What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4991874?

The tribunal order states: The landlord agreed to carry out the following work to the premises, which must

How much money was awarded in case 4991874?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4991874?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4991874?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10980039-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4991874?

The tribunal order states: The landlord agreed to carry out the following work to the premises, which must

How much money was awarded in case 4991874?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4991874?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4991874?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10980039-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

82 Butterfield Avenue, Linwood, Christchurch 8062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4991874 — Mould & damp

Order

The landlord agreed to carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 21 November 2024: a. Investigate leaks to garage roof and guttering and devise repair strategy for same; b. Investigate repair to electricity supply to garage and devise repair strategy for same; c. Replace cabinet latches previously removed from kitchen and other areas of premises and repair door handles as required throughout; d. Complete draught stopping to back door as previously arranged.
The tenants’ other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr Bowden and Ms Lindsay attended on behalf of the landlord. Work order
The tenant claims that the landlord has not provided the garden in an acceptable condition, insulated under the house, repaired holes in the garage roof, repaired guttering to the garage, repaired the electricity supply to the garage, supplied drain covers for external drains, replaced latches and door handles to bedroom three, removed mould and/or moulding wallpaper in the bathroom, replaced the cracked door handle in the laundry, replaced the back door (which is draughty). The tenants want the problems fixed.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work under section 78(1)(e) of the Act.

