11 See Schedule 1 regulation 2 of the Residential Tenancies (HHS) Regulations. 12 138/02 Christchurch 14/08/2002 13 DC Waitakere, CIV-2011-090-00056, 27 April 2011 mould in the bathroom is caused by a failure to use the extractor fan and ventilate the room adequately. I am not persuaded that the extractor fan is not working correctly even if it is noisy given the HHS report obtained by the tenants that it is working to the standard required.
Regardless, this is a situation where the landlord has achieved the standard of insulation required, has provided HHS heating and ventilation and has provided additional heating in the rooms where mould has been present. I am satisfied the landlord has not been notified by the tenants that the back bedrooms were mouldy, or that the extractor fan in the bathroom was noisy. Without any notification from the tenants of the mould problem, I accept the landlord had no reason to believe there were any gaps in the insulation. Had the landlord been notified they then could have inspected and rectified the failure.
For the above reasons I find the tenants are not entitled to any compensation for the mould issues in the premises. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard in relation.
As stated above a landlord is responsible to ensure the premises are provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair. The carpet
Photographs provided by the tenants show three areas of carpet where the carpet is threadbare to the point that the backing has frayed and the underlay can easily be seen.
The tenants say the carpet was “rough” at the start of the tenancy but as they were allowed a dog in the property that did not concern them. The dog died around a year after the tenancy started and the tenants said there was discussion with the landlord about new carpet and they had hoped the house would be recarpeted. They say the carpet continued to deteriorate particularly in the lounge dining area and in some places was “tearing away” from strips between the carpet and lino areas and from the smooth edge carpet grippers next to walls.
The landlord’s view is that the carpet was aged but in “not bad condition” at the start of the tenancy but became “well worn” during the tenancy. They noted the condition of the carpet in the dining and lounge areas on inspection reports from 2022 as “well worn” and told the tenants they wanted to replace the carpet. The landlord said the tenants told them they did not want the carpet replaced due to the hassle of having to temporarily move all their furniture when the work was done and because they thought their children might damage new carpet.
The landlord said after the inspection in February 2024 they could no longer accept the tenants’ request not to change the carpet which is why they issued a 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy as they were going to renovate or sell the premises. If they renovated they were going to change the carpet as part of the renovation work.
After considering both parties evidence on the carpet I find the landlord’s evidence persuasive that they had wanted to change the carpet and told the tenants of their intention, but the tenants requested that it not be changed.
Accordingly I find the carpet was not replaced at the request of the tenants and dismiss this part of the claim. The time taken to repair the heat pump and the roof leak;
The tenants claim the landlord took too long to repair the heat pump and the roof leak. They say the landlord attempted to carry out the repairs himself and that both repairs were not completed on the first visit, and that they believe more timely repairs would have been done had the work been carried out by contractors.
The landlord said the tenants did not notify them the heat pump was dripping and that they noticed it when they did an inspection on 1 February 2024. I am satisfied that there was a short delay in the contractor getting to the premises and that the repair was completed by 6 February. I find this is a reasonable time for the repair required.
I also find the time taken to repair the roof leak was reasonable. Leaks are often problematic and required several attempts to achieve success. I accept it is necessary to check the leak has been remedied which often means more than one visit to the premises.
I am not convinced by the tenants’ allegations that the repairs took too long or that the landlord should not have carried out any of the work himself. I find the landlord has met their responsibilities to undertake repairs in a reasonable time. Accordingly this part of the claim is dismissed.
Filing Fee Reimbursement: The landlord has been successful in their claim and the filing fee has been reimbursed. The tenants have not been successful therefore their filing fee is not reimbursed.
Suppression: The names of the parties are suppressed. The landlord has been mainly successful in their claim and is entitled to suppression. The tenant has not been successful in their claim however the decision refers to personal details of the tenants and I do not consider publication of their names is in the public interest or is justified for any other circumstance. Therefore, I order non- publication of both the landlord and the tenants’ name, the names of any witnesses and identifying details. See section 95A. RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4842258 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4842258 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord breach the tenants right to privacy and quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord breach the tenants right to privacy and quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions