What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4936557 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying

How much money was awarded in case 4936557?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4936557?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4936557?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10800859-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4936557 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying

How much money was awarded in case 4936557?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4936557?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4936557?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10800859-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

30 St Annes Street, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4936557 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant’s application is for: a. The landlord’s failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. See section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). b. The landlord’s failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. See section 45(1)(b) RTA. c. The landlord’s failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) in relation to draughts. See section 45(1)(bb) RTA. d. Reduction of her fixed term tenancy. See section 66 RTA. Standard of proof and jurisdiction

In considering the claims, the “standard of proof” is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that her claim is “more likely than not.” I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.

While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.

Section 85 RTA provides useful guidance as to how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. It directs the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises and to consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms and technicalities. The Tribunal has determined the tenant’s application with this requirement in mind. Background

The tenant gave evidence supported by photographs that the property was not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy. In particular, she complained that: a. The lawns were long and unmown. b. The rubbish and recycling bins were full. c. There was rubbish along the side of the house. d. There was mould on the curtains in every room. e. The dishwasher was dirty. f. The carpet was damp in the corners. g. There were cockroaches on the walls. h. The house smelt damp and mouldy. i. There was a hole in the interior lining to the laundry. j. There was a crack or flaking paint in a bedroom ceiling.

The tenant texted the landlord on the Friday she was moving in with her concerns.

The landlord provided a copy of the pre-tenancy inspection report and gave evidence that its tradesperson attended the property that day and: a. Replaced two mouldy curtains. b. Inspected the hole in the laundry and ceiling and advised that they were cosmetic issues that did not affect the structural integrity of the property or the health and safety of the tenant. c. Determined that there was no mould on the carpet.

The tenant denied that the tradesperson attended that day or the next day. The landlord maintained that he did and that if he did not, the work was completed by the Monday.

The landlord advised that the lawns could not be mown due to it being winter but that they would have been mown when weather permitted. The landlord noted that the rubbish was in the appropriate bins.

The landlord advised that the property had been vacant for a period of some three or four weeks and had not been aired and that this accounted for the musty odour. She gave evidence that the property had been commercially cleaned between the end of the last tenancy and the start of this tenancy.

The landlord’s pre-tenancy inspection report, which included photographs, showed that the property was reasonably clean and tidy and, in particular, that the dishwasher was clean. It did show that the lawns needed mowing.

The tenant advised that because of the state of the property she decided not to move into the property because of concerns for her and her son’s health. The landlord allowed the tenant to return to her vacated property and provided evidence that it re-tenanted the property from 14 August 2024.

The parties agreed that the tenancy has ended.

The landlord provided a rent statement showing that it had applied the bond towards four weeks rent to 1 August 2024. Decision

The landlord’s obligation is to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. A new tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.

There is no definition of “reasonably clean and tidy" in the RTA. This can make it difficult when people have different understandings of what it means. Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have said that it means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel standard. c. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard. d. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises.

On the evidence before the Tribunal, the tenant has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the property was not reasonably clean and tidy. There were some minor areas which were deficient, such as the lawns and the mouldy curtains. The Tribunal accepts the landlord’s evidence that these were replaced in a reasonable timeframe and that the lawns remained the responsibility of the landlord until they could be mown.

The tenant’s claim that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy is dismissed.

The landlord is only required to provide and maintain the premises in a “reasonable” state of repair. The standard is not absolute and is to be assessed objectively. It is also qualified by the age and character of the premises and the period the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.

This property is likely to be at least 70 years old. It appears to have been reasonably maintained, while not being modernised. There is no obligation on the landlord to provide the property in pristine, “as new” condition. The presence of some paint chips in the skirting boards or marks around doorways is to be expected in a property of this age. As these marks are cosmetic, there is no obligation on the landlord to have them repaired.

Because the hole in the laundry caused no detriment or danger to the tenant, the landlord was under no obligation to repair it.

The tenant’s claim for the landlord’s failure to maintain and repair the property is therefore dismissed. HHS: draughts

The landlord’s HHS report provided to the tenant with the tenancy agreement showed that the property did not comply with the HHS in relation to draughts.

As the landlord advised the tenant when she complained before the start of the tenancy, the landlord has a period of 120 days from the start of the tenancy to comply. In other words, the property did not need to comply from the start of the tenancy.

The tenant’s claim must therefore be dismissed. Fixed term tenancy

The parties entered into a fixed term tenancy from 5 July 2024 to 4 July 2025.

Disappointed by the state of the property, the tenant advised the landlord that she was not happy to continue with the tenancy and wished to break the fixed term. In fact, the tenant did not move into the property and returned to the property she had been renting.

The landlord advised that it would accept four weeks’ rent as compensation for breaking the fixed term tenancy, but that if it was able to rent the property within four weeks, it would refund any excess to the tenant.

Since the tenant filed her application, the parties have agreed that the tenancy ended on 1 August 2024.

The usual legal position with a fixed-term contract is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it. For residential tenancies, one of those circumstances is found in section 66 RTA, which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements.

There is a high threshold to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term. The Tribunal will not lightly set aside a fixed term tenancy entered into by mutual agreement between the parties. The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the fixed term should be reduced by the Tribunal.

The applicant will need to establish that: a. There has been a change in their circumstances. b. The change was unforeseen. c. The unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not reduced. d. The severe hardship the applicant will suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced.

The weighing of relative hardship is a question of fact to be assessed objectively in each case.

Section 66(2) RTA provides that, if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, it may order the applicant to pay reasonable compensation to the other party for any loss or damage which results from the reduction of the term.

To be successful the applicant must first establish that their circumstances have changed during the tenancy. Section 66 RTA does not apply where the circumstances existed at the outset of the tenancy but were not discovered until after the tenancy commenced.

The property was not in worse condition at the start of the tenancy than it was when inspected by the tenant prior to the tenancy starting. The tenant claimed that the landlord had agreed to complete a number of matters before she moved in but did not provide any evidence in support of that claim. The tenant also provided evidence that her health deteriorated because of the condition of the property, despite not actually moving into the property.

The Tribunal is not persuaded that the tenant has suffered a change in her circumstances during the tenancy. Nor is it persuaded that her hardship would be severe, nor more than the landlord would suffer by the tenancy ending before the expiry of the fixed term.

The tenant’s claim to reduce the fixed term is dismissed.

If the Tribunal had determined that the fixed term should be broken, the tenant would remain liable for rent until a new tenant was found. In addition, the tenant could be liable for the landlord’s costs in relation to ending the fixed term.

In this case the landlord has agreed to accept four weeks’ rent in full compensation. It has not claimed for the additional 13 days’ rent to the date the property was re-let. This is a saving to the tenant of over $1,000.00. Nor has the landlord claimed for the costs of breaking the fixed term.

As the tenant has not succeeded in her application, it is appropriate that the landlord’s name and details be suppressed.