What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4961153 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4961153?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4961153?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Leaks, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4961153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11094120-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4961153 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4961153?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4961153?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Leaks, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4961153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11094120-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 312, 40 Library Lane, Albany, Auckland 0632, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4961153 — Mould & damp

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. Background
The parties entered into a fixed term tenancy agreement for a term from 16 March 2024 to 16 March 2025. Rent was $730.00 per week.
The tenants were in China when the agreement was put in place and did not take part in the entry inspection. The landlord’s evidence is that a copy of the entry inspection report was emailed to the tenants on 5 April 2024. The tenants say they did not receive that report until it was provided by the landlord after a mediation in these proceedings in September 2024.
On moving into the premises, the tenants noted a discoloration of the carpet in a corner of one room. The discoloration was sufficient for them to make a note of it but not to raise any concerns about it with the landlord. The landlord had also taken images of that discoloration to ensure was noted in the ingoing inspection as a pre-existing flaw.
On 26 June 2024 the tenants became aware of moisture in that area of the carpet. They notified the landlord. The property manager visited the next day and confirmed there was moisture present. Arrangements were made for an assessment by the landlord’s builder on 16 July 2024 and by a builder for the Body Corporate on 24 July 2024.
On assessment it became apparent that the cause of the moisture could not be fixed internally, requiring external access, which is the responsibility of the Body Corporate. I am told it is related to other waterproofing issues at the building which are the subject of other Body Corporate litigation.
Initially the landlord offered compensation from the point at which it became apparent that the issue could not be remedied.
Later, on 29 July 2024, the landlords paid the tenants $1150.00, being a rent rebate of $230.00 per week for the 5 week period from 26 June 2024 when the issue was notified to the landlord by the tenants. Because the leak could not be fixed, the tenants continued to pay rent at $500.00 rather than $730.00 per week.
Because the issue could not be remedied, the landlord also agreed, that the tenants could end their fixed a tendency early without penalty if they chose. The tenants elected to end the tenancy early. It ended on 18 October 2024. The tenants’ bond has been refunded in full.
The landlords then rented out the premises to other tenants with full disclosure of the moisture issue. Weekly rental is $600.00. The Claim
The tenants claim that the rent reduction to $500.00 per week should have taken effect from the beginning of the tenancy. They seek compensation of $3,450.00 being 15 weeks from the start of the tenancy until the rent reduction was implemented, @ $230.00 per week.
The tenants’ claim is on the basis that the landlords were aware or ought to have been aware about the moisture problem before the tenancy started and failed in their duty to inform the tenants about it. They also say that whether it was known or not, the premises were faulty, because of that issue, from the start of the tenancy, which should be reflected in a lower rent.
As this is the tenants’ claim the obligation is on them to produce evidence that proves the facts on which the claim is based, on the balance of probabilities ie. that it is more likely than not.
The property manager confirms that he is familiar with the property, having managed it for many years. He has given direct evidence that the landlord was not aware of the moisture issue at the premises before the enants notified him about it.
The photographs provided from the entry inspection report and from the tenants’ entry video, do not show an issue of such obvious concern that the landlord could be said to have been negligent in not investigating more thoroughly then. The tenants themselves did not initially see the issue as sufficient to trigger their obligation under s.40(1)(d), to notify the landlord about the matter.
Once the tenants were aware that there was a moisture beneath that discoloration they took the proper step of informing the landlord immediately. The landlord responded promptly and took appropriate steps to have the source of the moisture investigated in an attempt to address it.
The landlord also acted properly in applying a rent reduction to recognise the impact of the known issue on the tenants’ use and enjoyment of the premises.
The evidence does not prove that the moisture was present before the tenants brought it to the landlord’s attention on 26 June 2024, although that seems more likely than not to have been the case.
The tenants have not provided evidence of any loss, whether in financial terms or whether in terms of a reduction in their use and enjoyment of the premises before they became aware of the moisture on 26 June 2024.
The tenants did provide evidence of having sought advice on allergy related health issues. The medical report focusses on possible food allergens and that advice was not sought until much later.
The new tenancy is some evidence of what is a fair market rent for the premises, with the moisture issue known.
Had the tenants paid that rent for the property throughout the tenancy, with additional compensation for the period after they told the landlord about the issue while they were impacted by the assessment and investigation work, they would be in a very similar financial position to where they are now.
Fundamentally, I find that the tenants have not provided evidence to prove a loss caused by a breach of the landlord’s obligations, which should be further compensated.
For those reasons the claim is dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. Background
The parties entered into a fixed term tenancy agreement for a term from 16 March 2024 to 16 March 2025. Rent was $730.00 per week.
The tenants were in China when the agreement was put in place and did not take part in the entry inspection. The landlord’s evidence is that a copy of the entry inspection report was emailed to the tenants on 5 April 2024. The tenants say they did not receive that report until it was provided by the landlord after a mediation in these proceedings in September 2024.
On moving into the premises, the tenants noted a discoloration of the carpet in a corner of one room. The discoloration was sufficient for them to make a note of it but not to raise any concerns about it with the landlord. The landlord had also taken images of that discoloration to ensure was noted in the ingoing inspection as a pre-existing flaw.
On 26 June 2024 the tenants became aware of moisture in that area of the carpet. They notified the landlord. The property manager visited the next day and confirmed there was moisture present. Arrangements were made for an assessment by the landlord’s builder on 16 July 2024 and by a builder for the Body Corporate on 24 July 2024.
On assessment it became apparent that the cause of the moisture could not be fixed internally, requiring external access, which is the responsibility of the Body Corporate. I am told it is related to other waterproofing issues at the building which are the subject of other Body Corporate litigation.
Initially the landlord offered compensation from the point at which it became apparent that the issue could not be remedied.
Later, on 29 July 2024, the landlords paid the tenants $1150.00, being a rent rebate of $230.00 per week for the 5 week period from 26 June 2024 when the issue was notified to the landlord by the tenants. Because the leak could not be fixed, the tenants continued to pay rent at $500.00 rather than $730.00 per week.
Because the issue could not be remedied, the landlord also agreed, that the tenants could end their fixed a tendency early without penalty if they chose. The tenants elected to end the tenancy early. It ended on 18 October 2024. The tenants’ bond has been refunded in full.
The landlords then rented out the premises to other tenants with full disclosure of the moisture issue. Weekly rental is $600.00. The Claim
The tenants claim that the rent reduction to $500.00 per week should have taken effect from the beginning of the tenancy. They seek compensation of $3,450.00 being 15 weeks from the start of the tenancy until the rent reduction was implemented, @ $230.00 per week.
The tenants’ claim is on the basis that the landlords were aware or ought to have been aware about the moisture problem before the tenancy started and failed in their duty to inform the tenants about it. They also say that whether it was known or not, the premises were faulty, because of that issue, from the start of the tenancy, which should be reflected in a lower rent.
As this is the tenants’ claim the obligation is on them to produce evidence that proves the facts on which the claim is based, on the balance of probabilities ie. that it is more likely than not.
The property manager confirms that he is familiar with the property, having managed it for many years. He has given direct evidence that the landlord was not aware of the moisture issue at the premises before the enants notified him about it.
The photographs provided from the entry inspection report and from the tenants’ entry video, do not show an issue of such obvious concern that the landlord could be said to have been negligent in not investigating more thoroughly then. The tenants themselves did not initially see the issue as sufficient to trigger their obligation under s.40(1)(d), to notify the landlord about the matter.
Once the tenants were aware that there was a moisture beneath that discoloration they took the proper step of informing the landlord immediately. The landlord responded promptly and took appropriate steps to have the source of the moisture investigated in an attempt to address it.
The landlord also acted properly in applying a rent reduction to recognise the impact of the known issue on the tenants’ use and enjoyment of the premises.
The evidence does not prove that the moisture was present before the tenants brought it to the landlord’s attention on 26 June 2024, although that seems more likely than not to have been the case.
The tenants have not provided evidence of any loss, whether in financial terms or whether in terms of a reduction in their use and enjoyment of the premises before they became aware of the moisture on 26 June 2024.
The tenants did provide evidence of having sought advice on allergy related health issues. The medical report focusses on possible food allergens and that advice was not sought until much later.
The new tenancy is some evidence of what is a fair market rent for the premises, with the moisture issue known.
Had the tenants paid that rent for the property throughout the tenancy, with additional compensation for the period after they told the landlord about the issue while they were impacted by the assessment and investigation work, they would be in a very similar financial position to where they are now.
Fundamentally, I find that the tenants have not provided evidence to prove a loss caused by a breach of the landlord’s obligations, which should be further compensated.
For those reasons the claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4961153 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 312, 40 Library Lane, Albany, Auckland 0632,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4961153 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 312, 40 Library Lane, Albany, Auckland 0632,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions