What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4956715?

The tribunal order states: Niket Patel and Prachi Patel must pay Atishwar Naidu and Sheetal S Prasad

How much money was awarded in case 4956715?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4956715?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4956715?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11680472-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4956715?

The tribunal order states: Niket Patel and Prachi Patel must pay Atishwar Naidu and Sheetal S Prasad

How much money was awarded in case 4956715?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4956715?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4956715?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11680472-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat A5, 23 Rangitane Street, Maupuia, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 4956715 — Healthy homes

Order

Niket Patel and Prachi Patel must pay Atishwar Naidu and Sheetal S Prasad $5,454.25 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,300 (Bond Number 6175492-001) to Atishwar Naidu and Sheetal S Prasad immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

) $1,400.00 Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment $500.00 Compensation for damage to blinds and carpets (see paragraphs 73-88 of the Reasons) $872.75 Cleaning$200.00 Repairs to walls$150.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award$1,222.75$6,677.00 Net award $5,454.25 Bond $2,300.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $5,454.25

Reasons:

Both parties attended the hearing. In addition, Mr Kuddus appeared as counsel for the landlords.
The tenants filed an application and the landlords filed a cross application, both seeking compensation and exemplary damages for various breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
This was a fixed term tenancy which commenced on 1 July 2023 and ended on 30 June 2024. The premises are a small ground floor, 2-bedroom unit with an open plan kitchen and lounge area, and a bathroom that also serves as a laundry. The unit is located in a three-level apartment building run by a body corporate. The landlords and their family lived in the premises before renting them to the tenants.
The tenants first viewed the premises with Mrs Patel on 15 June 2023 when the landlord’s furnishings and belongings were still present. On 16 June 2023, both parties signed a tenancy agreement electronically using the standard form agreement available from the Tenancy Services website. However, the property inspection report (“the pi report”) pages were not signed at that stage.
On 28 June 2023, the tenants met Mr Patel at the property to complete the pre- tenancy inspection and the pi report. The report was signed by both parties and dated 28 June 2023. It records colour fade on the lounge wall, a damaged kitchen cupboard and records that the landlord provided a hob, heater, and dehumidifier. The tenants allege that they were not given a copy of the signed pi report. While they accept that the pi report produced at the hearing has been signed by them, they say that Mr Patel agreed that there were marks on walls requiring repainting and some broken blinds that needed repair. They say Mr Patel told them that they would sign the report later once these repairs were done. Mr Patel insists that he handed a copy of the pi report to the tenants at the inspection meeting, and he disputes any discussion that the walls and blinds were damaged and would be repaired.
Mr Patel claimed that he also handed the tenants a copy of the Healthy Homes Standards Assessment Report commissioned by the landlord and completed by Healthy Rentals NZ dated 6 June 2023 (“the 2023 HHS report”). The tenants deny that Mr Patel handed them a copy of this report. The 2023 HHS report stated that that the premises did not comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS) in three respects: Heating-no qualifying heater in the living room; Ventilation-no extractor fan in the kitchen and bathroom fan incorrectly ducted into the hot water cylinder cupboard rather than externally; Draughts-gap by front door between top of the door frame and ceiling. The report also recorded that the premises were exempt from ceiling and underfloor insulation requirements.
In considering the claims, the “standard of proof” or the level or evidence required is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, each party must establish with evidence that their claim is “more likely than not.” I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.

Did the landlord complete the insulation statement in the tenancy agreement?

Section 13A(1A) RTA provides that a landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls, and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed.
Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) RTA.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
There is no dispute that the landlords did not complete the insulation statement contained in the standard form tenancy agreement. However, they say that the insulation information was disclosed in the 2023 HHS report which they handed to the tenants at the inspection on 28 June 2023 along with the pi report.
While it was established that the landlords emailed a copy of the tenancy agreement to the tenants on 19 June 2023, there was no evidence that they emailed the tenants a copy of the pi report or the 2023 HHS report. I have accepted the contents of the pi report because it was signed by the tenants. However, I am not satisfied that the landlords have proved that Mr Patel handed a copy of the 2023 HHS report to the tenants. The tenancy agreement also does not refer to any attached report and the landlords have on 16 June 2023 signed the declaration in the tenancy agreement that the insulation statement in the tenancy agreement is true and correct. However, the insulation statement in the tenancy agreement has not been filled out.
The 2023 HHS report states that both the ceiling and floors are exempt from the insulation requirements. However, the report does not address wall insulation,. Therefore, even if the 2023 HHS report was given to the tenants, it does not cover all the information required in the insulation statement.
After considering all the available evidence, I find that the landlords did not complete the insulation statement as required and in failing to do so, they have committed an unlawful act. Exemplary damages
The tenant seeks an award of exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The District Court has said the requirement of intention is not about whether the party was aware they were breaching the Act. Rather, it is about whether they acted intentionally i.e. whether they intended to do whatever it was they did or did not do (Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00, DC Auckland,1/5/2001).
I consider the landlord cannot plead confusion, lack of knowledge, or ignorance of the law. In TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182, where the landlord claimed not to be fully aware of his obligations, the District Court held: “Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.”
In summary, intention is proved where the party turns their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately sets out to commit the act. It is unnecessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully, it is enough that they intended to commit the act which is in fact unlawful. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the particular obligation they have failed to perform, ignorance of the law is no defence. They are deemed to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional. Also, if the party is wilfully blind to the factual circumstances that give rise to an unlawful act, this may also be sufficient to prove they acted intentionally.”
I am satisfied that the matter of intention is proved in this case because the landlords signed the insulation statement declaration in the tenancy agreement on 16 June 2023 knowing that in fact it had been left blank and they had not at that stage provided the tenants with the 2023 HHS report. Even if the 2023 HHS report had been attached or provided later, it does not contain all the information required by law which the landlords are expected to know.
It is of significant interest to tenants and the public that landlords comply with their HHS obligations. Considering the factors in s 109, I have determined that it is just to make an award of exemplary damages for the breach of $250. The award is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware that the landlord has committed a breach of this nature previously.

