What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4844503 about?

The tribunal order states: BY CONSENT –

How much money was awarded in case 4844503?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4844503?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4844503?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10322786-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4844503 about?

The tribunal order states: BY CONSENT –

How much money was awarded in case 4844503?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4844503?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4844503?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10322786-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4844503 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4844503 — Mould & damp | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4844503. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation

Order

BY CONSENT – The fixed term tenancy will end at 11.59pm on Tuesday 14 May 2024 and [The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at that time.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its property manager.
The tenants moved from [City 1] because of better work opportunities and the parties signed a fixed term tenancy agreement in May last year, fixed for just over a year. Unfortunately, the employment was not as expected, and the tenants are moving to [City 2] next week. They have made an application for the reduction of their fixed term tenancy. At the hearing the parties agreed the tenancy would end on 14 May 2024 and I have made an order by consent.
The house is all upstairs, over a large garage space that the tenants do not have access to. The tenants claim the house does not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards and in particular that pooling water made them ill. They claim that maintenance was not attended to, that there was a breach of quiet enjoyment, and that they were paying too much rent for the house. The questions I have to decide are: • Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards? • Did the landlord breach the duty to maintain and repair? • Was there a breach of privacy? • Were they paying too much for the house?

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenants claim that the landlord 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). The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard, and the draught stopping standard.
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 draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) RTA.
The tenants raised their concerns with the landlord in March 2024. They became concerned after they became ill. They suspect the illness came from large puddles of water which never drained along two sides of the house. They researched a number of illnesses that matched their symptoms and thought they had norovirus, or possibly an insect transmitted illness from insects breeding in the stagnant water.
In reply, the landlord submitted that the house had a recent healthy homes report done by [Healthy Homes assessor] on 15 November 2023 which states the house complies with the HHS because it has efficient gutters. It also states that there is an efficient system to drain storm water, surface water and ground water. I was provided with emails sent by the report writer to the landlord stating that pooling water on the ground could not cause moisture ingress in an upstairs house. This is an interesting point because the standard is about moisture ingress.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove (because the tenants are the applicant here). I am not persuaded that pools of water on the ground beside the downstairs garage would cause moisture ingress in the upstairs house. I find there was no breach of the moisture ingress standard.
The tenants provided me with photos showing two holes in the exterior cladding. The tenants said there was a slight draught when the wind blew from the north. The landlord submitted that the [Healthy Homes assessor] report gave the house a pass for draught stopping about six months ago. I find this independent report to be the better evidence here. This means the tenants have not proved the draught stopping claim.
The claims for HHS breaches are dismissed, including the claim for exemplary damages.

Did the landlord breach the duty to maintain and repair?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 of the RTA which provides that the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Failure to address the cause of the water pooling outside the house could be seen as a maintenance obligation for the landlord, however I am not persuaded by the tenants’ evidence that the water caused their illness. It is equally likely that they picked up a viral gastroenteritis, which was the doctor’s diagnosis for their daughter at the time. This part of the claim is not proved.
The tenants submitted that the stairs and the railings were not safe. I was provided with photos. The landlord said the stairs were safe when she used them in January, at the last inspection. I find there is insufficient supporting evidence and the tenants have not proved this part of the claim.
The tenants said there was a drop of more than 1 meter at the bottom of the stairs. The landlord said the drop was less than a meter. The tenants did not measure the drop so they have not proved the need for a barrier. There is insufficient evidence for me to make a decision about the rusty earth electrode either. I find this part of the claim is not proved.
The tenants have not proved there was a breach of the duty to repair and maintain and this claim is dismissed.

Was there a breach of privacy?

The tenants claim the landlord breached their right to privacy. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenants in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
The tenants’ submission is that the property manager should have disclosed that the owner lives in the neighbouring property that over looks their house. Related to that, they are concerned they were not provided with a blind to screen off the large kitchen and living room window. There is no requirement in the RTA to disclose where an owner lives, and there is no requirement to provide curtains or blinds. This claim is dismissed.

Were the tenants paying too much for the house?

