What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4884381 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 4884381?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4884381?

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 4884381?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11083499-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4884381 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 4884381?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4884381?

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 4884381?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11083499-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

400 Matauri Bay Road, Kaeo, RD 1, Kaeo 0478 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4884381 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The Case Conference order dated 15 September 2024 sets out the background to the application.

The hearing was scheduled to take place at the [Event location suppressed] on 14 November 2024 at 1.30pm.

[The landlord/s] attended the hearing. There was no appearance by Mr Rowe.

Mr Rowe had not requested an adjournment or indicated that he would not be available to attend the hearing. The Registrar made numerous attempts to contact Mr Rowe and Ms Remkes by phone between 1.30pm and 2pm. The calls went unanswered.

The hearing proceeded in the absence of the Applicant. 1 1 Section 92 RTA

As the Applicant in these proceedings, Mr Rowe has the burden of proof.

The application raises issues under the following headings: a. The premises did not meet the healthy homes standards. b. The premises were generally damp and mouldy. c. The landlord failed to maintain the premises.

The owner obtained a healthy homes assessment report in September 2024. I was provided with a copy of the report. The report shows that the property met the healthy homes standards for heating, insulation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress & drainage. The property did not meet the standard for ventilation in the bathroom because the extractor fan duct was “detached and holed”. The owner remedied this promptly after receiving the report.

[The landlord/s] provided a statement from a builder who carried out various work on the property. The builder confirms that the bathroom ventilation duct was intact and in place in 2021.

It is not possible to know when the ventilation duct was damaged. I accept that the landlord was unaware of this issue, and it could have occurred after the start of Mr Rowe’s tenancy.

There is no proven breach of the landlord’s obligations in respect of healthy homes compliance, and no basis for an award of exemplary damages.

The claim that the premises were generally damp and mouldy is not proven.

The landlord’s evidence shows that all of the maintenance / repair issues that were brought to their attention during the tenancy were addressed promptly and appropriately. There are no proven breaches of the landlord’s duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

The application is dismissed.

The landlord sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted on the basis that the landlord was successful in the proceedings. 2