Did the landlord comply with their maintenance obligations?

Under section 45(1)(b) RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching any of 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) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant claims that the premises were not provided in a reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy with damage to walls and broken blinds. The tenants claim that this damage was discussed with Mr Patel at the pre- tenancy inspection, and he promised to paint the walls and replace the damaged blinds. They also point to a text message exchange on 3 September 2023 in which they advised Mr Patel of the lounge and bedroom window measurements as requested so that he could arrange replacement blinds.
Mr Patel denies any discussion with the tenants about damaged walls and blinds. The landlords rely on the pi report signed by the tenants which confirms that the premises were in reasonable condition except the items noted. Mr Patel says that he asked for window measurements because by that time the blinds had been damaged by the tenants and needed replacement. The landlords have lodged a cross claim for damage to the walls and blinds which I deal with later in this decision.
I find that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the walls and blinds were damaged at the start of the tenancy and required repair, given that the items are not recorded in the pi report signed by the tenants. The claim is therefore dismissed.

Did the landlord breach their HHS obligations?

The tenants claim that the landlord breached their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS heating and ventilation standards.
The HHS compliance date for this tenancy was within 120 days of the commencement date. The tenancy started on 1 July 2023. Therefore the compliance date was 29 October 2023.
Breaching an HHS obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A). Heating and ventilation standards
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The ventilation standard requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
There is no dispute that the premises did not comply with the heating standard by the compliance date. This is documented in the 2023 HHS report commissioned by the landlord. The landlord provided the tenants with a portable oil heater at the start of the tenancy which did not comply with HHS.
There is also no dispute that the premises did not comply with the requirements for extractor fans by the compliance date as documented in the 2023 HHS report. There was no extractor fan in the kitchen and the extractor fan in the bathroom was vented into the hot water cupboard when it is required to be vented to the exterior of the building. The landlord did provide a dehumidifier.
The landlord initially defended their breaches by attempting to argue that the tenants prevented them from carrying out the HHS work required. They alleged that they had obtained a builder’s quote for the work on 12 October 2023. When asked if they could provide a copy of the quote to show the scope of the work they advised that it was given orally. When asked to provided evidence of written notices given to the tenants for access to complete HHS works, the landlord was unable to provide that evidence. The landlord lodged a cross claim against the tenants seeking exemplary damages for the tenants alleged failure to allow access for HHS work in breach of section 48(4)(b) RTA. However, they subsequently withdrew this claim during the hearing, presumably because they do not have evidence to prove the claim.
The tenants gave evidence that the landlords did not speak to them about access for HHS work. They referred to text messages provided in evidence showing that they allowed the landlord’s builder access on 6 October 2023; access for a painter/plasterer on 20 March 2024 and access for a tradesperson on 23 May 2024. In none of those messages did the landlord document exactly the purpose of the visits but, in any event, the tenants allowed the visits. The tenants say the landlords were particular about giving notice for inspections and access for contractors so query why they would not be able to provide evidence of notices given for HHS work.
By failing to comply with the heating and ventilation standards, the landlords committed an unlawful act. Exemplary damages
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering the factors in s109 and for the same reasons set out in paragraphs 15-22 above, I have determined that the matter of intention is proved, and exemplary damages should be awarded. The HHS compliance date for this tenancy was 29 October 2023 but the landlord did not comply before the tenancy ended on 30 June 2024. For breaching the heating standard I award $2,000 being 27% of the maximum award available. For breaching the ventilation standards in respect of both the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans I award $2,500 being 35% of the maximum award available. Compensation
The next issue to determine is whether the tenant should also be awarded compensation for the landlord’s failure to comply with HHS?
The tenants claim that there were leaks and mould in the hallway and bedrooms 1 and 2 for which the landlords are responsible because they arise from the landlord’s failure to comply with the healthy homes standards. They also complain that lack of an extractor fan in the kitchen resulted in cooking steam and moisture filling the house. The tenants seek compensation of $9,100 for the breach of HHS; regularly becoming sick at the property and incurring medical costs; regularly having to clean and purchase cleaning materials for the property; and general compensation for being treated unfairly.
The landlords say there were no leaks and mould developed at the property for which the tenants are responsible through a failure to ventilate. They seek costs of replacing blinds and carpets damaged by mould/moisture.
Each seeks compensation against the other for the mould/moisture problems at the premises. Therefore, the claims and arguments of both parties must be examined to determine who is responsible.
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the RTA or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding damages, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.

Who is responsible for damage caused by moisture and mould?