The tenants did not make a claim for an assessment of market rent. They asked for compensation since the tenancy started on the basis that they had trouble finding new tenants, so the rent must be too high for the house. I am not persuaded by this submission. They thought the rent was reasonable when they signed the tenancy agreement and, without a market rent claim, I will not interfere with a contract. The claim for compensation is dismissed. Suppression
I have used my discretion to allow suppression for both parties. This is because there has been no breach of the RTA and parties are encouraged to use the Tribunal to resolve disputes. Any public interest is in the law and not the names. See section 95A RTA.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4844503. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation

Order

BY CONSENT – The fixed term tenancy will end at 11.59pm on Tuesday 14 May 2024 and [The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at that time.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its property manager.
The tenants moved from [City 1] because of better work opportunities and the parties signed a fixed term tenancy agreement in May last year, fixed for just over a year. Unfortunately, the employment was not as expected, and the tenants are moving to [City 2] next week. They have made an application for the reduction of their fixed term tenancy. At the hearing the parties agreed the tenancy would end on 14 May 2024 and I have made an order by consent.
The house is all upstairs, over a large garage space that the tenants do not have access to. The tenants claim the house does not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards and in particular that pooling water made them ill. They claim that maintenance was not attended to, that there was a breach of quiet enjoyment, and that they were paying too much rent for the house. The questions I have to decide are: • Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards? • Did the landlord breach the duty to maintain and repair? • Was there a breach of privacy? • Were they paying too much for the house?

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenants claim that the landlord 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). The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard, and the draught stopping standard.
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 draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) RTA.
The tenants raised their concerns with the landlord in March 2024. They became concerned after they became ill. They suspect the illness came from large puddles of water which never drained along two sides of the house. They researched a number of illnesses that matched their symptoms and thought they had norovirus, or possibly an insect transmitted illness from insects breeding in the stagnant water.
In reply, the landlord submitted that the house had a recent healthy homes report done by [Healthy Homes assessor] on 15 November 2023 which states the house complies with the HHS because it has efficient gutters. It also states that there is an efficient system to drain storm water, surface water and ground water. I was provided with emails sent by the report writer to the landlord stating that pooling water on the ground could not cause moisture ingress in an upstairs house. This is an interesting point because the standard is about moisture ingress.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove (because the tenants are the applicant here). I am not persuaded that pools of water on the ground beside the downstairs garage would cause moisture ingress in the upstairs house. I find there was no breach of the moisture ingress standard.
The tenants provided me with photos showing two holes in the exterior cladding. The tenants said there was a slight draught when the wind blew from the north. The landlord submitted that the [Healthy Homes assessor] report gave the house a pass for draught stopping about six months ago. I find this independent report to be the better evidence here. This means the tenants have not proved the draught stopping claim.
The claims for HHS breaches are dismissed, including the claim for exemplary damages.

Did the landlord breach the duty to maintain and repair?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 of the RTA which provides that the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Failure to address the cause of the water pooling outside the house could be seen as a maintenance obligation for the landlord, however I am not persuaded by the tenants’ evidence that the water caused their illness. It is equally likely that they picked up a viral gastroenteritis, which was the doctor’s diagnosis for their daughter at the time. This part of the claim is not proved.
The tenants submitted that the stairs and the railings were not safe. I was provided with photos. The landlord said the stairs were safe when she used them in January, at the last inspection. I find there is insufficient supporting evidence and the tenants have not proved this part of the claim.
The tenants said there was a drop of more than 1 meter at the bottom of the stairs. The landlord said the drop was less than a meter. The tenants did not measure the drop so they have not proved the need for a barrier. There is insufficient evidence for me to make a decision about the rusty earth electrode either. I find this part of the claim is not proved.
The tenants have not proved there was a breach of the duty to repair and maintain and this claim is dismissed.

Was there a breach of privacy?

The tenants claim the landlord breached their right to privacy. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenants in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
The tenants’ submission is that the property manager should have disclosed that the owner lives in the neighbouring property that over looks their house. Related to that, they are concerned they were not provided with a blind to screen off the large kitchen and living room window. There is no requirement in the RTA to disclose where an owner lives, and there is no requirement to provide curtains or blinds. This claim is dismissed.

Were the tenants paying too much for the house?

The tenants did not make a claim for an assessment of market rent. They asked for compensation since the tenancy started on the basis that they had trouble finding new tenants, so the rent must be too high for the house. I am not persuaded by this submission. They thought the rent was reasonable when they signed the tenancy agreement and, without a market rent claim, I will not interfere with a contract. The claim for compensation is dismissed. Suppression
I have used my discretion to allow suppression for both parties. This is because there has been no breach of the RTA and parties are encouraged to use the Tribunal to resolve disputes. Any public interest is in the law and not the names. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4844503 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4844503 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Did the landlord breach the duty to maintain and repair?

Was there a breach of privacy?

Were the tenants paying too much for the house?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Did the landlord breach the duty to maintain and repair?

Was there a breach of privacy?

Were the tenants paying too much for the house?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions