How much money was awarded in case 4898301?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4898301?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4898301?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11124082-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4898301?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4898301?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4898301?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11124082-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

17 Valley View Road, Glenfield, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4898301 — Mould & damp

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4898301 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

[The landlord/s] must pay Ibrahim Ossman, Eman Ahmed and Arwa Osman $500.00 immediately, being compensation for the tenants’ loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to leaking and the loss of use of a dishwasher.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Ibrahim Ossman, Eman Ahmed and Arwa Osman immediately.

The application for a 50% rent reduction is dismissed.

Reasons

The 3 tenants attended the hearing as did a representative for the landlord.

The tenants have applied for a 50% rent reduction ($56,950.00) because they say the tenancy was misrepresented as a 4-bedroom property rather than a 3- bedroom property. They also seek compensation for the effects of leaking at the premises, exterior steps that required repair, and a delay in replacing a dishwasher. Background

The tenancy started on 29 January 2021. In August 2023, the tenants noticed leaking on the floor of the upstairs bathroom which then leaked through the ceiling into the downstairs laundry room used only for clothes drying.

The leaking was repaired, although the first attempt was not completely successful.

The tenants say the premises were mouldy and had an odour which they believe was due to leaking into the interior walls behind the wall linings over time.

The tenants also described how exterior steps needed repairing and a dishwasher stopped working and needed to be replaced.

The tenants have also alleged that the premises were misrepresented and for that they seek a 50% rent reduction.

Because the tenants felt that their health was being compromised, they decided to end the tenancy. They vacated on 21 or 22 September 2023 (each party has a different date as the end date of the tenancy).

The bond remains at the Bond Centre. There is no landlord cross application before the Tribunal. Issues

The Tribunal must decide these issues: •Should the bond be refunded to the tenants? •Was the tenancy misrepresented? If so, should the tenants receive a 50% rent refund? •Have the tenants proved a claim for compensation arising from the leaking from the upstairs bathroom and down the wall and ceiling linings, and for the loss of use of the dishwasher and the delayed step repairs? Legal considerations Compensation

The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.

In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party. The bond

As I have noted there is no landlord cross application before the Tribunal. The bond belongs to the tenants in law. Without a landlord counter claim, the bond must be refunded to the tenants – see section 22B(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). I have made a bond order for the bond to be released to the tenants now.

Was the tenancy misrepresented?

Although no advertisement was produced in evidence, the parties agree that the tenancy was advertised as a 4-bedroom, 2-bathroom property.

The tenants now say that it was a misrepresentation because a small bedroom downstairs was a room that had been extended into the garage area, the garage having been sealed off with wall board so the garage door did not open.

The tenants only raised this issue once the relationship between them and their property manager soured at the end of the tenancy. They said the landlord showed no compassion towards them.

This claim cannot succeed, and even if it could, a claim for a 50% rent refund is unrealistic.

It cannot succeed for these reasons. First, the tenants viewed the premises before they signed the tenancy agreement so they can be taken to have had knowledge about the layout of the premises. Second, one of the tenants is an architect so had special knowledge of the layout. Third, the issue only arose at the end of the tenancy and was a response to what the tenants’ perceived as a lack of compassion for their situation. Fourth, that the tenants considered the small bedroom to have inadequate ventilation and no sun does not establish misrepresentation. Fifth, the evidence the tenants presented from Auckland Council does not establish any proven non-compliance or that the bedroom was an unlawful use of the premises. Sixth, the landlord’s representative confirmed that the premises have since been sold and were marketed (and sold) as a 4- bedroom premises, without any issue.

I therefore dismiss the tenants’ application for a declaration that the premises were misrepresented and that they should receive a 50% rent refund. The claims for compensation

First, I confirm as I did at the hearing that the mention of a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) is not a valid claim in this case.

The HHS details the requirements that apply to draught, ventilation, insulation, and heating. There is no evidence of any breach by the landlord not complying with the HHS.

Rather, what occurred here was an unexpected leak due to issues with 2 separate pipes enclosed withing the framework and behind wall linings. That a leak happens in that situation is simply an unforeseen occurrence, not a failure to comply with the HHS.

There is no dispute about what occurred. A leak developed that the landlord promptly had assessed. The contractor believed the problem was fixed but the tenants reported that it was continuing. So, another contractor attended and found a separate leak which was repaired.

To achieve the repairs, the contractors had to cut holes in the gib linings, both to investigate the cause and allow for the internal framework and linings to dry. Once the gib was removed there was mould present due to the leaking.

The tenants believe that the mould was present for a long time and caused them various health issues that have resolved since they vacated the premises.

No reports were produced about the amount or type of mould; the time that it was present for (did it pre-exist the leaking becoming obvious? or did it only start then?) or whether it caused the adverse effects the tenants complained of.

The tenants first reported the leaking issue on 21 August 2023. The first plumbing invoice is dated 22 August 2023; the second repair invoice is dated 7 September 2023.

That the leaking occurred is not a landlord breach. It is the response to the issue that matters.

I find that the landlord acted quickly and appropriately.

I accept that the tenants were adversely affect. But the period was limited to 4 weeks. During that time, they stopped using the shower upstairs for some of the time, they had to mop up water and clean regularly which was especially difficult for one of the tenants who had a broken ankle and needed home help, and other tenants who were studying for exams were inconvenienced.

Even though there was no breach by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities, I find that the tenants experienced some loss of enjoyment of the tenancy during this time. For that I award them compensation of $400.00 - $100.00 per week for the period in question.

I also award the tenants $100.00 as compensation for the time they were without the use of the dishwasher. The evidence about the length of time they were without the use of the dishwasher is unclear. The landlord produced an invoice that refers to the replacement of the faulty dishwasher on 23 October 2021, 10 days after the tenants notified the issue. What appears to have happened is that the replacement dishwasher was faulty. The emails from the tenants show that there was still a problem as of 8 November 2021.

Again, I accept that the tenants were inconvenienced by this because one of the tenants (who stayed at home) was injured so doing the dishes manually was difficult for her. But the issue appears to have been resolved relatively quickly and compensation is therefore limited.

I make no award for the repair of the external steps. The landlord’s evidence shows that 3 separate repairs were arranged and carried out. This was an inconvenience for the tenants. But they have not established a breach by the landlord, or a loss of enjoyment that would justify a separate award of compensation. Result

The bond will be paid to the tenants.

The landlord will pay the tenants $500.00 as compensation for their loss of enjoyment of the tenancy because of leaking ($400.00) and for the period when they could not use the dishwasher ($100.00). No separate award is made for the repairs of the exterior steps. Name suppression

Both parties applied for a name suppression order. I make no order for suppression of the tenants’ names as their application is only marginally successful. I order suppression of the landlord’s name as its defence to the application is largely successful – see section 95A RTA.