Applicable law

As stated above, under section 45(1)(b) RTA the landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. It is well settled that the landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises during the tenancy is to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. 1 Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The tenants must not intentionally or carelessly damage the premises. Liability for tenant damage to the premises is set out in ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
In this case, the landlords stated that they did not hold insurance cover for tenant damage to contents, fixtures and fittings. There was only body corporate insurance for the building. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Where damage is proved and results in replacement of items, I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan Tenant evidence
The tenants claim that when they moved in there were signs of a leak in the hallway ceiling above the front door and the area leaked in heavy rain, three or four times during the tenancy. They advised the landlord orally about the issue in or about August 2023 after the first rain. They say that Mr Patel knew about the problem because he brought a contractor to the premises to look at it, but it was not fixed during the tenancy. Early on in the tenancy, the tenants also raised issues about the steam caused by cooking and water leakage in the bedrooms. Mr Naidu sent the landlord an email on 22 August 2023 stating: “Just to bring to your attention on few things which we are having problem with and request if you could look into it.
Kitchen-as you know, since we are Indians, we love home made food. One of the major problems in the kitchen is the smoke which generates and fills the house. My wife closes the doors and opens the windows while cooking but the steam is so high the water evaporates and drops from the ceiling. The smoke and smell take time to move out of the house and it becomes more difficult to open other doors and windows during winter, it is so cold. My son is asthmatic and at times it becomes very difficult for him to breath. He has been sick for some time now....................
There is water leakage at times from the walls and ceiling, from the corner of the first bedroom right to the end of the second bedroom. This causes the clothes and bed getting wet. I understand the fog from the glass at the lounge and 2nd bedroom but why from the ceiling? It is the scenario early morning and sometimes at night when it rains.” Mr Naidu suggested a meeting with the landlord so that he could show them the problems.
The landlords inspected the premises on 28 August 2023 and took photos showing mould and moisture on the ceiling and around the window frames in bedroom 1; on the ceiling above the wardrobe in bedroom 2; and on the ceiling and skirting in the lounge.
The tenants claim that the landlords told them they would look into the issue and advised the tenants to keep cleaning off the mould in the meantime. The tenants say the bedroom leak problems occurred 4-5 times from July to September 2023 during periods of heavy rain; stopped for a while and then happened a further 2-3 times after September 2023. They say it was not fixed during their tenancy.
After subsequent inspections, the landlords blamed the tenants for not cleaning and ventilating the property and said that this was the cause of the mould. The tenants say they did their best to comply with the landlords instruction for cleaning and ventilating the property. However, they felt the mould was a problem that the landlord needed to address. In an email to the landlord on 1 January 2024, the tenants stated: “Dirt is an issue we can address but mould needs to be addressed with you.” Landlord evidence
The landlords say there was no leak in the hallway and there is no evidence of the tenants reporting a hallway leak. They also rely on the 2023 HHS report which does not identify any leaks and shows that the premises comply with the drainage standard. The report does however record a gap above the front door causing a draught in the same area. However, the landlord claims that front door draught was fixed and there was just cosmetic plastering and painting required in that area.
In relation to alleged leaks in bedrooms 1 and 2, the landlords say that after their inspection on 28 August 2023, they advised the tenants that they believed the mould and moisture present in those rooms was due to the tenants failing to ventilate the rooms properly by opening the windows. They provided emails to the tenants during the tenancy advising them to open the windows and clean the affected areas. For example an email from the landlords to the tenants dated 13 September 2023 after a follow up inspection on 11 September 2023 says: “I am happy to see that you have improved so nicely since my last visit on 28 Aug 2023. I can certainly see the change and cleaning is happening regularly. I am also happy to hear that you are feeling better after following the suggestions of keeping the windows open. However, there is still a bit more cleaning to be done.....There is still significant mould in both rooms and above the temple in main room .....which needs your immediate attention .....”
The need to address mould was also raised in an email dated 28 September 2023 from the landlords to the tenants following an inspection on 25 September 2023 with the landlords writing: “....happy to see that you have continued keeping the home clean. I appreciate you cleaning the areas which were mentioned in my last visit......I am still concerned with mould being in the property at multiple places (as seen in attached photos) which is needing your immediate attention...happy to work with you to get rid of it permanently to stop property getting further damaged. I refer to our conversation...regarding using some cleaning material which can help you get rid of mould permanently or may use help of professional cleaners.........As we saw that the cupboards in the first room and tiles in the kitchen are damaged because of moisture. I am concerned that the walls and carpets behind the beds in both rooms are potentially damaged too...I suggest you moving the beds in both rooms and clean those areas along with top areas in wardrobe and second bedroom....” Mr Naidu replied to the email the same day saying: “This is noted.”