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

The property is an older home (likely built in the 1950s).
The property is largely in original condition and has clearly not been perfectly maintained or modernised over the years.
The current owner purchased the property in late 2022 and completed a Healthy Homes assessment and required upgrades prior to renting it out to the previous tenant.
The current tenants were unable to view property prior to signing the tenancy agreement for reasons beyond their control.
This was acknowledged by both parties in the agreement itself where it specified that the tenants had viewed images, read the description, checked mapping views, and undertaken their own due diligence as well as receiving satisfactory answers to questions asked in relation to the property.
The landlord provided an ingoing inspection report which identified a number of general items of wear and tear throughout the property.
The tenant provided written responses on the ingoing inspection report identifying further areas of concern and adding their own photographs to the report to support their written comments as requested by the landlord.
The inspection report was initialled on each page by both parties and the final completed copy was returned to the parties as required.
In terms of the fencing, the landlord had noted on the report that, “[m]ultiple fences require repair and are in poor condition.”
The tenant also identified a number of items that they wanted the landlord to address.
The tenant identified that many handles were missing to built in cupboards.
A number of other items were addressed in this report which are not relevant to this decision.
In addition to matters addressed in the report, the gardens were not left in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenants offered to attend to the garden and the fences themselves and provided some indication of costs to the owner of the property. The owner wished to obtain other quotes as a comparison and the tenant preferred not to be involved with that, so the owner arranged the work himself in relation to the gardens.
The tenant accepted that some garden work had been done but said it had not been finished to an appropriate standard.
The landlord said the work had not been finished due to the tenant’s dog. There was some dispute over the finer detailed, but the parties agreed that the work had been started but not entirely finished.
The tenants’ accepted that they could continue to maintain the gardens in this less-than-ideal state as required under the tenancy agreement but said that if the landlord wanted to bring the gardens up to a higher standard, they would be happy to continue maintenance at that higher level.
The garden work claim was withdrawn on this basis.
No work had been done on the fencing at all.
The tenants said it was important to them that the property was fenced as they had a dog. They said that the property had been described to them as fully fenced.
No evidence was provided to support this.
The landlord provided a copy of the listing which said the property was “pet friendly”.
The landlord said this meant that the owner would allow pets which may include dogs.
The photographs show a corner property with a large outside area. Much of the property is visible from the street and much of the street frontage of the property is not fenced in a way that could contain a large dog.
The tenants acknowledged that they had driven past the property prior to signing the agreement.
The fences are described by the agent as being in poor condition in the pre- tenancy report.
Some fences appear to have been damaged by human intervention, some have been damaged by overgrown ivy, some have simply deteriorated with age and some are shared with neighbours and would likely require combined agreement to replace or repair.
Some repairs may be able to be done to make the property more suitable for the tenants’ dog, but I do not consider this something that the landlord is obliged to do.
Although the fences are unsightly in places and may not be suitable for containing a large dog, I have nothing before me to suggest that the property was described as fully fenced.
The owner expressed an interest in having the fences repaired but this is a large property and, as described below, the owner has recently had a number of large bills in relation to the tenants’ other concerns.
The owner has prioritised funding for heating repairs, insulation and water pressure over fencing and, to my mind, that is to the tenants’ benefit.
I make no orders in relation to fencing.
The owner may wish to complete work to the fences as he can afford to do so and I leave this decision in his hands.
The owner or landlord may also consent to temporary fencing being installed by (and at the cost of) the tenant to safely contain their dog in a part of the garden.
The landlord gave evidence that the previous tenant had not identified any issues that required repair at the completion of their tenancy.
The landlord gave additional evidence that they had paid out $12,950.14 in relation to items requested by the current tenants since the tenancy began on 1 May 2024.
The property owner had made payments for other items not included in the above sum and further repairs are scheduled which were also not included in that amount.
The initial Healthy Homes assessment indicated that there was no access under the house for underfloor insulation.
In the course of attending to complaints about warmth and plumbing issues, a manhole was created in the floor of the premises.
It then became apparent that it was possible to install a moisture barrier under the floor and this work is scheduled to occur tomorrow (22 October 2024).
No order is necessary in relation to this as the work has already been scheduled.
The tenant complained about the state of the curtains and the lack of curtains on the front door.
The owner has already had quotes for replacement curtains and no application was made in relation to curtains.
No order need be made.
The tenant also asked the Tribunal to make work orders in relation to bathroom mould and external drain covers.
The drain covers are not essential and do not seem to me to be a safety hazard.
The tenant is concerned about ill health effects of cleaning mould from the bathroom and wants the landlord to clean the mould.
As this was not an issue for the previous tenant nor at the commencement of this tenancy (there was no mention of this in the pre-tenancy report) it seems to be result of the tenants’ use of the bathroom or cleaning methods and therefore no order is made in relation to this issue.
The landlord agreed to investigate other matters which had been brought to its attention by the tenants at various stages during the tenancy.
The landlord agreed to investigate and repair the following items: a. The garage roof (leaking) and garage guttering (missing in places) b. The electricity to the garage which is not working for reasons unknown c. Cabinet and door latches and catches throughout the premises which are damaged or have been removed during the tenancy and not replaced d. Draught stopping to the back door.
These repairs must be completed as ordered above.
The other work order claims are dismissed. Compensation and exemplary damages
The tenants have claimed $8,000.00 compensation for losses suffered including general compensation for emotional harm.
The tenants also claim exemplary damages for unlawful acts committed by the landlord.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45(1)(b), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the Act a landlord must comply with Healthy Homes Standards.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 under section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The tenant advised the landlord of an issue with the heat pump very soon after the tenancy began.
The landlord, on two occasions, had repairs completed in the hope of fixing the issue. The first attendance was 6 May 2024, six days after the tenancy began.
When the issue could not be easily remedied a more extensive repair option was provide by the contractor. This would have involved a lengthy wait for parts from overseas and the owner elected to spend considerably more money to replace the heat pump instead.
The heat pump was replaced on 28 May 2024, 28 days after the tenancy began.
The heat pump repair/replacement was attended to in a timely way and there is no breach of the Act in relation to this matter.
No compensation or exemplary damages can or should be awarded in relation to the heat pump.
During the period when the heat pump was not working properly, the tenants used the attached panel heater provided as a top up for the heat pump.
This was also not working properly in that it seemed to trip the fuse.
This was replaced on 15 May 2024 under warranty as it was still within that period.
The panel heater was replaced as soon as it was brought to the landlord’s attention and no exemplary damages or compensation can or should flow in relation to this matter.
The tenant gave evidence that they had problems with the shower pressure from the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord explained that the water to the property was an older style gravity fed system.
The tenant had initially replaced the shower head with one of their own for medical reasons.
The plumber said that this had caused the pressure to be worse as the shower system was not designed for that type of shower head.
That head had been replaced with one recommended by the plumber, but the tenants said the pressure was just as poor.
The tenants’ claimed that they had been obliged to use showers at family members homes for a lengthy period until the matter was resolved.
The landlord said that many people who are used to newer mains pressure systems find older style systems difficult to get used to.
After some exploration of options, such as gas, the owner elected to replace the cylinder with mains pressure and replace all of the accessible pipework both under the house (through the newly created manhole) and in the ceiling, with new pipework compatible with mains pressure systems.
This was despite the plumber’s concerns about not being able to access all of the pipework to replace it (thereby risking future leaks in the walls of the bathroom).
Although the tenant may not have liked the shower pressure, it was what was available at the property.
The owner went to considerable expense to replace the cylinder with mains pressure despite having, in my view, no obligation to do so.
The tenants claimed $8,000 compensation for all matters raised in their application including emotional distress.
No evidence was provided to support the compensation claim.
I find that there is no obligation for the landlord to pay any compensation in relation to the water pressure or any other matter.
I do not find that the landlord committed any unlawful acts in relation to the heat pump or water pressure or any other matter raised by the tenants.
Therefore, no exemplary damages can or should be ordered. Moving forward
During the tenancy the landlord offered to allow the tenant to break their fixed term lease as the landlord was of the view that, for a number of reasons including the matters mentioned in this order, the tenant may be more comfortable in another property.
The tenants declined the offer at that time.
During the hearing, the landlord confirmed that this offer was still open and that, should the tenant wish to end the tenancy early, the landlord would be open to allowing that.
This is not something that this order can cover but it seems that the property is not ideal for these tenants and that they may be more comfortable in a newer property with more modern amenities.
It is also apparent that the relationship between the parties has deteriorated and ending the tenancy may be for the best.
If the parties are open to the possibility of the tenant being released from their obligations, should they successfully find a new property, the Tribunal would encourage exploration of that option but this is entirely between the parties.
As Kathryn Wilson and Jayden Wilson have not substantially succeeded with the claim I cannot reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4991874 — Mould & damp at 82 Butterfield Avenue, Linwood, Christchurch 8062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4991874 — Mould & damp at 82 Butterfield Avenue, Linwood, Christchurch 8062

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions