What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4860702 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4860702?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4860702?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4860702?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10720100-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4860702 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4860702?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4860702?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4860702?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10720100-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4860702 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.

The Tenant applied for refund of the bond and compensation. Bond refund

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. Compensation- loss of enjoyment

The Tenant claimed compensation of $2457.86 due to loss of enjoyment of the backyard. This amount equated to 5% of the rent for the period in which they could not use the backyard from 1 February 2023 to 7 December 2023.

The Tenant claimed the lawn was unable to be used because the grass had overgrown. They had difficulties bringing their lawnmower to the backyard when the Landlord blocked the garden shed door where the lawnmower was originally stored. The only way for the Tenants to bring their lawnmower to the backyard was through the house and two sets of stairs. They did not want to take a lawnmower covered in grass through their house causing further damage. The Tenants submitted this was unreasonable of the Landlord. Photographs were shown of the overgrown lawns and the pathway through the house that the lawnmower would need to be carried through. The Tenants had reported their difficulty of accessing the lawns at an inspection and an email in November 2023. The Tenant notified the Landlord then that they could not mow the lawn because of the lack of access. The Landlord at the hearing, submitted that he was not advised immediately of the issue from the Property Managers that were looking after the property at that time.

The Tenants submitted the lack of mowing attracted cockroaches and other pests. They did not feel comfortable accessing the clothes line through the overgrown grass or entertaining guests at their house. The lawn became a health hazard. They described the lack of use of the backyard as ‘incredibly exhausting’.

The Landlord submitted that the garage door was blocked due to leakage problems however prior to the door being blocked, the Tenants still failed to mow the lawns. The door was blocked around March 2023 and the Landlord provided an inspection report of June 2022 which showed the lawns were overgrown. The other issue is the Property Manager did not advise the owner that the Tenants stopped mowing the lawns. The Landlord also submitted their current tenants leave their lawnmower in the backyard which the Tenants could have done as well.

The Tenancy Agreement provides that the Tenant is responsible for mowing the lawns.

In considering the evidence, the Tenants were aware of their obligations to mow the lawn from the outset of the tenancy. Although the lack of access from the garden shed would have created an inconvenience for the Tenants to lift a lawnmower through the house, the Tenant should have negotiated this clause to discontinue their obligation.. There was also no evidence from the Tenant that they had complained about the lack of access to the lawn until November 2023. If the Tenant was really inconvenienced and lost the use of the backyard, one would have expected the Tenants to take action sooner. Instead the Tenant complained at the end of the tenancy.

For these reasons, the claim is dismissed. Mould issue

The Tenant sought compensation of $1228.93 because there was significant mould in two bedrooms.

The Tenant submitted there were leaks in the bedrooms from the ceiling. They notified the Landlord on 6 June 2023 of the mould issue and provided a 14 day notice to remedy. Email correspondence was submitted to confirm this. There were no photographs provided of the mould. The Landlord responded with a solution of painting the bedrooms with mould resistant paint. The Tenants were not satisfied with this solution and deposed their furniture was damaged and their health was impacted. One Tenant was immunocompromised which caused them to have a persistent cough. They had to run dehumidifiers which meant their power bill was increased. There was no evidence provided of the Tenant’s medical issues or increased electricity useage.

The Landlord submitted he then organised a roofing specialist to investigate the leaks on 30 June 2023. A report was provided from the roofing specialist which confirmed there was no issues with the gutters, roof and no evidence of leakage. The Landlord deposed this property was built in the 1970’s. It was brick and tile so mould was typical in these types of homes.

The Tenants in this case have the burden of proving their claim on the balance of probabilities and must establish that a breach of the Landlords obligations has occurred and that loss or damage has resulted from the breach.

A landlord is required to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises (section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)). In addition, the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings and health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. The Tenants have to prove, on the balance of probabilities that there were leaks ad mould because the premises was not in a reasonable state of repair and that the landlord was notified of the issue but failed to repair within a reasonable time.

In considering the evidence, the Tenant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the mould was caused by the leaks and failure of the Landlord to maintain the property. They also did not provide any evidence to dispute the roofer’s assessment of the roof to prove that the leaks and mould were due to a structural issue. Mould is also a typical feature in older houses and the Tenants may have contributed to the damp conditions by hanging their washing inside.

For these reasons the Tenants claim is dismissed.

As the Landlord has been successful in their defence, name suppression is granted to the Landlord. As the Tenant has not been substantially successful, name suppression is not granted to the Tenant.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.

The Tenant applied for refund of the bond and compensation. Bond refund

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 Tenancy Agreement provides that the Tenant is responsible for mowing the lawns.

For these reasons, the claim is dismissed. Mould issue

The Tenant sought compensation of $1228.93 because there was significant mould in two bedrooms.

For these reasons the Tenants claim is dismissed.

As the Landlord has been successful in their defence, name suppression is granted to the Landlord. As the Tenant has not been substantially successful, name suppression is not granted to the Tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4860702 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4860702 — 14-day notice

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