The landlords conducted regular inspections and say that while there was some improvement after they explained to the tenants about ventilating and cleaning, mould was still present as shown in the inspection photos produced in evidence. They claim that the following mould/moisture damage (shown in the final inspection photos) was caused by the tenants failing to ventilate and clean properly: a. Bedroom 2 -carpet by ranch slider damaged and discoloured by moisture; b. Bedroom 1-freestanding wardrobe cupboard damaged by mould, beyond cleaning; c. Vertical blinds in bedrooms 1, 2 and lounge damaged by mould, beyond cleaning. They also claim that some of the bead chains were broken by the tenants which was another reason to replace the blinds. However, the landlord did not produce any photos showing the condition of the blinds in bedroom 2 during or at the end of the tenancy;
The landlord also seeks compensation to replace the carpet in bedroom 1 damaged by a stain. The tenants acknowledged that the stain occurred during the tenancy and that they are responsible for it. Discussion and findings on leaks/mould and damage
Mould is problematic and will grow in a home where humidity is high. There are two ways to reduce humidity: by heating and ventilation, ventilation being the most basic requirement. Responsibility for mould problems can rest with the tenant if the tenant fails to air and heat the premises properly. On the other hand, the landlord must provide the tenants with the necessary means to heat and air the premises.
Mould can usually be addressed by wiping with an appropriate cleaner. Where a property has an inherent problem or a leak causing mould, then the landlord will have responsibility to remedy the fault. As stated by the Tribunal in Hullia v Tran 2 the premises must be able to be used and lived in, in the normal way without excessive mould developing. If this cannot be done, then the problem of mould falls on the landlord to remedy under their obligations to maintain the property.
The Tribunal in Semmens v Wadman 3 noted that mould is commonly present throughout many residential dwellings in New Zealand to some degree. The Tribunal explained that simply having mould in the premises would not be sufficient to establish a breach on the part of the landlord for which compensation can be ordered stating: “Rather, what a tenant must establish, is that there are defects with the premises which have caused mould to develop, or to be at a more extensive level than would otherwise be reasonably expected in a dwelling that meets the required building standards.
Similarly, the Tribunal has found that the presence of some mould in the house is not enough to show that it is not in a reasonable state of repair, and the opinion of unqualified persons is often not persuasive: Repia v Walsh Trust. 4
After carefully considering the available evidence, I am not satisfied that the tenants have proved on the balance of probabilities that there were leaks at the property that were not addressed by the landlords.
There is no documentary evidence that the tenants reported a leak in the hallway ceiling above the front door to the landlords. It is not mentioned in their email of 22 August 2023. The landlords inspected the premises and determined that the mould present in the bedrooms was caused by a lack of ventilation which they communicated to the tenants, asking them to open windows and clean off mould that had accumulated. There is no documentary evidence of the tenants raising any further complaint about leaks in bedrooms 1 and 2 and they appear to accept the landlord’s advice on the cause of mould in email exchanges. The 2023 HHS report completed shortly before the tenancy started says the premises complied with the drainage standard and was exempt from having to install a ground moisture barrier. Therefore, I am not satisfied that there is evidence of a defect with the premises causing a leak, such as a roof leak or problems with drainage or guttering.
In summary, the tenants’ claim that the landlord failed to rectify leaks is not proved and is dismissed. 2 [2018] NZTT Manukau 4138867 3 [2022] NZTT Manukau 310605 4 DC Waitakere, CIV-2011-090-00056, 27 April 2011
However, after carefully considering all the available evidence I find that mould in the bedrooms and lounge has caused damage to blinds and carpets during the tenancy which could not be cleaned. This has likely been caused by a combination of the landlord’s failure to comply with the heating and extractor fan standards, and the tenants failure to ventilate enough by opening windows. The question is the degree to which each party contributed to the problem.
The landlord was clearly in breach of the HHS ventilation and heating standards which would likely have a significant impact on the premises. If there are no, or ineffective, extractor fans in kitchens and bathrooms, the moisture generated from these areas will not be adequately removed. This excess moisture can then spread to other rooms contributing to condensation and mould growth. This is more likely a concern for a small apartment such as this one, when moisture generated in one area such as a bathroom or kitchen can easily saturate the air and spread to other parts of the flat, exacerbating condensation and mould issues.
The tenants should also reasonably expect that they must ventilate the premises by opening windows regularly and where there is condensation accumulating, they should wipe the affected areas where possible and clean any developing mould. However, in a small apartment, which does not have compliant extractor fans, this will be more onerous to control.
It is difficult to determine with mathematical accuracy the degree to which the landlords and the tenants were responsible for mould developing at the premises, but I consider that the following conclusions may reasonably be drawn.
Kitchen: The landlords failure to provide a kitchen extractor fan caused excessive condensation on the ceiling and wall surfaces after cooking as shown in photos and video footage produced by the tenants. I find that this was extensive and caused the tenants inconvenience and discomfort putting up with the steam and having to wipe down the surfaces more than would be reasonably expected. It would be particularly difficult to deal with the cooking steam in winter months during wet and windy weather when it is not so easy to leave windows open. The tenants should be compensated for the loss of amenity and enduring the situation for 7 months since 29 October 2023 (the HHS compliance date). I award $1,400 which to give some guidance equates to a rent reduction of $50/week for 28 weeks of the tenancy.
