What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4993449 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4993449?

Compensation: Breach of s45(1) and (…: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4993449?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4993449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11602602-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4993449 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4993449?

Compensation: Breach of s45(1) and (…: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4993449?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4993449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11602602-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

93 Parry Palm Avenue, Waihi, Waihi 3610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4993449 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4993449 — net $927.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach of s45(1) and (c	$900.00	Breach of s45(1) and (c
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$927.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$927.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4993449 — net $927.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach of s45(1) and (c	$900.00	Breach of s45(1) and (c
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$927.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$927.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and any details regarding her children.
Hung Che Su must pay [The tenant/s] $927.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 3 March 2025, Mr Su was represented by Mr Ong.
The tenant claims that: a. The landlord has failed to maintain the home. (Breach of s45(1)(b) RTA) b. The landlord has failed to comply with all building codes and health and safety requirements, in that the house is mouldy and damp. (breach of s45(1)(c) RTA).
The tenant and the landlord entered into a full and final settlement and respect of all the claims as at 7 March 2024 under a previous application 47558756. In that application the tenant had claimed that the landlord had failed to meet Healthy Homes Standards, failed to maintain the property and failed to ensure that the house was free of mould and damp.
It was accepted by the landlord that the house was leaking at the time of the settlement agreement, water was coming into the house through broken cladding on the outside of the property infiltrating the walls and gib, there was obvious extensive mould growth throughout the house, walls, ceiling and carpet. The landlord’s property managers agreed to pay considerable compensation to the tenant and to remedy the defects at the property.
After the settlement agreement the landlord cancelled his agency agreement with the property managers and took over managing the property himself. The landlord also set about completing the work that was agreed to in the settlement agreement.
The landlord completed the agreed work, fixing the cladding, removing the mouldy carpet, relaying flooring by the 30 April. The landlord also installed an extra concrete pile in the property on or before the 20 May.
The tenant had the assistance of a Compliance Officer from MBIE (who had helped the tenant with her application 4758756). In or about late May 2024 the Compliance Officer inspected the work and confirmed that the landlord appeared to have remedied the defects at the property, in that the landlord had fixed the cladding, removed the mouldy carpet, cleaned the mould and installed an extra concrete pile. The Compliance Officer assisting the tenant then advised the tenant that as the work was completed the tenant should start paying full rent. The rent had abated to $490 whilst the landlord completed the work. The tenant started paying the full rent of $610 per week on the 21 June 2024 as requested by the landlord.
The tenant said that despite the Compliance Officer saying the work had been completed the tenant remained uncomfortable by the way that the work had been done, she was concerned that the work was not completed to a tradesman like standard, and a lot of it had been completed by the landlord personally or by a handyman (the landlord is an engineer but not a building or LBP). The tenant said that there was still an issue with mould in bedroom 2, it would grow on items of clothing that were hanging in the wardrobe and could be seen in the joins between the ceiling and the walls.
The tenant’s baby daughter had tragically died at the property in July 2023. The tenant had another baby in May 2024 and was understandably on high alert for any issues at the property that could cause harm to her children. The tenant said she cleaned mould off items of clothing and her belongings that had been stored in bedroom 2.
The tenant was very concerned that when the carpet was uplifted as per the settlement agreement in the back bedroom and new floor coverings were laid. She says that the underlying floorboards that had rotten were not lifted and replaced or treated with mould remover. She said that the floors were black with mould and the new ‘floor’ sags in the places where the floorboards appeared rotten. She confirmed that she had seen them but had not taken photographs of the state of the floorboards. She said that when she raised this concern with the landlord the landlord said that the mould was only from leaks and now that the leaks were fixed, the timber had dried out and treated with a mould repellent and remover, that there should be no further concerns. The landlord’s representative confirmed that some mould treatment was made to the floorboards, but again could not give me details of what was actually done or what products were used.
Between April and August 2024, the tenant was actively looking for another property to rent. She told me that she was torn, she really wanted to leave the property, but it was bittersweet as that was the only house she had ever lived in with her baby who had passed. In addition to that the tenant was grieving and adjusting to life with a new baby which made making decisions like moving difficult.
In June the tenant notified the landlord that cracks had appeared in the lounge wall and she was not sure if the house was ‘shifting’ or if the cracks were from a water leak. The landlord asked the tenant to keep a watching brief on the crack.
On the 22 August the tenant went to move her teenage daughter out of her room so she could paint it, when she pulled away the dresser, she discovered the walls were mouldy, the carpet had rotted and was covered in mould. This was exactly the same situation as the previous rooms which had been mouldy and leaked. The tenant was extremely concerned about the mould in the house and told the landlord immediately. The tenant said that was the final straw, she gave notice to end the tenancy.