Lounge: The lounge was situated right next to the kitchen and appears from the plan produced by the landlord to be separated by a sliding door. However, I find that cooking steam from the kitchen would likely escape into the lounge causing a build-up of moisture in that room. The lack of compliant heating in that room would also contribute to the problem. I note that the landlord did provide the tenants with a dehumidifier to assist. However, I consider that the landlord’s failure to install an extractor in the kitchen and compliant heating in the lounge likely contributed to the build-up of mould on the lounge blinds. I also accept that the tenant’s failure to open the windows contributed to mould around the lounge window and blinds and is careless damage for which the tenants are responsible. In relation to lounge blinds damage I assess that the parties are equally responsible for the damage.
The landlord produced a quote of $1,210.80 to replace the lounge blinds. They gave evidence that the vertical blinds were already installed when they purchased the premises in 2019 but they do not know the age of the blinds. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the life of blinds in a rental property is 8 years. Potentially, the blinds are at the end of their life and should be fully depreciated. However, I consider 20% of the replacement cost is justified on the basis that the blinds should have lasted a few more years but for the damage. Because the tenant and the landlord are both equally responsible for the damage, I award the landlord 10% of the replacement cost being $121.08.
Bedroom 1: Bedroom 1 is located near the front entrance door. The door to bedroom 1 is off the hallway and opposite the bathroom door. There is also a door between the hallway and the lounge. The bathroom extractor fan was incorrectly ducted into the hot water cylinder cupboard. However, it is difficult to determine the extent to which the lack of an extractor fan in the kitchen (at the other end of the apartment) and an incorrectly ducted bathroom extractor fan would affect condensation in bedroom 1 I find it likely that the failure to adequately ventilate bedroom 1 by opening windows would have a larger impact on condensation and mould developing in the room. Therefore, I find the tenants are mostly responsible for this damage but consider that a discount of 25% should be applied because of the landlords’ HHS compliance breaches (“the landlord’s contributory liability”).
The blinds in bedroom 1 were damaged by mould and the landlords seek the replacement costs quoted of $520.80. Adopting the same depreciation calculation used above for the lounge blinds, I award the landlord 20% of the bedroom 1 blinds replacement cost being $104.16. To account for the landlord’s contributory liability, I discount that figure by a further 25% to $78.12.
The landlords also claim the free-standing wardrobe was damaged by mould during the tenancy. They seek $334.98 being the original cost of the wardrobe purchased in December 2022 subject to some appropriate depreciation, although they do not intend to replace the wardrobe.
I accept the tenants’ evidence (not disputed by the landlords) that this wardrobe was left behind by the landlords and it was not moved out from the wall for them to inspect its condition when the pi report was completed. They were told to leave the cupboard where it was and confirm that they did not move the wardrobe during the tenancy. Therefore, I find that the landlords cannot prove the condition of the wardrobe at the start of the tenancy and when the damage was caused. In any event, the landlords are not intending to replace the wardrobe. Therefore, they are not incurring a loss. For those reasons, the claim for wardrobe compensation is dismissed.
The tenants accept liability for the carpet stain in bedroom 1. I deal with the amount awarded for carpet replacement below.
Bedroom 2: Bedroom 2 is beyond the hallway door and next to the lounge. It is only separated from the lounge by the bedroom door. Again, it is difficult to determine the extent to which the lack of an extractor fan in the kitchen and an incorrectly ducted bathroom extractor fan would affect condensation in bedroom
I find it likely that the failure to adequately ventilate bedroom 2 by opening windows would have a larger impact on condensation and mould developing in the room. Therefore, I find the tenants are mostly responsible for this damage but consider that a discount of up to 25% should be applied because of the landlords’ HHS compliance breaches.
The landlord did not present any photos of the blinds in bedroom 2. Therefore, I find that they are not able to prove that the blinds were damaged by mould in this room.
The carpet in bedroom 2 was damaged by moisture and the tenants are liable for that damage.
Carpet compensation for bedrooms 1 and 2: The landlords gave evidence that the same carpet was used throughout the premises in the lounge, hallway and both bedrooms. They could not find a “like for like” carpet replacement. Therefore they seek the costs of replacing all the carpet throughout the premises. They produced a carpet replacement quote for $4,400.
The landlords gave evidence that they were told the carpets were three years old when they purchased the premises in 2019, making them 8 years old at the end of the tenancy. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that bedroom carpets should last for 12 years in a rental property. Therefore the replacement costs of the bedroom carpets should be reduced for depreciation by 67%.
I consider that the claim to replace all the carpets in the premises would be a disproportionate and unfair remedy. Therefore, I only award compensation to replace the carpet in the bedrooms. The landlords provided a plan of the apartment with measurements. The total area of the lounge, hallway and both bedrooms is 43.94 sqm. Bedrooms 1 and 2 measure 20.54sqm or 46% of the total carpet area.
Calculating 46% of the carpet replacement costs totals $2,024. A further reduction of 67% for depreciation brings the total cost to $667.92. Again, I consider a further reduction is justified for the landlord’s contributory liability in respect of the bedroom 2 carpet damage only, which I fix at 13% (just over one- half of 25% because bedroom 2 is slightly larger than bedroom 1) bringing the total award to $581.09.
The above compensation awards are summarised as follows: ItemAward to tenantAward to landlord No kitchen extractor$1,400.00 Bedroom 1 blinds$78.12 Bedroom 1 wardrobe$213.54 Bedrooms 1 & 2 carpet$581.09 Total awards$1,400.00$872.75

Did the landlord comply with their smoke alarm obligations?

Landlords must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 (SAI). See also section 45(1)(ba) RTA. The landlord is responsible for installing and maintaining qualifying smoke alarms as prescribed in Part 1 SAI. Tenants are responsible for replacing worn out smoke alarm batteries. See regulation 9 SAI. Breaching any of 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) and Schedule 1A RTA. Tenant evidence
The alarm battery started beeping in bedroom 1 in early October 2023. The tenants were unsure what to do and rang Mr Patel. He advised them to remove the battery and said he would check it and whether the battery needed replacing. In an undated text message, Mr Naidu thanked Mr Patel for responding “last night” and asked him to advise when he would check the alarm Mr Patel advised in a text on 6 October 2023 that he was coming to the premises with his builder the next day. Mr Patel and the builder came and fixed a problem with the toilet flush but did not inspect the smoke alarm nor change the battery. Mr Patel told Mr Naidu to leave it and that he would do it later, but he did not change the battery before the tenancy ended. The tenants produced a photo taken at the end of the tenancy showing that the smoke alarm battery cover was still sitting on a shelf in bedroom 1. Landlord evidence
Mr Patel agrees that he advised the tenants to remove the battery when they called him for advice and that he would come and check it. He otherwise disputes the tenant’s evidence and claims he went to the property the next day and changed the smoke alarm battery. He also says that the text message from Mr Naidu acknowledging the call was received on 29 September 2023. Therefore he contends that he had already changed the battery before sending a text on 6 October giving notice of a visit with his builder. The landlords also say that their inspection photos taken on 7 April 2024 show that the shelf in bedroom 1 is filled with toys and the smoke alarm cover is not present. They contend that the tenants removed the cover at the end of the tenancy and placed it on that shelf as shown in the tenants end of tenancy photos.
The landlord provided evidence that the Body Corporate arranged for its contractor to conduct the annual fire alarms survey of the building on 20 October 2023. They contend that this check by the contractors would have included smoke alarms at the property. In any event, the landlords also note that tenants are liable to change worn out batteries not the landlord. Discussion and findings
Neither party has been able to establish with supporting evidence the date that the tenants called Mr Patel about the smoke detector and the date he visited to change the alarm battery. I am also not persuaded that photos taken of the shelf in bedroom 1 help to establish whether the smoke alarm battery was changed by the landlord in October 2023.
There is insufficient evidence to establish that the fire alarms survey conducted by the Body Corporate contractor included smoke detectors in all the apartments. The notice itself says “There will be intermittent ringing of sirens and they may require access to your flat.” The landlord has not proved that the contractor checked the smoke alarms in this apartment. Mr Naidu say he was present when the contractor visited and only the fire alarm in the hallway was checked. It is likely that this survey only concerned the fire alarm system for the building which must be checked for the annual Building Warrant of Fitness required under the Building Act 2004.
While I accept that the landlord is not responsible for changing smoke alarm batteries, Mr Patel offered to do it and took on that responsibility. Therefore, he would be liable for any failure to do so. Section 11 RTA prohibits parties from contracting out of their obligations under the RTA. However, it does not prevent a landlord from waiving voluntarily all or any of the rights and powers conferred on landlords by the RTA, or from voluntarily incurring more or more extensive obligations than those that are imposed on landlords by the RTA.
There is no evidence that the tenants complained to the landlord further about the smoke alarm and asked for the landlord to check it.
After carefully considering all the available evidence, I find that the tenants have not proved their claim and I dismiss it. Did the landlord breach the tenants’ quiet enjoyment and/or unlawfully enter the premises?
There are separate provisions in the RTA concerning quiet enjoyment obligations and notice required to enter the premises. Sometimes the obligations in each provision overlap and a breach of one may also be a breach of the other. However, the Tribunal must consider the primary breach and appropriate remedy.
Sections 48(1) and (2) RTA provide that a landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See sections 48(1) and (2) RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Section 38(2) RTA provides that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenants complain that on numerous occasions during the tenancy, the landlord breached their rights under s38 and 48 as follows: a. Insufficient notice and timelines given for inspections and access to the premises for maintenance, with the landlords either giving less than the required notice and an unreasonable time window for the inspections such as “between 9am -7pm” ; b. Insisting that the tenants need not be present for inspections; c. Unreasonable intrusion during inspections by opening kitchen pantry, fridge, and clothes closets; d. Monitoring the tenant’s visitors to the premises; e. Making unreasonable demands and blaming the tenants, including emails about inspections sent after 9pm.
After carefully reviewing various notices and text messages provided in evidence, there appears to be only one occasion on 6 October 2023 when the landlord sent a text message giving less than the required 24 hours’ notice stating: “I am coming with my builder today in next 2 hours...” However, the tenant agreed to the visit. Section 48(1) provides that a landlord may enter the premises with the consent of the tenant freely given at or immediately before the time of entry.
I do not find that there is evidence of the landlord monitoring the tenants visitors. A visitor’s car parked in a no parking zone was reported by the body corporate manager. I am not persuaded that a comment in an email from the landlord after an inspection that it looked like the tenants had been away for 10 days is proof they were monitoring the tenants. Also, I do not find that emails from the landlord criticising the tenants for not keeping the premises in a reasonable condition or emails sent after 9pm at night amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment.
I accept that the landlords email after an inspection on 31 December 2023 indicates that they opened kitchen cupboards. The landlord explained that they were checking for cleaning and mould. There is no documentary evidence that this occurred at other inspections or that the landlord opened wardrobes or other areas containing personal items. It would be easy for the landlord to overstep the mark by looking through a tenant’s personal belongings, but I am not persuaded that the evidence supports such a finding here. Broad inspection times
However, I accept that many notices of inspection given by the landlords under s48 are unreasonable in failing to give a specific inspection time or at least a narrower time window, particularly given that the tenants advised that they wished to be present for the inspections, as is their right. While the notices may not technically breach s48, I find that they breach section 38(2) and amount to an unreasonable interference with the peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
In many notices, the landlords do not specify an inspection time and give a broad window such as between “9am-7pm.” The evidence shows that the tenants frequently asked the landlords to give a more specific time so that they were not waiting all day for the landlord to arrive, as they wished to be present for the inspections. Mrs Patel’s typical response was that they could not specify a time and that the tenants did not need to be there. Sometimes the landlords gave a narrower window or text with a time on the day but only after the tenant sent several requests. For example the following exchange in 2024 is typical: 1 January: Email from landlord for an inspection on 7 January between 9am to 7pm 6 January: Text from tenant—“Can you confirm the time for tomorrow so that I can also plan my schedules” 6 January: Text from landlord—“...as advised earlier I don’t have ETA available. As advised in the email dated 1 Jan 2024, we will come between 9am to 7pm. By all means you can continue your day as you like as it is normal that you are not present at the property during inspection......The last I can do is I will message you when we are leaving (which is an hour before)” 6 January: Text from tenant—“...you should also understand that nobody can wait for whole day. I have agreed with your day of inspection.....since you have lots of issues, I want to be at home....:” 7 January at 3.11pm: Text from landlord—“....we will see you around 4.30”
Similar exchanges occurred regarding an inspection scheduled on 7 April 2024 between 8.30am and 6pm. When the tenants messaged Ms Patel on the morning of the inspection to ask for 2 hours’ notice of the time (because they wished to go out), she said that she was unable to confirm any time or message the tenant prior. She also stated “It is not compulsory for you to be there but if you wish to there just be at home. We will be following the timeframes advised in inspection email.” Eventually she advised that she would be there between 3-6pm.
The various subsections of section 48(2)(b) to (d) RTA stipulate the landlord may enter the premises “at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening on a day specified in a notice given to the tenant” Each subsection then specifies the notice period required. For example an inspection notice under s48(2)(b) must be given to the tenant “not less than 48 hours nor more than 14 days before the intended entry.” The landlord argues that their notices comply with s48 and they do not need to specify a more precise time.
I disagree with the landlord’s submission for two reasons.
First, s48 stipulates the minimum number of hours (e.g.24 or 48 hours) and maximum number of days’ notice that must be given before “the intended entry”. That necessarily requires the landlord to give a specific time for the intended entry.
Second, this Tribunal has previously ruled that a notice given by a landlord under s48(3)(b) stating that the landlord would be showing prospective purchasers through the premises “Monday to Friday between 10am and 5pm”, without giving specific notice of the date and time of any viewing, was unreasonable and a breach of section 38(2). The District Court agreed with that conclusion on appeal. 5
A blanket notice may be effective in some circumstances where notices for repeat or prolonged attendances would be unnecessary given the pattern of 5 Lieven and Grieve v Bowles, Lipski and Cholmondeley-Smith [2020] NZDC 17768 and see the Tribunal decision [2020 NZTT Wellington, 4202871,4207414 and 4207460 work (e.g. construction work). In this case, I consider that a general notice covering an extended period from 9am to 7pm or 8.30am to 6pm was unreasonable, given the tenant wished to be present for the landlord’s inspection so that they could discuss any issues raised. While the tenant is not required to be present, it is their right to be present. In those circumstances, it is not unreasonable for the tenant to request a specific time. Having to potentially stay at home for a 10-hour period, waiting for the landlord to arrive, is an unreasonable interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy in the use of the premises, and a breach of section 38(2). The landlord sometimes gave the tenant a more specific time but only after the tenant insisted and often it was given only 2-3 hours beforehand.
Having regard to all the circumstances, the sum of $500.00 is awarded for the stress and inconvenience caused as a result of the breach of s38(2). I am not satisfied that the conduct amounts to harassment. Therefore, I do not consider an award of exemplary damages. Receipt for rent
The tenants were concerned that the landlord did not give receipts for rent. However, rent was paid by electronic bank transfer. Therefore a receipt is not required. See section 29 RTA. The claim is dismissed.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The landlords claim that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy as shown in the final inspection photos. They seek cleaning costs of $349.60. The cleaning invoice covers items for which no photos were produced in evidence including the bathroom vanity drawers and ceiling, and front entry door. The photos of mould on walls in bedroom 1 are of the walls behind the wardrobe which was not moved before or during the tenancy. Therefore, there is no proof of the condition of the walls at the start. The tenant is not required to leave the premises any cleaner than they were at the start.
The tenants also produced some photos and believe that they left the premises reasonably clean.
I have considered all the evidence and find that some areas needed cleaning (particularly in the kitchen), but some cleaning was not significant and would normally be what a landlord could expect to attend to after a tenancy ends. For that reason I am reducing the amount claimed to $200.

Did the tenants return the premises to the same condition after a minor change?

The landlords claim exemplary damages because the tenants failed to return the premises to a condition that was substantially the same as the condition prior to a minor change being made by the tenant. In particular they erected a small key ring holder on the hallway wall and a towel holder on the back of the bathroom door. They also allege that they left holes in walls from pins and nails.
If a minor change is made in accordance with a request under section 42A RTA the tenant must return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition the premises were in prior to the minor change being made. See 42B(4) RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 See section 42B(6) and Schedule 1A RTA.
This claim is ill-conceived because, as the landlords acknowledge, no request was made by the tenants to affix items to the walls and no consent was given by the landlords under s42A. In the absence of a request under s42A, there is no breach of 42B(4) for which exemplary damages may be considered. Therefore that claim is dismissed.
I accept on the evidence that the key ring and towel holders were affixed to the walls by the tenants during the tenancy. Also there is evidence of some other pin/nail holes in walls. They claim that the landlord told them to leave the holders in place and they say the other holes existed at the start of the tenancy, even though they are not recorded on the pi report.
Based on the evidence, including the pi report, I find that the tenants are responsible for the costs of removing the holders and patch plastering and painting over the various holes.
The landlords did not provide any quotes /invoices for the work, nevertheless claiming $1,000. Therefore those costs are not proved. I consider the damage proved as shown in the photos provided by the landlords and the tenants is relatively minor and I award $150 as compensation for the remedial work required.

Have the tenants harassed their neighbours?

The landlords claim the tenants disturbed their neighbours and seek exemplary damages for the breach.
A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) RTA. Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A RTA. Harassment has the meaning set out in paragraph 101 above.
The landlord received a message on 6 June 2024 from the Body Corporate chairman who lives on the third floor above the tenants (on the ground floor). He complained about tapping noises waking him up every morning when the tenants prepare food in the kitchen. He asked the landlord to request that they stop making this noise. The next day, the chairman sent a second message asking the landlords if they had spoken to their tenants because the tapping occurred again and woke him up. The landlords replied that they would speak to the tenants about it that weekend. Mrs Patel said she did so and there were no more complaints. The tenants dispute that the landlords spoke to them about this complaint.
Regardless of whether the landlords advised the tenants of this issue or not, there was no further complaint about noise. I find this was a complaint about minor incidents of noise which was resolved. It is not uncommon for noise to travel in a multi-level apartment building. Before an occupant could be held liable for breaching a neighbour’s peace, the usual and reasonable process is for the affected person to put the other person on notice about the noise and ask them to cease. I find the incident here does not amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment, let alone meet the requirements for a harassment claim and exemplary damages. For those reasons the claim is dismissed.

Have the tenants interfered with any means of fire escape?

The landlords claim the tenants interfered with a means of fire escape when they or their visitors parked in a no parking zone which they claim was directly in front of a fire escape door for the building. They seek exemplary damages for the breach.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlords claim that the body corporate manager complained to them multiple times about the tenant or their visitors parking in the no parking zone in front of the fire escape door from the building. Ms Patel says she spoke to Mr Naidu on two separate occasions and asked him to remove his car. She says that when she received a third complaint about the tenants parking a car in the zone, the body corporate sent a photo of the unlawfully parked vehicle. Ms Patel sent this along with a message to Mr Naidu on 21 January 2024 asking that he remove the car after first calling him. She was able to produce this message in evidence. She also says that the Body Corporate manager told her that two cars had been parked there for 24 hours once. However, this was not substantiated by any written message from the body corporate.
Mr Naidu replied that the phone call and following message on 21 January 2024 is the only complaint received from the landlord about the matter. The car belonged to a visitor, and Mr Naidu arranged for it to be removed immediately. There were no other incidents after this, which Ms Patel also confirmed.
The tenants argue that the no parking zone is not directly in front of the fire door exit from the building and would not render the fire exit door unable to be used. Certainly, the landlords did not provide any evidence showing the position of the park in relation to the fire door exit.
I am not persuaded that there has been any breach of section 40(2)(ab) by the tenants because there is no proof there was interference with means of fire escape. Even if I am wrong, there is only evidence of one incident of unlawful parking by a visitor and the tenants remedied the matter as soon as they were notified by the landlords. In those circumstances, an award of exemplary damages would not be justified. For those reasons the claim is dismissed. Summary and costs
The result of the decision is that the landlords must pay the tenants an amount for compensation and exemplary damages and the bond is to be refunded in full to the tenants. The tenants have substantially succeeded in the proceedings. Therefore, they are also entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.
Counsel for the landlords, Mr Kuddus, sought legal costs should the landlords succeed. Costs follow the event. Given that the landlords have not succeeded in the proceedings, no costs award is justified. For the same reason, the landlords are not entitled to suppression of their names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4956715 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat A5, 23 Rangitane Street, Maupuia, Wellington

Tenancy Tribunal case 4956715 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat A5, 23 Rangitane Street, Maupuia, Wellington

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord complete the insulation statement in the tenancy agreement?

Did the landlord comply with their maintenance obligations?

Did the landlord breach their HHS obligations?

Who is responsible for damage caused by moisture and mould?

Did the landlord comply with their smoke alarm obligations?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenants return the premises to the same condition after a minor change?

Have the tenants harassed their neighbours?

Have the tenants interfered with any means of fire escape?

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord complete the insulation statement in the tenancy agreement?

Did the landlord comply with their maintenance obligations?

Did the landlord breach their HHS obligations?

Who is responsible for damage caused by moisture and mould?

Did the landlord comply with their smoke alarm obligations?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenants return the premises to the same condition after a minor change?

Have the tenants harassed their neighbours?

Have the tenants interfered with any means of fire escape?