The tenant also told the landlord in a text that day. “I have my son staying with my sister and moved the teenage girl into sons room, it's black mold and needs to go ASAP.” (sic)
The tenant’s partner (who is a handyman) and had worked as a painter and plaster for many years got on the roof, when he did he noticed water pooling on the roof in exactly the same places as the leaks in both the teenage daughter’s room and bedroom 2. The partner also considered that the source of the leaks in the teenage daughter’s room to be from the windowsill which has rotten out.
The landlord had a builder to the property two days before the tenancy ended. The tenant said that the builder told her that there were numerous problems at the property including the roof leaking.
The landlord did not provide the builders report but acknowledged that the house required “major’ work and that work had not yet been completed. The landlord did not provide me with a scope of that work, but as at the date of hearing the house was not tenanted. Did the landlord breach s45 (1)(b) and s45(1)(c) of the RTA after the 7 March 2024?
I am only able to consider the issues that arose since the date of the settlement order as the parties cannot relitigate a claim that has already been decided.
A landlord is required to maintain premises to a reasonable level taking into account their age and character (s45(1)(b) RTA). A landlord also has a responsibility under s45(1)(c) of the RTA to "comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety under any enactment as far as they apply to the premises". In that regard regulation 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 is relevant. It states: "Every house shall be free from dampness".
A landlord is only responsible for defects, such as leaks once they become apparent and are notified, or if they would have been reasonably discoverable by a landlord conducting an inspection or doing other work at the property.
Having considered all of the evidence I am satisfied that the tenant has proven that the landlord breached s45 (1)(b) by failing to address leaks at the property and s45(1)(b) by failing to address issues with water ingress and mould at the property. My reasons include: a. The previous claim illustrated that there were significant problems with mould and water ingress at the property. Given the nature and the extent of the issues at the property I consider that a reasonable landlord would have conducted a thorough inspection of the property and obtained a builder’s report on the condition of the property at that time. I do not accept that in this instance that it was reasonable for the landlord to take a wait and watch approach. I consider that the landlord was obliged to consider all the potential causes of the mould problem not just what he thought was the cause of the problem and should have considered potential leaks from the cladding, roof gutters and rotten window frames and windows that did not latch or close properly. b. I am satisfied that on the balance of probabilities that the cause of the mould in the two bedrooms was the pooling and leaking in the roof and water coming in through the rotten window frames. These items should have been checked in April and in particular the window frame should have been checked by the landlord to ensure that water was not infiltrating as there was obvious rot on the outside. c. I am satisfied that some of the windows did not latch and the window frames had rotted to the extent that it was difficult to affix latches. d. I consider that given the extent of the problems before 7 April 2024, that it was incumbent on the landlord to conduct a thorough inspection of the property at that date to ensure that there was no mould elsewhere in the property. It is likely that had the landlord done this and asked the tenant to pull away furniture from the wall that the mould and damage to the carpet from the mould would have been noticed in the teenager’s bedroom. I say this because the damage to the carpet from the mould appears to have occurred over a period of time.
Whilst the tenant complained that the landlord’s workmanship on the base board was questionable, and the pictures show an unusual way of repairing the boards, there is no evidence to show that the repair has not been effective. In fact, the compliance team who inspected the work, told the tenant that it appeared to have been repaired.
The tenants claim that the landlord did not treat the mould and replace floorboards that were black with mould is also not proven, this is because I am unable to establish the nature and extent of the mould on the floorboards and therefore whether they should have been replaced or not. Without photographs or a report, I am unable to conclude that the floorboards should have been treated to replaced.
The tenant has applied for compensation to remedy the breaches. Compensation should restore the party to the position that they would have been in had the breaches not occurred. Having considered all the evidence, and the nature and extent of the breaches and the effect that they had on the tenant I have made an award of $900.00. Once again, I reiterate that this only covers the period from the 7 March to the date the tenancy ended in September 2024. In coming to this amount, I have taken into account. a. The stress and inconvenience to the tenant in living in a property that had significant mould and building problems and having to regularly check and report on any issues. b. That the tenant could not use the teenager’s bedroom after the mould was discovered. c. That the tenant had to take matters into her own hands to get any action, such as checking the roof and windows. These things should have been looked at by the landlord. d. The time that the tenant spent cleaning the property and her belongings. e. The constant anxiety the tenant experienced in wondering what was causing the mould problems, if the landlord had correctly fixed issues with the property and the effect the mould was having or could have on her and her children, especially her young baby. f. The amenity or use that the tenant had of the home during this period. Bond
I have previously released the tenant’s bond to the tenant. Filing fee and Name Suppression
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and grant her name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4993449 — State of repair at 93 Parry Palm Avenue, Waihi, Waihi 3610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4993449 — State of repair at 93 Parry Palm Avenue, Waihi, Waihi 3610

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions